Civil justice reform uniformly pushes settlement so trials become anomalous exceptions
Evidence
Even when litigants do file civil suits, their cases are far more likely to be settled than adjudicated. Indeed, what unites such reforms of the civil justice system as liberalized rules for discovery, pretrial conferences, and the ADR movement is the emphasis on promoting settlement and discouraging trials. Indeed, trials seem an anomaly, occurring only when the various mechanisms designed to produce a consensual solution have failed. In this respect, the system of civil justice in the United States closely resembles the system of criminal justice, with its emphasis on plea bargaining rather than trial. The question remains whether these systems serve the interests of justice. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2384
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Courts shunt interpersonal disputes to ADR because they consider them junk cases — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1187; Civil cases are typically settled in the shadow of potential trial — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2161; Most civil cases are decided during the pretrial phase, not at trial (+8 more)
Broader Connections
- Active trial judging extends into negotiating pleas and settlements between parties
#expands(0.78) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 568 - Case negotiations occur in the shadow of the law set by trial outcomes
#complicates(0.75) - Credible settlement leverage requires genuine willingness to proceed to trial
#complicates(0.72) — Jonathan Harr, A Civil Action, 2447 - Litigated cases are a biased sample, skewing toward hard ones
#expands(0.72) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 449 - Court structural reforms produce diverse and often unanticipated governance effects
#expands(0.70) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 459