Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T15:12:48.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imbalances of Power in ADR: The Impact of Representation and Dispute Resolution Method on Case Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Oren Gazal‐Ayal  and
Ronen Perry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent decades, alternative dispute resolution processes have gained worldwide recognition, a growing role in legal practice, and increasing academic attention. Despite their professed advantages, they have also faced fierce opposition. In a seminal article, Owen Fiss argued that ADR exacerbates imbalances of power between the parties. But while the theoretical argument has been widely developed, empirical evidence has remained scant. This article empirically examines the impact of representation patterns and dispute resolution methods on case outcomes. Arguably, professional representation of weaker parties may reduce the effects of inequality, whereas less formal, transparent, and adjudicatory processes may exacerbate them. The article focuses on small claims settlement conferences, using the Israeli labor courts system as a test case. The main findings are that representation increases the probability of a successful settlement conference, and that the more formal the process, the greater the ratio between the sum obtained by the plaintiff and the sum claimed.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , Fall 2014 , pp. 791 - 823
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Babcock, Linda, and Loewenstein, George 1997. Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Roll of Self‐Serving Biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives 11:109–126.Google Scholar
Bibas, Stephanos. 2004. Plea Bargaining Outside the Shadow of Trial. Harvard Law Review 117:2463–2547.Google Scholar
Bies, Robert J., and Tyler, Tom R. 1993. The “Litigation Mentality” in Organizations: A Test of Alternative Psychological Explanations. Organization Science 4:352–366.Google Scholar
Bingham, Lisa B. 1995. Is There a Bias in Arbitration of Nonunion Employment Disputes? An Analysis of Actual Cases and Outcomes. International Law & Conflict Management 6:369–386.Google Scholar
Bingham, Lisa B. 1997. Employment Arbitration: The Repeat Player Effect. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 1:189–220.Google Scholar
Bingham, Lisa B., Raines, Susan R., and Kim, Kiwhan 2002. Exploring the Role of Representation in Employment Mediation at the USPS. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 17:341–377.Google Scholar
Brunet, Edward 1987. Questioning the Quality of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Tulane Law Review 62:1–56.Google Scholar
Chapman, Gretchen B., and Bornstein, Brian H. 1996. The More You Ask For, the More You Get: Anchoring in Personal Injury Verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10:519–540.Google Scholar
Colvin, Alexander J. S. 2007. Empirical Research on Employment Arbitration: Clarity Amidst the Sound and Fury? Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 11:405–447.Google Scholar
Delgado, Richard, Dunn, Chris, Brown, Pamela, and Lee, Helena 1985. Fairness and Formality: Minimizing the Risk of Prejudice in Alternative Dispute Resolution. Wisconsin Law Review 1985:1359–1404.Google Scholar
Drahozal, Christopher R., and Zyontz, Samantha 2010. An Empirical Study of AAA Consumer Arbitrations. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 25:843–930.Google Scholar
Eigen, Zev J., and Listokin, Yair 2012. Do Lawyers Really Believe Their Own Hype, and Should They? A Natural Experiment. Journal of Legal Studies 41:239–267.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Theodore. 1994. Negotiation, Lawyering, and Adjudication: Kritzer on Brokers and Deals. Law & Social Inquiry 19:275–299.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Theodore, and Hill, Elizabeth 2003. Arbitration and Litigation of Employment Claims: An Empirical Comparison. Dispute Resolution Journal 58:44–55.Google Scholar
Engler, Russell. 1997. Out of Sight and Out of Line: The Need for Regulation of Lawyers' Negotiations with Unrepresented Poor Persons. California Law Review 85:79–158.Google Scholar
Engler, Russell 1999. And Justice for All—Including the Unrepresented Poor: Revisiting the Roles of Judges, Mediators, and Clerks. Fordham Law Review 67:1987–2070.Google Scholar
