1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 19, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 19, 2023

Civil Litigants’ Evaluations of Their Legal Experiences

Abstract

How do litigants evaluate their experiences with the civil justice system? What we know about this important subject has grown out of foundational academic research in procedural justice and studies of litigant involvement in court programs. The volume of projects dedicated to understanding litigant experiences falls short in relation to the magnitude of civil justice system encounters handled by the legal system. Nevertheless, the extant research converges on some surprising insights into the factors that shape litigants’ perspectives and the contextual variables that affect their experiences. This article synthesizes the major findings, discusses some of their law and policy implications, and highlights areas that beg for further investigation at the intersection of law and psychology.

Keyword(s): civil law, evaluations, fairness, litigants, procedures, satisfaction
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111022-082509
2023-10-05
2024-05-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/19/1/annurev-lawsocsci-111022-082509.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111022-082509&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrams Z. 2022. Can justice be served online?. Monit. Psychol. 53:670 https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/09/fairness-online-trial
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adler JW, Hensler DR, Nelson CE 1983. Simple Justice: How Litigants Fare in the Pittsburgh Court Arbitration Program. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Inst. Civ. Justice
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Adm. Off. US Courts 2016a. Judicial business of the United States Courts Table C-2, US Courts Washington, DC: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/stfj_c2_1231.2016.pdf
  4. Adm. Off. US Courts 2016b. Judicial business of the United States Courts. Table D, US Courts Washington, DC: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/stfj_d_1231.2016.pdf
  5. Alberts JK, Heisterkamp BL, McPhee RM. 2005. Disputant perceptions of and satisfaction with a community mediation program. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 16:3218–44
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bingham LB. 2002. Why suppose? Let's find out: a public policy research program on dispute resolution. J. Disput. Resolut. 2002:1101–26
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Brett JM, Barsness ZI, Goldberg SB. 1996. The effectiveness of mediation: an independent analysis of cases handled by four major service providers. Negot. J. 12:3259–69
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Brett JM, Goldberg SB. 1983. Grievance mediation in the coal industry: a field experiment. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 37:149–69
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brockner J, Wiesenfeld BM. 1996. An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychol. Bull. 120:2189–208
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Charkoudian L, Eisenberg DT, Walter JL. 2017. What difference does ADR make? Comparison of ADR and trial outcomes in small claims court. Confl. Resolut. Q. 35:17–45
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Charkoudian L, LaChance H. 2016. Impact of alternative dispute resolution on responsibility, empowerment, resolution, and satisfaction with the judiciary comparison of outcomes short and long: term in district court civil cases Rep., Adm. Off. Courts Annapolis, MD:
  12. Charkoudian L, Wayne EK. 2010. Fairness, understanding, and satisfaction: impact of mediator and participant race and gender on participants’ perception of mediation. Confl. Resolut. Q. 28:123–52
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Clarke ST, Donnelly LF, Grove SA. 1991. Court-ordered arbitration in North Carolina: case outcomes and litigant satisfaction. Justice Syst. J. 14:2154–82
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Colquitt JA, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ, Porter COLH, Yee Ng K 2001. Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:3425–45
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Conlon DE, Lind EA, Lissak RI. 1989. Nonlinear and nonmonotonic effects of outcome on procedural and distributive fairness judgments. . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19:131085–99
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Depp J 2022. Post. Instagram June 1, accessed March 16, 2023. https://www.instagram.com/p/CeRl1FwMmR6/
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Duryee MA. 1992. Mandatory mediation: myth and reality. Fam. Court Rev. 30:4507–18
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Emery RE, Jackson JA. 1989. The Charlottesville mediation project: mediated and litigated child custody disputes. Mediat. Q. 24:3–18
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Emery RE, Wyer MM. 1987. Divorce mediation. Am. Psychol. 42:2472–80
