For and Against Settlement: Why the Mandatory Settlement Conference? (From Dispute Resolution Devices in a Democratic Society, P 83-105, 1985 -- See NCJ-111401)

• NCJ Number: 111403
• Author(s): C Menkel-Meadow
• Date Published: 1985
• Length: 23 pages
• Sale Source: Roscoe Pound-American Trial Lawyers Foundation
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This paper examines the pros and cons of pretrial settlements and mandatory settlements and suggests how the positive aspects of mandatory settlement conferences can be enhanced and the negative aspects avoided.

Abstract

Data do not support the efficiency argument for pretrial settlement conferences, but settlement does offer a substantive justice that may be more responsive than adjudication to the particular needs of the parties, avoiding binary win/lose results and achieving greater legitimacy through consent. Settlement also offers the possibility of a different substantive process by participation of the parties as well as the lawyers, a communication process that may be more direct and less stylized than litigation, and greater flexibility of procedure and remedy. If mandatory settlement conferences aim at efficiency, they are likely to compromise quality, so quality control measures should be instituted. The settlement conference can be used for a number of purposes. How its utility is assessed depends on how the specific dispute is perceived, the number of cases on the docket, the quality of results, the effect of the number and types of settlements on what remains in the system, and the assessment of alternatives to settlement. 105 footnotes.