Etienne, Margareth, and Robbennolt, Jennifer 2007. Apologies and Plea Bargaining. Marquette Law Review 91:295–322.Google Scholar
Fiss, Owen M. 1984. Against Settlement. Yale Law Journal 93:1073–1090.Google Scholar
Fuller, Lon L. 1971. Mediation—Its Forms and Functions. Southern California Law Review 44:305–339.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change. Law & Society Review 9:95–160.Google Scholar
Genn, Hazel. 1998. The Central London County Court Pilot Mediation Scheme: Evaluation Report. London: Lord Chancellor's Department.Google Scholar
Gilson, Ronald J., and Mnookin, Robert H. 1994. Disputing Through Agents: Cooperation and Conflict Between Lawyers in Litigation. Columbia Law Review 94:509–566.Google Scholar
Goodman‐Delahunty, Jane, Granhag, Pär Anders, Hartwig, Maria, and Loftus, Elizabeth F. 2010. Insightful or Wishful: Lawyers' Ability to Predict Case Outcomes. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 16:133–157.Google Scholar
Grillo, Trina. 1991. The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women. Yale Law Journal 100:1545–1610.Google Scholar
Howard, William M. 1995. Arbitrating Claims of Employment Discrimination: What Really Does Happen? What Really Should Happen? Dispute Resolution Journal 50:40–50.Google Scholar
Kandel, Randy F. 1994. Power Plays: A Sociolinguistic Study of Inequality in Child Custody Mediation and a Hearsay Analog Solution. Arizona Law Review 36:879–972.Google Scholar
Korobkin, Russell, and Guthrie, Chris 1997. Psychology, Economics, and Settlement: A New Look at the Role of the Lawyer. Texas Law Review 76:77–141.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 1998a. Contingent‐Fee Lawyers and Their Clients: Settlement Expectations, Settlement Realities, and Issues of Control in the Lawyer‐Client Relationship. Law & Social Inquiry 23:795–821.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 1998b. Legal Advocacy: Lawyers and Nonlawyers at Work. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 2002. Lawyer Fees and Lawyer Behavior in Litigation: What Does the Empirical Literature Really Say? Texas Law Review 80:1943–1983.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M., Felstiner, William L. F., Sarat, Austin, and Trubek, David M. 1985. The Impact of Fee Arrangement on Lawyer Effort. Law & Society Review 19:251–278.Google Scholar
LaFree, Gary, and Rack, Christine 1996. The Effects of Participants' Ethnicity and Gender on Monetary Outcomes in Mediated and Adjudicated Civil Cases. Law & Society Review 30:767–798.Google Scholar
Landsman, Stephan. 2010. Nothing for Something? Denying Legal Assistance to Those Compelled to Participate in ADR Proceedings. Fordham Urban Law Journal 37:273–302.Google Scholar
Langevoort, Donald C., and Rasmussen, Robert K. 1997. Skewing the Results: The Role of Lawyers in Transmitting Legal Rules. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 5:375–440.Google Scholar
Lederman, Leandra, and Hrung, Warren B. 2006. Do Attorneys Do Their Clients Justice? An Empirical Study of Lawyers' Effects on Tax Court Litigation Outcomes. Wake Forest Law Review 41:1235–1295.Google Scholar
Lind, E. Allan, Greenberg, Jerald, Scott, Kimberly S., and Welchans, Thomas D. 2000. The Winding Road from Employee to Complainant: Situational and Psychological Determinants of Wrongful‐Termination Claims. Administrative Science Quarterly 45:557–590.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, George, Issacharoff, Samuel, Camerer, Colin, and Babcock, Linda 1993. Self Serving Assessments of Fairness and Pretrial Bargaining. Journal of Legal Studies 22:135–159.Google Scholar
Loftus, Elizabeth F., and Wagenaar, Willem A. 1988. Lawyers' Predictions of Success. Jurimetrics Journal 28:437–453.Google Scholar
Luban, David. 1985. Bargaining and Compromise: Recent Work on Negotiation and Informal Justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs 14:397–416.Google Scholar
Main, Thomas O. 2005. ADR: The New Equity. University of Cincinnati Law Review 74:329–404.Google Scholar
McEwen, Craig A. 1994. An Evaluation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Pilot Mediation Program (Contract No. 2/0011/0168). Washington, DC: Center for Dispute Settlement.Google Scholar
McEwen, Craig A., and Maiman, Richard J. 1981. Small Claims Mediation in Maine: An Empirical Assessment. Maine Law Review 33:237–268.Google Scholar
McEwen, Craig A., Rogers, Nancy H., and Maiman, Richard J. 1995. Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation. Minnesota Law Review 79:1317–1411.Google Scholar
