[From 26 Amer. U.L. Rev. 66 (1976), copyright 1976 by the American University, Washington College of Law] COMMENTS AN EXPANDING CIVIL ROLE FOR INTRODUCTION A tension exists in the field of federal judicial administration between the need for careful and conscientious conflict resolution and the demand for reasonably rapid and effective judicial action. Ideally, a litigant should have his case heard and decided within a reasonable time by an unhurried, highly qualified, judicial officer. Steadily increasing demands on judicial resources, however, present a formidable obstacle to the realization of this goal.1 An obvious concern is that the quality of the justice dispensed by an overburdened court system is bound to suffer. The problem, then, is to deal with the heavy judicial caseload while maintaining the quality of and public confidence in the federal judiciary. Any solution to this problem must, of course, fit within the framework of constitutional limita tions. Various suggestions have been made in an attempt to relieve the burden on the federal district courts. For instance, it has been urged that Congress create more federal judgeships, presumably, with supporting staff and increased space.2 Congress also has recognized the 1. Over the last 12 years the volume of work in the federal district courts has increased dramatically. On June 30, 1964, annual civil and criminal filings were estimated at 98,000 cases, Hearings on S. 1283 Before the Subcomm. on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1975) [hereinafter cited as Hearings on S. 1283]. Currently, combined civil and criminal filings amount to approximately 141,500 cases per year, SPANIOL, THE UNITED States Courts: Their JURISDICTION and Work 7 (1975) [hereinafter cited as SPANIOL, THE UNITED STATES COURTS]. Over the same period district court judgeships have increased from 289 to 400, Hearings on S. 1283, supra at 4; SPANIOL, THE UNITED STATES COURTS, supra at 7. The average number of cases per district judge thus increased from approximately 339 in 1964 to 354 today. See also CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY 1976 [hereinafter cited as 1976 STATE OF THE JUDICIARY REPORT] and CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, THE CONDITION OF THE JUDICIARY: YEAR-END REPORT 1976 [hereinafter cited as YEAR-END REPORT 1976]. The Chief Justice emphasized the need for expansion of judicial resources and greater utilization of federal magistrates. 2. See 1976 STATE OF THE JUDICIARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 7-8; YEAR-END REPORT 1976, supra note 1, at 3. However, Judge Charles M. Metzner of the U.S. Dis problem of overwork in the federal judiciary in its consideration and recent passage of legislation restricting the use of three judge district courts. A third alternative, and the one which will be the focus of discussion here, is to make efficient use of a resource which is already authorized and available-the United States magistrate. The magistrates system, as envisioned in the Federal Magistrates Act of 19684 (the Act) and as implemented by the district courts, presents a unique means of attacking the current problems of judicial administration. It seeks to modify the district court system rather than to enlarge it with more judges or restrict some of its functions. At the same time, the relative newness of the magistrate's office, its unique character, and the uncertainty of its limitations under the original legislation have all generated some significant constitutional and policy issues. Since its inception, the office of magistrate has been steadily expanding in both its use5 and its powers. However, the exact para trict Court for the Southern District of New York indicated before the Senate Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery that merely increasing the number of district judges and supporting staff would be an inadequate approach toward solving the problem of the increased workload. Hearings on S. 1283, supra note 1, at 4. See also note 8 infra. 3. Act of Aug. 12, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-381, § 3, 90 Stat. 1119 (to be codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2284). One of the four stated reasons for enactment of this law was "to relieve the burden of three judge court cases, which have increased in number from 129 in 1963 to 320 in 1973, causing a considerable strain on the workload of federal judges ." S. REP. No. 204, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 3, reprinted in [1976] U.S. CODE Cong. & AD. NEWS 3160, 3162. 4. The Federal Magistrates Act, § 101, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-639 (1970 & Supp. V 1975). Section 636(b) of the Act was amended just prior to the close of the 94th Congress by Act of Oct. 21, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-577, 90 Stat. 2729 (to be codified at 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). The amendments are discussed in detail at notes 164-94 & accompanying text infra. For convenience, the 1968 version of the Act will be cited herein to the relevant United States Code section. As the recent amendment to the Act changed only section 636(b) and retained that section number, the amendment will be cited to Act of Oct. 21, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-577 (to be codified at 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). 5. See DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS ANN. REP. 147 (1974) [hereinafter cited as ANNUAL REPORT followed by distinguishing date]. See also Spaniol, The Federal Magistrates Act: History and Development, 1974 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 565, 573 [hereinafter cited as Spaniol, The Federal Magistrates Act]. Spaniol has constructed a chart based on statistics compiled by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, showing the matters disposed of by federal magistrates in several categories over the period 1972-1974. The most dramatic increase is in the number of pretrial conferences conducted by magistrates. In 1972, 7,168 such conferences were held before magistrates. ANNUAL REPORT 1973, supra at 285. That number increased to 11,819 in 1973 and to 15,743 in 1974. Id., ANNUAL REPORT 1974, supra at 147. In fiscal year 1976, magistrates conducted 17,559 pretrial conferences. H.R. REP. No. 1609, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (1976) [hereinafter cited as H.R. REP. No. 1609]. H.R. REP. NO. 1609 also contains a chart showing all matters handled by magistrates in fiscal 1976. Several |