NCJ Number
94331
Journal
Judicature Volume: 68 Issue: 1 Dated: (June/July 1984) Pages: 8-29
Date Published
1984
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This analysis of several types of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that are part of the court process concludes that most successful programs rely on some type of coercion, that it is difficult to generalize about their replicability, and that knowledge of what constitutes an effective program is limited.
Abstract
Court-annexed arbitration programs typically provide for an arbitration hearing by a three-member panel in selected classes of civil actions within 7 or 8 months of filing, stimulating settlement by providing an earlier timetable for case preparation and settlement. Such projects have reduced court costs and caseloads in many jurisdictions. Few settlement techniques can be universally applied with success, however, since each jurisdiction has its own unique problems, legal culture, and personalities. The fundamental issue behind any decision to introduce or continue settlement facilitation policies is whether the benefits exceed costs, but it is difficult to develop criteria for such evaluations. Three key variables for such program evaluation are time and money invested, justice and due process, and participant satisfaction. Settlement should begin earlier than the immediate pretrial period and be isolated from that function, as in the minitrial experiment popularized by a California court. 'Quick look' settlement programs provide litigants with an impartial and abbreviated assessment of the relative merits of the case. The process can also be improved by some form of the 'doomsday machine,' a mechanism that forces each side to assess its position realistically in light of all the potentially onerous consequences that can arise from litigation. It can be embodied in a good case management program that imposes strict but realistic deadlines on disputants and can be combined with the 'quick look' approach. Another variation is prerecorded videotaping of trials developed by the Erie County Common Pleas Court, (Ohio) where key witnesses are taped early in the process so counsel and disputants can assess their cases and negotiate from informed positions. A glossary and 69 footnotes are included.