What is the Settlement Rate and Why Should We Care?
What is the Settlement Rate and Why Should We Care?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01139.x
复制
发表时间：
2009-03-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Lanvers, Charlotte
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Eisenberg, Theodore;Lanvers, Charlotte
在确定了结算率知识的重要性之后，本文首先表明，不同的研究问题可以产生不同的结算率。使用从宾夕法尼亚州东区（EDPA）和格鲁吉亚北方区（NDGA）的大约3,300个联邦案件中收集的数据，不同的解决措施出现取决于是否有兴趣（1）解决作为原告诉讼成功的代理，或（2）解决作为未经最终裁决的诉讼纠纷解决的措施。使用和解作为原告成功的代表，我们估计2001-2002年这两个地区案件类别的总和解率为66.9%。无论计算和解率的方法如何，对和解率的合理估计都不支持超过90%的已立案案件的总和解率，尽管经常提到90%或更高的和解率。仅EDPA的总发病率为71.6%，NDGA为57.8%，这表明地区间存在显著差异，即使在病例类别内也存在这种差异。我们报告就业歧视，宪法侵权，合同和侵权案件在两个地区的单独解决率。EDPA侵权案件的最高和解率为87.2%，NDGA宪法侵权案件的最低和解率为27.3%。我们的研究结果表明，一个层次的结算利率。在主要案件类别中，侵权案件的结案率往往最高，其次是合同案件，然后是就业歧视案件，其次是宪法侵权案件。律师费结构和当事人的性质可以解释结算利率的变化。我们的调查结果没有提供证据表明总结算利率随时间发生重大变化。
After establishing the importance of knowledge of settlement rates, this article first shows that different research questions can yield different settlement rates. Using data gathered from about 3,300 federal cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA) and the Northern District of Georgia (NDGA), differing measures of settlement emerge depending on whether one is interested in (1) settlement as a proxy for plaintiffs' litigation success, or (2) settlement as a measure of litigated disputes resolved without final adjudication. Using settlement as a proxy for plaintiff success, we estimate the aggregate settlement rate across case categories in the two districts to have been 66.9 percent in 2001-2002. Regardless of the method of computing settlement rates, no reasonable estimate of settlement rates supports an aggregate rate of over 90 percent of filed cases, despite frequent references to 90 percent or higher settlement rates. The aggregate rate for the EDPA alone was 71.6 percent and for the NDGA alone was 57.8 percent, suggesting significant interdistrict variation, which persists even within case categories. We report separate settlement rates for employment discrimination, constitutional tort, contract, and tort cases in the two districts. The highest settlement rate was 87.2 percent for tort cases in the EDPA and the lowest was 27.3 percent for constitutional tort cases in the NDGA. Our results suggest a hierarchy of settlement rates. Of major case categories, tort cases tend to have the highest settlement rates, then contract cases, then employment discrimination cases, followed by constitutional tort cases. Attorney fee structure and the nature of the parties may explain settlement rate variation. Our findings provide no evidence of a material change in aggregate settlement rates over time.