Bargaining in the Shadow of ADR: Analysis of Judicial and Attorney Attitudes Toward Settlement Under a Medical Screening Panel System

Abstract

Prior research has found judicial and attorney ambivalence toward judges’ involvement in civil settlements. Little comparative study has been conducted of the attitudes of judges and medical malpractice attorneys, in particular, regarding this subject and related issues such as the effectiveness of pretrial screening panels or other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. This article reports the results of a survey of the Arizona judiciary and medical malpractice bar regarding these subjects. A statistical relationship was found between respondents’ roles as judge, plaintiff attorney, or defense attorney and attitudes toward judicial involvement in settlement and related issues.To implement an effective court-annexed ADR program, policymakers must be sensitive to the divergence of attitudes and practices between and within the judiciary and the legal community. More research is needed to measure the effect of justice system actors’ roles on attitudes toward ADR and its effectiveness.