"One Judge, Thousands of Cases: The Clutter in the Judicial System Revealed," the headline "Today Israel" said yesterday, in Akiva Bigman's article. Is the load starting in 2020? of course not. So why "exposure"? Because the public, at least in part, is not aware enough of the burden on the judges.

In our research, we found that the burden on the judiciary has troubled its senior officials since the establishment of the state. Archive documents indicate the issue over the years and the system's attempts to find a solution. However, until the 1990s, the media was poor. Among other things, due to the efforts of the judiciary, and rightly so, to maintain a state of state and to strengthen public confidence in it.

However, it is precisely the exposure of the load to the public that will benefit the judicial system and strengthen the public's confidence in it. When the burden of judges and distress caused to them and those involved in it is not publicized, the public is unaware of the negative outcome: delays in judicial hearings and adjudication. In this situation, not only does the public find it difficult to sympathize with the judges - it may lose confidence in them and in the entire system, and wrongly.

This will also benefit the judges, who, as we know, are prevented from being interviewed and sharing their plight with the public. Still, consciously or not, they found a way to expose the problem of judicial burdens. When examining the expressions of "judicial burden" and its parallels in judgments and decisions in the legal databases, we found that in 2005, the phrase was mentioned about 500 times in the Magistrates' Court case, while in 2010, the number of references rose to 5,000 times. This may signal both the distress and their need to exacerbate this distress.

It would be good for the judicial system, which tries to deal with the scrutiny of the judicial process, if it presents to the public the judicial burden experienced by the judges. The court administration has already begun to open the media and publish various data, including the number of open, closed cases and the case files in court. The move even gained momentum in 2014, when the Supreme Court allowed the number of open cases to be published for each judge, recognizing the importance of transparency.

The publicity and transparency initiative should come from within the justice system, just as hospital administrators reveal the plight of hospitalization. In this way, the public also feels more empathy for the doctors' situation. This may also result in more resources and standards being allocated for the benefit of the judiciary, the judges and the public trust.

Dr. Eyal Writan is Senior Lecturer at Peres Academic Center; Dr. Boaz Schnor is Senior Lecturer at the Gates of Science and Law Academic Center