Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Boyd & Hoffman Post Article on Litigating Toward Settlement on SSRN

Professors Christina L. Boyd (SUNY Pol. Sci.) and David A. Hoffman (Temple) have posted and article on SSRN entitled Litigating Toward Settlement. Here is the abstract:

What is the relationship between litigation and settlement? Previous research assumes that the factors influencing settlement are exogenous to the parties: once the complaint is filed, the die is cast. We hypothesize, by contrast, that the parties are active participants in the process by which they come to understand their cases and agree to private resolutions. This active and reflexive process of learning through litigation is likely to be just as important in determining when a case will settle as are the litigation characteristics – managerial judging, fee structure, case type, court congestion – that have dominated previous research.

Using detailed federal district court data to analyze how the filing and resolution of motions influences the timing of compromise, we find that the mere filing of a motion speeds case settlement. As theory predicts, motions which are granted are more immediately important to the settlement rate than motions denied, plaintiff victories are more important than defendant victories, motions about unclear areas of law are more important than motions about settled law, and motions later in cases are more important that motions earlier in cases. Our results open up a new area of research into the pro-social effects of litigation. We question the common assumption that litigators simply add cost and that settlement must be midwifed by active judging. Rather, the parties can force information from each other (and the court) by filing motions at appropriate moments in the case.

The article may be downloaded at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1649643.

1 Comments:

At 1:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is really a very interesting article, backed by some really interesting research, but I've got some issues with the conclusions and the abstract.

"Previous research assumes that the factors influencing settlement are exogenous to the parties: once the complaint is filed, the die is cast."

I don't think this fairly characterizes prior research, nor do I think it's the view taken by most parties and litigators. It's a rare (and pretty worthless) practicing litigator who thinks settlement depends completely on exogenous factors.

"[T]he parties can force information from each other (and the court) by filing motions at appropriate moments in the case."

Really? That can happen? A response to a motion to dismiss might provide clues about what the other side thinks about the case? And to think no one knew . . .

It was not clear to me whether they sincerely believe everyone else involved in practicing or studying litigation is dumber than a box of rocks, or whether they just got a bit overaggressive in trying to argue the novelty of what they show.

That said, the article is still well worth reading, and still makes a valuable contribution. While their conclusion is based on knocking down straw men and pretending the obvious is terra incognita, it's based on solid research that provides empirical support for points that, while obvious, previously lacked rigorous empirical support. It's worth filing away.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home