Rethinking Courthouse Design for Modern Justice

Did you know? Jury trials in the U.S.—whether at the local, state, or federal level—are rapidly declining. Yet, courthouse designs continue to reflect an outdated model that no longer fits today’s reality. But architects aren’t the ones at fault. Too often, judges and officials commission new courthouses without considering this critical shift, unaware that it’s time for a new design paradigm.

The iconic image of courtroom drama—a judge presiding over the court, lawyers fiercely debating before a jury, surrounded by stately woodwork—is more fiction than reality. Popular culture perpetuates this, reinforcing the image of justice as something visible and tangible. However, the reality is different. Today, only about 4% of civil and criminal cases make it to trial. Rising costs, risks, and delays push most cases toward settlements and plea bargains instead.

Experts like Marc Galanter and Stephen Bibas have long documented this shift. Galanter notes that judges now focus on resolving cases early, with fewer trials taking place. Bibas highlights the erosion of public trust when criminal cases are resolved behind closed doors, reinforcing the need for transparency in the justice system.

The Impact on Courthouse Design

During a project with a Midwestern judge, it became clear how pressing this issue is. Judge F. often mediated cases in his chambers, reducing the need for trials. His vision for a courthouse included conference rooms and informal spaces for resolving disputes, a far cry from the traditional courtroom-centric design.

Some jurisdictions have gone further, prioritizing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) spaces over courtrooms. Judges now act as distinguished managers, sharing courtrooms and using them only as a last resort. This modern approach maximizes efficiency and reduces the unnecessary use of expensive courtroom space.

Reimagining Courtrooms

In the new courthouse model, courtrooms are shared resources, scheduled only when needed. Judges focus on managing multiple cases and ensuring swift resolutions. This not only reduces case backlogs but also restores public faith in the system.

What does this mean for courthouse design? While ceremonial courtrooms—those that symbolize the dignity of the judicial process—remain essential, the modern courthouse must pivot to focus on flexibility and efficiency. Fewer large courtrooms and more adaptable hearing rooms will become the standard. This allows courthouses to prioritize space for settlement conferences, ADR, and other processes that reflect how justice is truly delivered today.

Designing for the Future

By embracing this shift in courtroom dynamics, the justice system can modernize itself for the 21st century. Courthouses must move away from the outdated “one judge, one courtroom” model and instead provide flexible, tech-enabled spaces that prioritize case resolution. This will not only streamline the judicial process but also promote transparency and restore faith in our justice system.

The Vanishing Jury Trial is a symptom of broader changes in how justice is administered. As architects and civic planners, we must design courthouses that reflect these realities—courthouses where disputes are settled, not tried, and where the promise of justice is met with modern solutions.