NCJ Number
99891
Journal
Villanova Law Review Volume: 29 Issue: 6 Dated: (1983-1984) Pages: 1363-1378
Date Published
1984
Length
16 pages
Annotation
A discussion of the factors that have promoted the development of alternatives to traditional civil litigation accompanies descriptions of two judicially managed methods of dispute resolution: (1) the appointment of neutral experts and special masters and (2) the summary jury trial.
Abstract
The cost of litigation, the time involved, and the uncertainty of the results have influenced disputants to seek and use alternative forms of dispute resolution. The public's basic confidence in the judiciary as the ultimate source of just and equitable results means that judges must play a central role in the development and implementation of alternative dispute resolution methods. They must also focus on resolving the problems of delays and excessive costs in the judicial system itself; otherwide formal mechanisms will be bypassed. Judges have traditionally used pretrial processes to resolve disputes. The author has also begun to use two other methods. One method is to retain neutral advisors and special masters to streamline pretrial proceedings in complex cases. Special masters can be particularly useful in tort cases that demand case management plans. Neutral experts are also useful for clarifying the issues raised by expert witnesses. The second approach is the summary jury trial, a half-day proceeding using six jurors to give the parties a preview that forms a reliable basis for a settlement. In this trial, a lawyer for each side has an hour to present views of the case to the jury. The result is nonbinding and does not prevent a full trial. Building judge-managed alternatives into the existing system is an efficient way to promote settlement while providing for due process. 45 footnotes.