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fischhoff B. 1975. Hindsight ≠ foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. J. Exp. Psychol. 1:3288–99
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Folger R. 1977. Distributive and procedural justice: combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 35:2108–19
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Galanter M. 2004. The vanishing trial: an examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. . J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 1:3459–570
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Goerdt JA. 1992. Small claims mediation in three urban courts. Small Claims and Traffic Courts: Case Management Procedures, Case Characteristics, and Outcomes in Twelve Urban Jurisdictions Williamsburg, VA: Natl. Cent. State Courts
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg SB, Brett JM. 1990. Disputants' perspectives on the differences between mediation and arbitration. Negot. J. 6:3249–55
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Gross SR, Syverud KD. 1996. Don't try: civil jury verdicts in a system geared to settlement. UCLA Law Rev 44:11–64
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hadfield GK. 2008. Framing the choice between cash and the courthouse: experiences with the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. Law Soc. Rev. 42:3645–82
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hannaford-Agor P, Graves SE, Miller S. 2015. The landscape of civil litigation in state courts Rep., Natl. Cent. State Courts Williamsburg, VA:
  28. Hannaford-Agor P, Hamblin L, Via B, Knowlton NA. 2018. The landscape of domestic relations cases in state courts Rep., Natl. Cent. State Courts Williamsburg, VA:
  29. Hayden RM, Anderson JK. 1979. On the evaluation of procedural systems in laboratory experiments: a critique of Thibaut and Walker. Law. Hum. Behav. 3:1/221–38
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hensler DR. 2002. Suppose it's not true: challenging mediation ideology. J. Disput. Resolut. 2002:15
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Howe MB, Fiala R. 2008. Process matters: disputant satisfaction in mediated civil cases. Justice Syst. J. 29:185–99
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Jones AM, Jones SE, Duron A. 2019. Perspective differences in trial process: a comparison of judges, juries and litigants. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 26:187–96
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kilander G. 2022. Johnny Depp may drop $8m damages claim against Amber Heard if she stops appeal, lawyers reveal. Independent June 8. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/johnny-depp-amber-heard-damages-claim-b2096515.html
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kitzmann KM, Emery RE. 1993. Procedural justice and parents' satisfaction in a field study of child custody dispute resolution. Law Hum. Behav. 17:5553–67
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Lind EA, Earley PC. 1992. Procedural justice and culture. Int. J. Psychol. 27:2227–42
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Lind EA, Kanfer R, Earley PC 1990a. Voice, control, and procedural justice: instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol 59:952–59
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Lind EA, Kulik CT, Ambrose M, de Vera, Park MV. 1993. Individual and corporate dispute resolution: using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Adm. Sci. Q. 38:224–51
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lind EA, MacCoun RJ, Ebener PA, Felstiner WLF, Hensler DR et al. 1989. The perception of justice: tort litigant's views of trial, court-annexed arbitration, and judicial settlement conferences. Rep., R-3708-ICJ, RAND Santa Monica, CA:
  39. Lind EA, MacCoun RJ, Ebener PA, Felstiner WLF, Hensler DR et al. 1990b. In the eye of the beholder: tort litigants' evaluations of their experiences in the civil justice system. Law Soc. Rev. 24:4953–96
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Lind EA, Tyler TR. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice New York: Springer
  41. MacCoun RJ. 2005. Voice, control, and belonging: the double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1:171–201
     [Google Scholar]
  42. MacCoun RJ, Lind EA, Hensler DR, Bryant DL, Ebener PA. 1988. Alternative adjudication: an evaluation of the New Jersey automobile arbitration program Rep., R-3676-ICJ, RAND Santa Monica, CA:
  43. MacCoun RJ, Martin KD. 2015. Legal issues: public opinion. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences JD Wright 747–52. Oxford, UK: Pergamon
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Malatesta D, Amsler LB, Scott SF. 2020. Disputant experience and preferences for mediated or adjudicated processes in administrative agencies: the occupational safety and health review commission settlement part program. ILR Rev. 73:2552–70
     [Google Scholar]
  45. McAdoo B, Hinshaw A. 2002. The challenge of institutionalizing alternative dispute resolution: attorney perspectives on the effect of Rule 17 on civil litigation in Missouri. Mo. Law Rev. 67:473–594
     [Google Scholar]
