What is an appropriate measure of litigation?
Quantification, qualification and differentiation of dispute resolution
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1146Palabras clave:
litigio, resolución alternativa de conflictos, pluralismo procesal, acceso a la justiciaResumen
Este artículo repasa las afirmaciones de que hay “demasiados” o “demasiado pocos” litigios en los EE. UU. Si bien es necesario entender las proporciones de litigios agregados para evaluar el acceso a la justicia, tal vez sea más importante entender las proporciones de litigios en el contexto de tipos de casos diferenciados. En algunas ocasiones, los litigios producen resultados demasiado “frágiles” (binarios) o costosos, lo cual originó el movimiento llamado “American ‘A’ (alternativo/adecuado) Dispute Resolution”. Este movimiento, ahora en expansión por todo el mundo, puede proporcionar “pluralismo procesal” de forma más flexible con diferentes resultados y costes (lo que ahora se denomina “resolución de conflictos ‘a’ccesible”). Sin embargo, el acto de litigar sigue siendo importante en varios contextos de búsqueda de justicia (por ej., para crear nuevos derechos, para aplicación de viejos derechos, y para la elaboración precedente). Este artículo da a entender que la proporción de litigios apropiada en cualquier cultura jurídica depende de varios factores más allá de un recuento. Se concluye con una crítica de prácticas jurídicas recientes en América, consistentes en la restricción del litigio por arbitraje obligatorio, acuerdos de confidencialidad, limitaciones en demandas colectivas, liquidación de reclamaciones colectivas e interpretaciones jurisdiccionales restrictivas en la toma de decisiones judiciales y en la legislación.
Descargas
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF (English) 602
XML (English) 329
Citas
Abel, R.L., 1987. The Real Tort Crisis – Too Few Claims. Ohio State Law Journal [online], 48, 443–67. Available from: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ohslj48&div=29&id=&page= [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Alberstein, M., 2015. Judicial Conflict Resolution (JCR): A New Jurisprudence for an Emerging Judicial Practice. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 16, 879–965.
Alexander, J., 2016. Do the Merits Matter? A Study of Settlements in Securities Class Actions. In: C.A. Hill and B.H. McDonnell, eds., Economics of Corporate Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Ali, S., 2018. Court Mediation Reform: Efficiency, Confidence and Perceptions of Justice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Amsler, L.B., Martinez, J.K., and Smith, S.E., 2020. Dispute System Design: Preventing, Managing and Resolving Conflict. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Baker, T., 2007. The Medical Malpractice Myth. University of Chicago Press.
Bauer, J., 2008. Buying Witness Silence: Evidence-Suppressing Settlements and Lawyers’ Ethics. Oregon Law Review [online], vol. 87, 481. Available from: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/9181/Bauer.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Baynes, L.M., 2003. Falling Through the Cracks: Race and Corporate Law Firms. St. John’s Law Review [online], 77(4), 785–836. Available from: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol77/iss4/6 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Berman, G., Feinblatt, J., and Glazer. S., 2005. Good Courts: The Case for Problem Solving Justice. New York: New Press.
Burbank, S.B., and Farhang, S., 2017. Rights and Retrenchment: The Counterrevolution against Federal Litigation. Cambridge University Press.
Burger, W., 1982. Isn’t There a Better Way? ABA Journal, 68, 274.
Camacho, A.E., and Glicksman, R.L., 2016. Legal Adaptive Capacity: How Program Goals and Processes Shape Federal Land Adaptation to Climate Change. University of Colorado Law Review [online], 87, 711–826. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2629363 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Carlson, G., 2017. Be Fierce: Stop Harassment and Take Your Power Back. New York: Center Press.
Center for Public Resources (CPR), 1987. ADR and the Courts: A Manual for Judges and Lawyers. New York: Butterworth Legal Publishers.
Center for Public Resources (CPR), 1988. Containing Legal Costs: ADR Strategies for Corporations, law Firms and Government. New York: Butterworth Legal Publishers.
Centre for Ethics and Law, 2018. Ethics and NDAs [online]. University College London Faculty of Laws, April. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/sites/laws/files/ethics_and_ndas.pdf [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Christie, N., 1977. Conflicts as Property. The British Journal of Criminology [online], 17(1), 1–15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a046783 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Clarke, J.A., 2019. The Rules of #MeToo. University of Chicago Legal Forum [online], vol. 2019, art. 3, 37–84. Available from: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2019/iss1/3/ [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Cohen, A., 2019. Moral Restorative Justice: A Political Genealogy of Activism and Neoliberalism in the United States. Minnesota Law Review [online], 104(2). Available from: https://minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Cohen_PDF_Final.pdf [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Cohen, A., and Gruber, A., 2019. Governance Feminism in New York’s Human Trafficking Intervention Courts. In: J. Halley et al., eds., Governance Feminism: A Handbook. University of Minnesota Press.
