Shestowsky on Litigation Preferences
This post has been viewed 4,058 times.
I am delighted to share a new article from Donna Shestwosky and look forward to reading her findings!
NEW STUDY REVEALS HOW PEOPLE WANT THEIR LAWSUITS RESOLVED
As court systems throughout the country struggle to deliver civil justice in the face of budget cuts, a new study by a UC Davis law professor finds that people involved in civil lawsuits prefer mediation to nonbinding arbitration and like judge trials more than jury trials. In her study, “The Psychology of Procedural Preference: How Litigants Evaluate Legal Procedures Ex Ante,” Donna Shestowsky, who teaches negotiation strategy, alternative dispute resolution and legal psychology, reveals the legal procedures preferred by people involved in civil lawsuits at the start of their cases. The findings could help court systems design future generations of court-connected alternative dispute resolution programs by providing guidance on which procedures litigants find more appealing.
“The clear overall preference that litigants expressed for mediation over nonbinding arbitration has important implications for courts that want to draw litigants into their voluntary ADR programs, especially if they offer only one ADR procedure,” she said. “This finding helps to resolve a long-standing debate over which of the two procedures litigants prefer.” Overall, litigants liked mediation, the judge trial, and negotiations that included the litigants along with their attorneys more than all other examined procedures. A judge trial is where a judge determines the verdict rather than a jury. The study also found that compared to men, women were significantly less attracted to jury trials and binding arbitration.
Read original articleTags: Alternative Dispute Resolution, court systems, Donna Shestowsky, Donna Shestwosky
Related Posts
