Judicial Arbitration in California - The First Year - Executive Summary

• NCJ Number: 82326
• Author(s): D R Hensler; A J Lipson; E S Rolph
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 17 pages
• Corporate Author: Rand Corporation
• Sale Source: Rand Corporation; National Institute of Justice/
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Band Publication Series

Annotation

Findings are summarized from an evaluation of the first year of judicial arbitration in California.

Abstract

In 1978, the California Legislature adopted a judicial arbitration program whose rules provide that the court order all civil damage suits valued at $15,000 or less to be heard by a single randomly selected attorney or retired judge who has volunteered to serve as an arbitrator. Both parties in a suit may stipulate arbitration of any case, regardless of monetary value involved. The rules further provide for completing the arbitration process within 3 months of a case's assignment to the program. The arbitrators are directed to conduct the hearing as informally as possible, with relaxed rules of evidence. The first-year evaluation examined (1) whether arbitration reduces court congestion or backlogs or both, (2) whether it speeds dispute resolution, (3) whether it cut costs, and (4) whether participants prefer arbitration to more traditional procedures. During the first year, about 24,000 cases were diverted to the arbitration program in the 13 courts required to adopt it. This is about twice the number of cases diverted to the State's previous, voluntary program during its entire 3-year history. About half of the cases arrived at arbitration voluntarily, either by plaintiff's election or by stipulation of both parties. The courts have had little trouble in recruiting an adequate supply of arbitrators. Few of the cases are likely to be pursued to trial. Even the sizeable number of cases diverted to arbitration, however, will only mildly relieve congestion in superior courts, and the potential effect of the program on court costs is highly uncertain. Arbitration does speed adjudication, and evidence suggests that attorneys and litigants believe the arbitration process is fair. Tabular and graphic data are provided. Appended are a chronology of important events preceding consideration of mandatory arbitration, a chronology of legislative events, the Kerry Memorandum on SB 1362, and the Judicial Arbitration Statute. For the full report, see NCJ 82325.