Publication Date

2018

Document Type

Article

Organizational Units

Sturm College of Law

Keywords

Data analytics, Crowdsourcing, Settlement process, Alternative dispute resolution, Mediation

Abstract

By protecting the right to a jury, the state and federal constitutions recognize the fundamental value of having civil and criminal disputes resolved by laypersons. Actual trials, however, are relatively rare, in part because parties seek to avoid the risks and cost of trials and courts seek to clear dockets efficiently. But as desirable as settlement may be, it can be a difficult way to resolve a dispute. Parties view their cases from different perspectives, and these perspectives often cause both sides to be overly optimistic and to expect unreasonably large or unreasonably small resolutions.

This article describes a novel method of incorporating layperson perspectives to provide parties with more accurate information about the value of a case: We suggest that parties work with mediators or settlement judges to create mini-trials and recruit hundreds of online mock jurors to render decisions. By applying modern statistical techniques to these results, the mediators could show the parties the likelihood of possible outcomes and collect qualitative information about strengths and weaknesses for each side. These data will better inform the parties’ views and should thereby facilitate settlement.

Publication Statement

Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.

Rights Holder

Bernard Chao, Christopher Robertson, David Yokum

Provenance

Received from author

File Format

application/pdf

Language

English (eng)

Extent

6 pgs

File Size

1.8 MB

Publication Title

Judicature

Volume

102

First Page

62

Last Page

68

Additional Files
Authors Agreement (BHC).pdf (173 kB)
Download



Share

COinS