NCJ Number
99733
Journal
Trial Volume: 21 Issue: 10 Dated: (October 1985) Pages: 38-43
Date Published
1985
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article describes procedures and benefits of using private judges as mediators between disputing parties, with particular emphasis on the California system.
Abstract
In private judging, the court appoints a neutral third party, agreed upon by the disputants, who has powers to hear and decide a case. Trial procedures may range from formal proceedings to alternatives such as arbitration. After the proceedings, the referee submits a written report detailing findings of fact and conclusions of law which then become the findings of the referring court. The finding, however, is of the referring court. The finding, however, is nonprecedential and may be appealed to a higher court. Advantages of this process include the greater control accorded disputants, flexibility of rules and procedures, expedience, greater scheduling flexibility, the assurance of a binding and appealable decision, and its confidentiality. A major argument against private judging is that access by the poor is restricted by the requirement that the parties pay the fees rather than the State. However, this is equally true of most civil matters adjudicated by the courts. Similarly, criticisms of the privacy of private judging fail to note that there also is no right to access of settlement negotiations and that disputing parties have other options for settlement that are equally closed from scrutiny. Included are 22 footnotes.