When I was a kid, my grandfather, who immigrated to America from Greece and became a U.S. citizen, talked with such pride about the jury system. He couldn't imagine turning down a request for jury service, believing it was the highest form of a compliment that he could help decide a case in America. He thought it was a fascinating way to spend his time and I imagine if the courts had sought volunteers, he would have been the first in line, dragging me along when I reached an appropriate age.

Now that I am a lawyer and have been for most of my life - or so it seems - I have come to value the jury system as providing a forum for litigants to have disputes decided without any fear that the jury could be bought, threatened, or bribed. The jurors would come together as strangers, having no incentive to rule one way or another, except to apply the rules of law and bring with them a sense of fairness, to reach a decision.

In a recent article in the L.A. Times, reporter Carol J. Williams writes about the loss of potential jurors, which she believes is due partly to the recession. I think the problem is much broader because I think many of us lead such busy lives that we have little time to insert an extra eight hours into our day (maybe several days or weeks) to hear a jury case for impossibly low compensation. But the recession no doubt has had a significant impact on our citizens' willingness to serve. And, as Ms. Williams notes, potential jurors are getting openly hostile in getting their point across. If you are unemployed, do you really want to spend those hours - when businesses are open and available to consider employing you - locked in a courtroom where one or more plaintiffs are seeking a big bundle of money from one or more defendants> Money which you, potential juror, will never see or even get a slice of. For me, I can't even watch T.V. or movies for that long without squirming around.

And if you are lucky to have a job, there is always the fear of keeping that job, which could be jeopardized by your absence while attending a trial. This is especially true when the compensation for jury service is exceptionally low - under $40 - and no one serves on a jury to get rich. Now, of course, the attorneys and judge will thank you for your time, but that doesn't help when your employer is wondering how to fill the void your absence has created. And it doesn't help when the lawyers want to take days for voir dire or you observe unnecessary delays caused by sidebars, objections, and hearings outside the presence of jury. No wonder some judges are very tough when it comes to wasting the jury's time.

If you are an attorney or a party, do you really want to face those angry jurors? Of course not! The risks of litigation are mounting and jury impatience and anger can now be added to the list. The parties and attorneys profiled in Ms. Williams's article chose a court trial. They could have just as easily chosen arbitration or mediation. This is especially true if the trial is going to take a long time, involves complex theories, or unpopular themes. Perhaps that is one explanation of why more parties are opting for dispute resolution alternatives. Jurors seem to be saying, "If you have a private dispute or problem, find a way to solve it that doesn't involve me." And now, unlike my grandfather's day, there may be a penalty for doing so.

If you would like to read the article, you can find it here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-reluctant-jurors15-2010feb15,0,824472.story