NCJ Number
96208
Date Published
1984
Length
129 pages
Annotation
This research, which involved indepth analyses of arbitration in several courts and survey results from a group of courts, identifies the design points for which a court adopting the court-annexed arbitration program must specify policies. Under each major design point, the various policy or design alternatives are summarized, and the implications of choosing one over another are discussed. Court-annexed arbitration is a court-run dispute resolution process to which cases that meet some specified criteria are involuntarily assigned.
Abstract
The study of arbitration design alternatives is based on indepth analyses of (1) arbitration in the 12 largest California courts, (2) program outcomes and litigant satisfaction in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas (Pennsylvania), and (3) information from telephone surveys of additional courts using the program. In these telephone surveys, program administrators were asked to describe the designs of their programs, to report on design changes, and to explain reasons for the changes. To accomplish their assigned task of diverting and hearing cases and making awards, court-annexed arbitration programs must establish rules or policies that determine procedures for each step or component in the process. Courts must determine the types and values of cases they can resolve through arbitration. Once criteria for case selection have been defined, local courts must establish gatekeeping mechanisms that specify who values the case and when the valuation occurs. Courts must also decide how many arbitrators will sit on each hearing panel and how they will be selected, as well as set rules for discovery, evidence, and arbitrators' powers. Courts generally consider four issues in developing rules for awardmaking: the time within which the arbitrator must file notice of the award with the court, who shall notify the parties of the award, how the arbitrator's award becomes the judgment of the court, and when the award is no longer subject to appeal. Courts must further decide what disincentives to adopt, when to apply them, and how to ensure the disincentives are applied. Arbitrators must be sufficiently plentiful to process the arbitration caseload in a timely fashion. Courts adopting court-annexed arbitration programs should consider establishing some ongoing means of evaluating them. The appendix contains sample statutes and a sample supreme court enabling rule, as well as sample court rules, local rules, and survey questionnaires.