  46. McEwen CA, Maiman RJ. 1981. Small claims mediation in Maine: an empirical assessment. Maine Law Rev 33:237–68
     [Google Scholar]
  47. McEwen CA, Maiman RJ. 1984. Mediation in small claims court: achieving compliance through consent. Law Soc. Rev. 18:111–50
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Miller RE, Sarat A. 1980–1981. Grievances, claims, and disputes: assessing the adversary culture. Law Soc. Rev. 15:3/4525–66
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Pearson J, Theonnes N. 1985. Mediation versus the courts in child custody cases. Negot. J. 1:3235–44
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Pew 2021. Researchers can help courts understand whether litigants think the civil legal system is fair—and why (or why not). Pew June 14. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2021/06/14/researchers-can-help-courts-understand-whether-litigants-think-the-civil-legal-system-is-fair
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Poppe EST, Rachlinski JJ. 2016. Do lawyers matter? The effect of legal representation in civil disputes. Pepperdine Law Rev 43:881–944
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Priest G, Klein B. 1984. The selection of disputes for litigation. J. Legal Stud. 13:11–56
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Pruitt DG, Peirce RS, McGillicuddy NB, Welton GL, Castrianno LM. 1993. Long-term success in mediation. Law Hum. Behav. 17:3313–30
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Pruitt DG, Peirce RS, Zubek JM, Welton GL, Nochajski TH. 1990. Goal achievement, procedural justice and the success of mediation. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 1:133–45
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Rachlinski JJ. 1996. Gains, losses, and the psychology of litigation. South. Calif. Law Rev. 70:1113–86
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Relis T. 2007. It's not about the money: a theory of misconceptions of plaintiffs’ litigation aims. Univ. Pittsburgh Law Rev. 68:701–46
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Resnik J. 2012. Building the federal judiciary (literally and legally): the monuments of Chief Justices Taft, Warren, and Rehnquist. Indiana Law J 87:823–950
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Riskin LL, Guthrie C, Reuben RC, Robbennolt JK, Welsh NA, Hinshaw A. 2019. Dispute Resolution and Lawyers: A Contemporary Approach St. Paul, MN: West Acad. Publ.
  59. Roehl JA, Cook RF. 1989. Mediation in interpersonal disputes: effectiveness and limitations. Mediation Research K Kessler, DG Pruitt 31–52. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Rottman DB, Rogers J, Godard D. 2005. Trust and confidence in the California courts: a survey of the public and attorneys Rep., Judic. Counc. Calif., Adm. Off. Courts Williamsburg, VA:
  61. Sandefur RL. 2015. Elements of professional expertise: understanding relational and substantive expertise through lawyers’ impact. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:5909–33
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Shapiro D, Brett JM. 1993. Comparing three processes underlying judgments of procedural justice: a field study of mediation and arbitration. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 65:61167–77
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Shestowsky D. 2004. Procedural preferences in alternative dispute resolution: a closer, modern look at an old idea. Psychol. Public Policy Law 10:3211–49
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Shestowsky D. 2008. Disputants’ preferences for court-connected dispute resolution procedures: why we should care and why we know so little. Ohio State J. Disput. Resolut. 23:3549–626
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Shestowsky D. 2014. How litigants evaluate legal procedures at the start of their cases. Court Rev 50:3126–35
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Shestowsky D. 2016. How litigants evaluate the characteristics of legal procedures: a multi-court empirical study. UC Davis Law Rev 49:3793–842
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Shestowsky D. 2017. When ignorance is not bliss: an empirical study of litigants’ awareness of court-sponsored alternative dispute resolution programs. Harvard Negot. Law Rev. 22:2189–239
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Shestowsky D. 2018. Inside the mind of the client: an analysis of litigants' decision criteria for choosing procedures. Confl. Resolut. Q. 36:169–91
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Shestowsky D. 2020. Great expectations? Comparing litigants’ attitudes before and after using legal procedures. Law Hum. Behav. 44:3179–93
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Shestowsky D, Brett J. 2008. Disputants' perceptions of dispute resolution procedures: an ex ante and ex post longitudinal empirical study. Conn. Law Rev. 41:163–108
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Shestowsky D, Shack J. 2022a. Online dispute resolution for debt and small claims cases: a report on a pilot program in Collin County, Texas Rep., Univ. Calif., Davis, Resolut. Syst. Inst.
