NCJ Number
98019
Date Published
1984
Length
15 pages
Annotation
This statement, prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee, discusses the use of court-annexed arbitration in the State trial courts and evaluates its effectiveness in Pittsburgh and California.
Abstract
Court-annexed arbitration programs may be established by State statute, by State supreme court rule, or by local court rule; such programs are neither voluntary nor binding. Cases are normally heard by private attorneys or retired judges who volunteer to serve, usually pro bono. Since the institution of the first court-annexed program in Philadelphia in 1952, 12 States have authorized such programs. All programs share certain key features but differ on others, such as arbitrators' qualifications. Research suggests that arbitration can contribute significantly to reducing court costs and delay; however, its effectiveness depends on program and implementation designs. In both California and Pittsburgh, about 60 percent of civil money suits are diverted to arbitration. In California, arbitration costs are higher (about $140 as opposed to $75 in Pittsburgh), appeal rates are higher (50 percent as opposed to 15 to 25 percent), and time to disposition is longer (9 months to more than 3 years as opposed to 3 months). The Pittsburgh program offers an efficient and essentially fair procedure for resolving civil disputes to a broad cross section of citizens, many of whom obtain some compensation from the arbitrators. The majority of the litigants interviewed were quite satisfied with the programs; winners, however, were more satisfied than losers. One table is included.