Weighing the advantages of judicial reference
At a time when the California court system, already backlogged before the hiatus of in-court trials last year, is still facing challenges in balancing video-conferenced and in-person proceedings, less cumbersome and quicker alternatives may start to look more advantageous. Litigants who are willing to waive a jury but who do not wish to risk the outcome of an arbitration might want to consider judicial reference. Under the California Code, CCP § 638, the appointment of a neutral as a judicial reference referee allows parties to disputes of all kinds the advantages of flexible and speedy proceedings with full procedural rights. Sometimes called a special master or private judge, the judicial reference referee follows the established rules of evidence, discovery and right to appeal, and their decision carries the same force of law as a trial judge. Distinction from an arbitrator Just as with arbitration, judicial reference is often written into contracts either as a consensual referee or as a specific remedy in resolving disputes. Both methods also require both parties to agree to the neutral who will hear both sides and render a decision. But while arbitration is private, judicial reference is guided by all the rules and proceedings of