What is the Settlement Rate and Why Should We Care
What is the Settlement Rate and Why Should We Care
复制标题
结算率是多少以及我们为什么要关心
DOI：
10.2139/ssrn.1276383
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Charlotte L. Lanvers
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Eisenberg;Charlotte L. Lanvers
在确定了结算率知识的重要性之后，本文首先说明了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）和佐治亚州北区（NDGA）约3300个联邦案件收集的数据，不同的和解措施取决于人们是否感兴趣(1)和解作为原告诉讼成功的代理，或(2)和解作为诉讼纠纷在没有最终裁决的情况下解决的衡量标准。以和解作为原告胜诉的代表，我们估计2001-02年两个地区各类案件的总和解率为66.9%。无论结算率的计算方法如何，尽管经常提到90%或更高的结算率，但没有任何合理的结算率估计支持超过90%的已提交案件的总比率。仅EDPA的总发病率为71.6%，NDGA的总发病率为57.8%，表明地区间存在显著差异，即使在病例类别中也存在差异。我们报告了两个地区就业歧视、宪法侵权、合同和侵权案件的单独和解率。和解率最高的是EDPA侵权案件的87.2%，最低的是NDGA的宪法侵权案件的27.3%。我们的结果表明，结算率的层次结构。在主要案件类别中，侵权案件的和解率最高，其次是合同案件，其次是就业歧视案件，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费率的变化。我们的研究结果没有提供总沉降率随时间发生重大变化的证据。
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% in 2001-02. Regardless of the method of computing settlement rates, no reasonable estimate of settlement rates supports an aggregate rate of over 90% of filed cases, despite frequent references to 90% or higher settlement rates. The aggregate rate for the EDPA alone was 71.6% and for the NDGA alone was 57.8%, 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% for tort cases in the EDPA and the lowest was 27.3% 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.