The literature on the performance evaluation of the judiciary captures the perspectives of judges, researchers and court administrators. However, it is not obvious if a litigant who proposes to access the judiciary for the resolution of a dispute would use the same or similar metrics when evaluating the performance of courts. In this paper, we review the global literature that evaluates the performance of the judiciary and identify which of the metrics in the literature would directly matter to a litigant who proposes to access the courts for redress. Using the litigant's expectations as performance metrics, we develop an evaluative framework for comparing similar courts. Our work creates the foundation for developing an information system that could potentially help litigants make informed choices when approaching courts.