| Popis: |
In an era of diminished trial rates and prevalent settlements, what is the role of judges in civil litigation? We introduce an analytical framework for answering this question using docket data from civil trial courts, and discuss its policy implications. The analysis rests on examining the relationship between judges’ procedural involvement (JPI) in litigation and cases’ mode of disposition (MoD). We differentiate between three JPI categories: 1) ruling on motions, 2) conducting pretrial case-management and settlement hearings, and 3) presiding over trials. A fourth category represents cases that terminated without JPI, which form the court’s institutional function. MoDs include judgment on the merits, settlement and six other categories. Given the sizeable institutional function and scarcity of trial and judgment, we show the usefulness of juxtaposing the JPI and MoD. First, it illuminates the interplay between the “vanishing-trial” and settlement phenomena. Second, it provides meaningful measures for the ratio between the public-political function and disputeresolution function of judges. Third, it introduces a measureable criterion for access to justice as access to (potential) judicial influence and scrutiny. Fourth, it can guide procedural reform by identifying cases that typically terminate with minor judicial involvement, and thus might be better-served by other redress options. |
