Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
Jewish Law Perspectives On Judicial Settlement Practice, Shlomo Pill
Jewish Law Perspectives On Judicial Settlement Practice, Shlomo Pill
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
The classic adjudicatory paradigm of opposing attorneys facing off at trial before a judge and jury in order to receive a favorable judgment is an image long past. Increased litigation volume, and the added time and expense of modern litigation has resulted in a rich practice of judges working to broker settlements between litigants in lieu of formal adjudication. Judicial settlement is the subject of much debate, however, and the diverse range of judicial practice in this area reflects the institutional, ethical, and jurisprudential uncertainties we still have regarding the propriety of judges facilitating settlements. This paper offers a new …
Luck V. Justice: Consent Intervenes, But For Whom?, Jennifer W. Reynolds
Luck V. Justice: Consent Intervenes, But For Whom?, Jennifer W. Reynolds
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
Consent in civil settlements should improve access to and delivery of justice by making luck (chance, contingencies, arbitrariness) less significant in process and outcomes. Consent-based processes and private settlement are supposed to support justice by redistributing decision-making power away from judicial-coercive authorities to the people most affected by the dispute. But consent today has become little more than a pro forma process lever for bypassing regulation, litigation, and other more formal structures. No longer does consent serve as a reliable bulwark against luck distortions and arbitrariness in legal systems. Opening shrink-wrap (consent to arbitrate!), being shunted into compulsory mediation (consent …