You are preparing to make an appearance in a Pennsylvania county trial court and you are faced with the challenge of finding the appropriate court rules. What do you do? Unlike most states that have one uniform set of court rules, almost all of Pennsylvania's 60 judicial districts publishes their own rules. To make matters worse, there is no one source that contains all of these rules.

According to the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts, updates to all of the Pennsylvania court rules are sent to only one county law library, Jenkins Law Library in Philadelphia, the First Judicial District. Even here, attorneys must check both the volume of rules published by the appropriate county and the AOPC updates to make certain they are aware of the most recent revisions. Maintaining a complete and up to date set of court rules in Pennsylvania is a huge task!

Why are Pennsylvania attorneys faced with this challenge of navigating through so many different rules to ensure compliance with the requirements of each court? This article will discuss changes in the promulgation of court rules in Pennsylvania Courts over the past 160 years and explain how and why some of the current problems that attorneys face have developed.

Local Power
As early as 1836, the Pennsylvania statutes acknowledged the rulemaking power of the local courts, so long as such rules were not inconsistent with the laws of the Commonwealth or the state constitution. Since procedures varied among the trial level courts, court rules have traditionally caused confusion for the practicing bar.

The Constitution of 1874 established separate orphans' courts in several judicial districts, further recognizing local rulemaking power. As new courts were established in the early 1900s, local rulemaking power was vested in them.

In 1937, the legislature enacted the Civil Procedural Rules Enabling Act in an effort to bring about consistency in promulgating Pennsylvania Supreme, Superior and trial level court rules. And in 1957, the Criminal Procedural Rules Enabling Act was passed by the General Assembly. These two acts together are important because the delegation of power shifted from the General Assembly to the Supreme Court to suspend acts inconsistent with its rules, as long as these rules conformed to the state Constitution.

Although the court then had the authority to suspend any acts of Assembly inconsistent with civil and criminal procedural rules, the Supreme Court continued to concede the rulemaking power to the local courts. Next the Constitution of 1968 created the Commonwealth Court to reduce the workload of the Superior and Supreme Courts by hearing cases brought by and against the state. Additionally, the court system was reorganized into a "unified judicial system," consisting of the Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts, Common Pleas Courts, Philadelphia Municipal Court, Pittsburgh Magistrates Court, Philadelphia Traffic Court and district justice courts.

But the creation of the unified judicial system was in name only. The practice of law from county to county was no easier and the number of court rules continued to grow. When the Supreme Court adopts rules, a process of supplementation or implementation begins to meet the idiosyncrasies of the county courts. At the State Constitutional Convention of 1982, the committee to study Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System made several recommendations, including, but not limited to:

• Publication of the court rules in the Pennsylvania code.
• Promulgation of local rules only when no state rule exists.
• Funding and staffing to review the county court rules for inconsistencies.
• Requiring a statement attached to all local rules submitted to the AOPC for filing, stating its purpose and/or how it is supplementing an existing state rule.

So now, more than 15 years after the above recommendations were made at a state constitutional convention and more than 30 years since the article to create a unified judicial system, what is the status of the court rule structure and the unified judicial system?

Confusion Persists
Today the practice of law from county to county is still not straightforward. As already mentioned, there are now 60 judicial districts and almost as many local court rules. In addition, both the rules promulgated by the Procedural Rules Committee of the Supreme Court and the county courts change frequently. New rules are adopted, amended, rescinded, and recalled on a weekly, if not daily, basis.

As the new millennium begins, so too begins a new era in the administration of Pennsylvania's courts. The move to unify all of Pennsylvania's courts is finally a reality as a result of a 1996 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision; Pennsylvania State Association of County Commissioners v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 681 A.2d.699.

This move, anchored by the Interim Report of Justice Frank J. Montemuro, stressed the importance of creating a more uniform court rule structure. In the report, Montemuro states that the proliferation of court rules drives up costs and delays for the courts, attorneys and clients. Additionally, the procedural traps set, whether intentional or unintentional, by having so many local court rules is frustrating not only to the attorney, but to the general public as well.

Another recommendation of the Montemuro report was to create a judicial commission as an advisory board to assist in the management and policy formation of Pennsylvania's unified judicial system. The Supreme Court in December 1997 did just that. The commission, officially named the Judicial Council is comprised of 26 members, including Supreme Court justices, a state court administrator, the president of Drexel University and a practicing Philadelphia attorney.

Around this same time, the AOPC recommended to the Supreme Court that new rules regarding adopting, filing and publishing all Pennsylvania courts' rules be adopted. These rules are far reaching in that they recommend that all local rules be reviewed and those not consistent with a state rule be rescinded.

Recently, I had the opportunity and the pleasure to speak with Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, who chairs the Statewide Rules Committee on the Council. Newman agrees that the proliferation of local court rules cause delays in the process and she would like to see a more "level playing field" for attorneys practicing from county to county. The justice recalled, as an attorney practicing in Montgomery County years ago, that one could find out about a rule change literally seconds before going to court, perhaps for something as trivial as the color of paper on a petition backing. She is, however, optimistic and hopeful about the future of the administration of Pennsylvania's courts.

Since Newman's appointment to the position of Rules Committee Chair, she has been instrumental in getting the AOPC to post all of Pennsylvania's local court rules on its Web site. Newman also has hired a consultant to help with the daunting task of collecting problems from the various rules committees, who are in the process of reviewing all court rules.

While everyone understands that eliminating all local court rules is impossible, the streamlining of the current proliferation is underway. Will practice from county to county become any easier? Only time will tell.