  72. Shestowsky D, Shack J. 2022b. Online dispute resolution for post-judgment family law cases: a report to the Ottawa County, Michigan, Friend of the Court Rep., Univ. Calif., Davis, Resolut. Syst. Inst.
  73. Sivasubramaniam D, Heuer L. 2007. Decision makers and decision recipients: understanding disparities in the meaning of fairness. Court Rev 44:1/266–70
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Slobogin C. 2020. The case for a federal criminal court system (and sentencing reform). Calif. Law Rev. 108:941–64
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Stallworth LE, Stroh LK. 1996. Who is seeking to use ADR? Why do they choose to do so?. Disp. Resolut. J. 51:30–38
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Thibaut J, Kelley HH. 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups New York: Wiley
  77. Thibaut J, Walker L. 1975.. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
  78. Thibaut J, Walker L. 1978. A theory of procedure. Calif. Law Rev. 66:3541–66
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Thibaut J, Walker L, LaTour S, Houlden P. 1974. Procedural justice as fairness. Stanford Law Rev. 26:1271–89
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Tyler TR. 1988. What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law Soc. Rev. 22:1103–36
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Tyler TR. 1989. The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group-value model. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 57:5830–38
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Tyler TR. 2000. Social justice: outcome and procedure. Int. J. Psychol. 35:2117–25
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Tyler TR. 2007. Procedural justice and the courts. Court Rev 44:1/226–31
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Tyler TR, Huo YJ, Lind EA. 1999. The two psychologies of conflict resolution: differing antecedents of pre-experience choices and post-experience evaluations. Group Process. Intergroup Rel 2:299–119
     [Google Scholar]
  85. van den Bos K, Vermunt R, Wilke HAM. 1996. The consistency rule and the voice effect: the influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgments and performance. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 26:411–28
     [Google Scholar]
  86. van den Bos K, Vermunt R, Wilke HAM. 1997. Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72:195–104
     [Google Scholar]
  87. van den Bos K, Wilke HAM, Vermunt R, Lind EA. 1998. Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74:61493–503
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Vidmar N. 1985. An assessment of mediation in a small claims court. J. Soc. Issues 41:2127–44
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Wissler RL. 1995. Mediation and adjudication in the small claims court: the effects of process and case characteristics. Law Soc. Rev. 29:2323–58
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Wissler RL. 1997. The effects of mandatory mediation: empirical research on the experience of small claims and common pleas courts. Willamette Law Rev. 33:565–608
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Wissler RL. 2002a. Court-connected mediation in general civil cases: what we know from empirical research. Ohio State J. Disput. Resolut. 17:3641–704
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Wissler RL. 2002b. When does familiarity breed content? A study of the role of different forms of ADR education and experience in attorneys’ ADR recommendations. Pepperdine Disput. Resolut. Law J. 2:2199–240
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Wissler RL. 2004. The effectiveness of court-connected dispute resolution in civil cases. Confl. Resolut. Q. 22:1–255–88
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Wissler RL. 2010. Representation in mediation: what we know from empirical research. Fordham Urban Law J 37:1419–67
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111022-082509
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error