Meili, Stephen. 2011. Collective Justice or Personal Gain? An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Class Action Lawyers and Named Plaintiffs. Akron Law Review 44:67–136.Google Scholar
Menkel‐Meadow, Carrie. 1984. Toward Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem Solving. UCLA Law Review 31:754–842.Google Scholar
Menkel‐Meadow, Carrie 1993. Lawyer Negotiations: Theories and Realities—What We Learn from Mediation. Modern Law Review 56:361–379.Google Scholar
Menkel‐Meadow, Carrie 1995. Whose Dispute is it Anyway?: A Philosophical and Democratic Defense of Settlement (in Some Cases). Georgetown Law Journal 83:2663–2696.Google Scholar
Menkel‐Meadow, Carrie 1997. When Dispute Resolution Begets Disputes of its Own: Conflicts Among Dispute Professionals. UCLA Law Review 44:1871–1933.Google Scholar
Metzloff, Thomas B., Peeples, Ralph A., and Harris, Catherine T. 1997. Empirical Perspectives on Mediation and Malpractice. Law & Contemporary Problems 60:107–152.Google Scholar
Mironi, Mordehai. 2010. Reframing the Representation Debate: Going Beyond Union and Non‐Union Options. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 63:367–383.Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H., and Kornhauser, Lewis 1979. Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce. Yale Law Journal 88:950–997.Google Scholar
Norton, Eleanor H. 1989. Bargaining and the Ethic of Process. New York University Law Review 64:493–577.Google Scholar
Sandefur, Rebecca. 2010. The Impact of Counsel: An Analysis of Empirical Evidence. Seattle Journal for Social Justice 9:51–95.Google Scholar
Sato, Glen. 1986. The Mediator–Lawyer: Implications for the Practice of Law and One Argument for Professional Responsibility, Guidance—A Proposal for Some Ethical Considerations. UCLA Law Review 34:507–535.Google Scholar
Sternlight, Jean R. 1999. Lawyers' Representation of Clients in Mediation: Using Economics and Psychology to Structure Advocacy in a Nonadversarial Setting. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 14:269–366.Google Scholar
Sternlight, Jean R. 2010. Lawyerless Dispute Resolution: Rethinking a Paradigm. Fordham Urban Law Journal 37:381–418.Google Scholar
Stuart, Kenneth K., and Savage, Cynthia A. 1997. The Multi‐Door Courthouse: How It's Working. Colorado Lawyer 26:13–18.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 1997. Behavioral Analysis of Law. University of Chicago Law Review 64:1175–1195.Google Scholar
Tor, Avishalom. 2008. The Methodology of the Behavioral Analysis of Law. Haifa Law Review 4:237–327.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel 1974. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185:1124–1131.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Thorisdottir, Hulda 2003. A Psychological Perspective on Compensation for Harm: Examining the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. DePaul Law Review 53:355–391.Google Scholar
Varma, Arup, and Stallworth, Lamont E. 2002. Participants' Satisfaction with EEO Mediation and the Issue of Legal Representation: An Empirical Inquiry. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 6:387–417.Google Scholar
Welsh, Nancy A. 2004. Remembering the Role of Justice in Resolution: Insights from Procedural and Social Justice Theories. Journal of Legal Education 54:49–59.Google Scholar
Wirth‐Livne, Varda. 2001. Report of the Steering Committee on Mediation in the Labor Courts System. Jerusalem: Ministry of Justice (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Wissler, Roselle L. 1997. The Effects of Mandatory Mediation: Empirical Research on the Experience of Small Claims and Common Pleas Courts. Willamette Law Review 33:565–604.Google Scholar
Wissler, Roselle L. 2010. Representation in Mediation: What We Know from Empirical Research. Fordham Urban Law Journal 37:419–471.Google Scholar
Zamir, Itzhak. 2006. Report of the Committee for the Examination of Labor Courts. Jerusalem: Ministry of Justice (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Rachel. 2004. Medical Contrition: Doctors' New Tool to Fight Lawsuits: Saying “I'm Sorry.” Wall Street Journal, May 18, A1.Google Scholar
Labor Courts Act (1969).Google Scholar
National Health Insurance Act (1994).Google Scholar
National Security Act (1995).Google Scholar
Labor Courts Act (1969).Google Scholar
National Health Insurance Act (1994).Google Scholar
National Security Act (1995).Google Scholar