Judicial systems are composed of complex sub-systems operating in an autonomous, yet interconnected ways. Thus, any policy that might be implemented to improve their efficiency is largely based on theoretical assumptions and knowledge of other similar systems. However, policy makers need tools that could assist them in designing policies that would illustrative both the positive and negative effects in the short-, medium- and long-term. Simulation and System Dynamics is a natural candidate to help represent such a complex system, and with computer-based simulations, policy makers can get insights into “bottlenecks” in the systems and potential counter-intuitive consequences of policies. Hence, the purpose of the current paper is to illustrate the effectiveness of System Dynamics in representing a judicial system of Italy and designing different kinds of policies. Several scenarios were simulated that included different types of policies that could affect disposition time (how fast cases are resolved) and clearance rate (how many cases are resolved). These policies were diverse in nature, from introducing a new type of personnel in the courts, to digital transformation of the courts and finally to the creation of a Digital and Innovation Competence Center that would act as an institutional Knowledge Repository and would assist in homogenizing digital tools that are used. The main results indicated that: (1) The introduction of new personnel can be in general beneficial but can be costly and time consuming (2) Individual or uncoordinated policies that include efforts towards digital transformation do not perform well in the long-term. (3) However, the introduction of a DIgital and Innovation Center at a level between the ministry and the courts, which would act as the Center for the Institutional Memory of the judicial branch with regards to Digital Transformation and Innovation produces the best results. Moreover, such a center would act as a coordinator between ministry and the courts, would improve the collaboration with local SMEs that could offer assistance and equipment to the courts and more importantly it would reduce the negative effects from a new president’s decision to abolish previous digitization efforts. (4) Finally, the behavior of each court’s president is of the utmost importance to its productivity. Decisions to abolish previous Digital and Innovation efforts and introduce new ones without taking into account what has already been established, produces a negative effect on the basic KPIs of the model.