NCJ Number
81207
Journal
American Bar Association Journal Volume: 68 Dated: (January 1982) Pages: 62-65
Date Published
1981
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This article examines the need for workable dispute resolution processes, particularly in the case of minor disputes, and suggests the kinds of tribunals that should be created and the obstacles that might limit their effectiveness.
Abstract
Minor disputes involve an amount of money which, as a matter of economics, the parties cannot afford to litigate. The number of such disputes is large and needs to be addressed. The Dispute Resolution Act of 1979 was intended to develop mechanisms for resolving minor disputes, but it was not funded. An example of a minor dispute tribunal might be one presided over by a legally trained judge and two nonlegally trained people. The court would have a legal adviser, and the parties could not be represented by lawyers. The judge would actively assist the parties in their presentation and in demonstrating the weaknesses of their positions, as well as their strengths. No appeals would be allowed except when it appeared from the trial that (1) a constitutionally protected right was in controversy, (2) a novel question of law was presented, or (3) it was claimed that the tribunal acted arbitrarily. There are four principal obstacles to the creation of this type of tribunal. First, legislation authorizing its creation would have to be adopted in each State where the tribunal is to be authorized. One State, Minnesota, has already approved a similar tribunal. Second, a constitutional problem exists by virtue of the protected right of trial by jury. This could be overcome by providing for an appeal de novo where the jury trial could be had. Another obstacle involves the claim that the creation of minor dispute tribunals would establish 'second-class justice,' the inference being that the wealthy would go to the formal courts and with counsel, while the poor would be relegated to 'inferior' tribunals. However, it is the kind of action, not the wealth of the parties, that determines the jurisdiction of the tribunal. A fourth obstacle could be a claim that every person has a right to legal representation in a civil matter before a tribunal, regardless of the amount in controversy. This problem could be solved by again providing for a right to appeal with a trial de novo. Another problem addressed is the satisfaction of a judgment when it is one for money. It is suggested that the tribunal become involved in the collection process in order to improve this aspect of the minor dispute process. No references are cited.