NCJ Number
104064
Journal
Federal Bar News and Journal Volume: 33 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1986) Pages: 127-132
Date Published
1986
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the current use of court-annexed arbitration in Federal courts, private alternatives to Federal litigation, and the role of empirical research in advancing alternatives to litigation.
Abstract
Court-annexed arbitration mandates nonbinding arbitration for cases that qualify under the local rule of the Federal court. Although all mandatory court-annexed programs permit either party to reject the arbitrator's award and demand trial de novo, some programs provide for substantial penalties against litigants who reject arbitration awards and fail to do substantially better at trial. The Federal Judicial Center's empirical evaluation of the first three Federal arbitration programs concludes that the programs have reduced the proportion of cases reaching trial by between one-third and one-half. The article describes the court-annexed program in the Middle District of North Carolina, one of the second wave of pilot courts. The discussion of private alternatives to Federal litigation focuses on trends that are encouraging the use of litigation alternatives and considers points in the litigation life cycle where the possibility of alternatives to litigation are most likely to arise. These include the 'postbloodletting' stage (when both parties have had enough of the agonies of litigation), the contract stage, the postincident stage, and the proximate-litigation stage (just prior to or just after the suit filing or a request for arbitration). The importance of mandating alternatives to litigation is also discussed, followed by a review of the benefits and methods of empirical research on alternative dispute resolution procedures. 54 footnotes.