Judicial Specialization: In search of the ‘Right’ Judge for Each Case?


Full Text:


The issue of how much specialization is required of a modern judiciary is debated in many legal systems, some of which have a long tradition of generalist judges. The increasing complexity of contemporary society and the emergence of new legal fields, dominated by technical concepts, can be seen as the perfect rationale for the establishment of specialized courts. It is easy to think that a new array of complex cases, raising sophisticated issues of fact and law, deserves to be adjudicated by judges who are highly skilled in the subject matters at stake. New specialized courts could also contribute to the solution of the problem affecting various legal systems, that is, the huge caseloads burdening ordinary courts. And yet, judicial specialization may also have significant drawbacks: among others, the danger of the ‘insularity’ of specialized courts, a tendency to self-seclude inside the restricted boundaries of the matters falling within their expertise. After some brief remarks on the advantages and disadvantages of judicial specialization, this essay elaborates on the state of the issue in Italy, where recent reforms and others announced seem to indicate a new trend in favor of the establishment of more specialized divisions within ordinary courts.

About the Author

Elisabetta Silvestri
University of Pavia
Associate Professor of Italian Civil Procedure and Comparative Civil Procedure, Director of the Post-Graduate Program on Mediation & ADR at the Department of Law, University of Pavia (65 Strada Nuova str., Pavia, 27100, Italy)


1. Baum, Lawrence. Judicial Specialization and the Adjudication of Immigration Cases, 59(8) Duke L. J. 1501, 1671 (2010), available at <http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1466&context=dlj> (accessed Sep. 27, 2014).

2. Baum, Lawrence. Probing the Effects of Judicial Specialization, 58(7) Duke L. J. 1667 (2009), available at <http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1412&context=dlj> (accessed Sep. 27, 2014).

3. Baum, Lawrence. Specializing the Courts 218 (University of Chicago Press 2011).

4. Berman, Greg, & Feinblatt, John. Problem-Solving Courts: A Brief Primer, 23(2) Law & Policy 126 (2001).

5. Boldt, Richard C. Problem-Solving Courts and Pragmatism, 73(4) Md. L. Rev. 1120 (2014), available at <http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3642&context=mlr> (accessed Sep. 27, 2014).

6. Casaburi, Geremia. Storia prima felice, poi dolentissima e funesta, delle sezioni specializzate, 2014(2) Il diritto industriale 172.

7. Casey, Pamela M., & Rottman, David B. Problem-Solving Courts: Models and Trends, 26(1) Just. Sys. J. 35 (2005).

8. Casey, Timothy. When Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Problem-Solving Courts and the Impending Crisis of Legitimacy, 57 SMU L. Rev. 1459 (2004), available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=711983> (accessed Sep. 27, 2014).

9. Cavani, Giovanni. Sezioni specializzate: di male in peggio, 2014(2) Il diritto industriale 182.

10. Celentano, Paolo. La riforma del ‘tribunale delle imprese,’ 2014(6) Le società 713.

11. Cheng, Edward K. The Myth of the Generalist Judge, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 519 (2008).

12. Esposito, Gianluca, et al. Judicial System Reform in Italy – A Key to Growth 3 (International Monetary Fund Working Paper WP/14/32), available at <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1432.pdf> (accessed Sep. 27, 2014).

13. Oldfather, Chad M. Judging, Expertise, and the Rule of Law, 89(5) Wash. U. L. Rev. 848, 862 (2012), available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=1799568> (accessed Sep. 27, 2014).

14. Posner, Richard A. The Role of the Judge in the Twenty-First Century, 86 B. U. L. Rev. 1049, 1050 (2006), available at <https://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume86n5/documents/POSNERv.2.pdf> (accessed Sep. 27, 2014).

15. Rai, Arti K. Specialized Trial Courts: Concentrating Expertise on Fact, 17(2) Berkeley Tech. L.J. 877, 878 (2002), available at <http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/17_02_07.pdf> (accessed Sep. 27, 2014).

16. Silvestri, Elisabetta. Quale giudice per le controversie complesse?, in Patrimonio, persona e nuove tecniche di ‘governo del diritto:’ Incentivi, premi, sanzioni 705–22 (Pier G. Monateri & Alessandro Somma, eds.) (Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane 2009).

17. Tavassi, Marina. Dalle sezioni specializzate della proprietà industriale e intellettuale alle sezioni specializzate dell’impresa, 2012(8–9) Il corriere giuridico 1115.Elisabetta Silvestri 175 Tenaglia, Lanfranco. L’istituzione del Tribunale delle imprese, 2012(2) Il corriere giuridico 75.

18. Winick, Bruce J. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem Solving Courts, 30(3) Fordham Urban L.J. 1060 (2002), available at <http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1866&context=ulj> (accessed Sep. 27, 2014).

19. Wood, Diane P. Generalist Judges in a Specialized World, 50 SMU L. Rev. 1755, 1756 (1997), available at <http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3047&context=journal_articles> (accessed Sep. 27, 2014).

Supplementary files

For citation: Silvestri E. Judicial Specialization: In search of the ‘Right’ Judge for Each Case? Russian Law Journal. 2014;2(4):165-175. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2014-2-4-165-175

Views: 1090


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)