Cortés, P., 2018. The Law of Consumer Redress in an Evolving Digital Market: Upgrading from Alternative to Online Dispute Resolution [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139940900 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Creutzfeldt, N., 2018. Ombudsmen and ADR: A Comparative Study of Informal Justice in Europe [online]. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78807-4 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
de Tocqueville, A., 1835. Democracy in America (vol. 1). New York: Vintage Books.
dePalo, G., et al., 2014. Rebooting EU Mediation Report, prepared for European Parliament, Policy Department C: Citizen Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Directorate General for Internal Policies.
Dispute Resolution Magazine Editorial Board, ed., 2019. Dispute Resolution Magazine, Winter 2019, 25(2-#MeToo: Special Issue), 5–24.
Edelman, L., 2016. Working Law: Courts, Corporations and Civil Rights. University of Chicago Press.
Elie, P., 2019. What do the Church’s Victims Deserve? The New Yorker [online], 15 April. Available from: https://newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/15/what-do-the-churchs-victims-deserve [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Engel, D., 2016. The Myth of the Litigious Society: Why We Don’t Sue [online]. University of Chicago Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226305189.001.0001 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Eubanks, V., 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police and Punish the Poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Farhang, S., 2010. The Litigation State: Public Regulation and Private Lawsuits in the United States [online]. Princeton University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400836789 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Farrow, R., 2017. From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein Accusers Tell Their Stories. The New Yorker [online], 10 October. Available from: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Farrow, R., 2019. Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators. New York: Little Brown.
Feinberg, K., 2006. What Is Life Worth? The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11. New York: Public Affairs.
Felstiner, W.I.F., Abel, R.L., and Sarat, A., 1980–81. The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes… Naming, Blaming and Claiming. Law and Society Review [online], 15(3/4), 631–654. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053505 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Fisher, R., and Ury, W., (with B. Patton), 2011. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 3rd ed. New York: Penguin. (Originally published in 1982).
Fiss, O.M., 1984. Against Settlement. The Yale Law Journal [online], 93(6), 1073. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/796205 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Forbath, W., 1991. Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Freeman, J., 1997. Collaborative Governance in the Administrative State. UCLA Law Review [online], 45(1). Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=11408 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Galanter, M., 1983. Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don’t Know (and Think We Know) about Our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society. UCLA Law Review, 31, 4–71.
Galanter, M., 1986. The Day After the Litigation Explosion. Maryland Law Review, 46, 3–39.
Galanter, M., 2004. The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies [online], 1(3), 459. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00014.x [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Genn, H., 2009. Judging Civil Justice [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192378 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Gilles, M., 2016. The Day Doctrine Died: Private Arbitration and the End of Law. University of Illinois Law Review [online], 2016(2), 371–424. Available from: https://illinoislawreview.org/print/volume-2016-issue-2/the-day-doctrine-died-private-arbitration-and-the-end-of-law/ [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Glover, M., 2017. A Regulatory Theory of Legal Claims. Vanderbilt Law Review [online], 70(1), 221–309. Available from: https://wp0.vanderbilt.edu/lawreview/2017/01/a-regulatory-theory-of-legal-claims/ [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Green, M., 2019. A New #MeToo Result: Rejecting Notions of Romantic Consent with Executives. Employee Rights and Employee Policy Journal [online]. Available from: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1389/ [Accessed 20 July 2020].
Hans, V., and Vidmar, N., 1986. Judging the Jury [online]. New York: Plenum Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6463-2 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Harter, P.J., 1982. Negotiating Regulations: A Cure for Malaise. Georgetown Law Journal [online], 71, 1. Available from: https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1982-04%20Procedures%20for%20Negotiating%20Proposed%20Regulations.pdf [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Heinzerling, L., 2019. A Meditation on Juliana v United States [online]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3395471 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Hensler, D., 1995. A Glass Half Full. A Glass Half Empty: The Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Mass Personal Injury Litigation. Texas Law Review, 73, 1587.
Hensler, D., Hodges, C., and Tzankova, I., eds., 2016. Class Actions in Context: How Culture Politics and Economics Shape Collective Action [online]. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783470440 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Horowitz, M., 1977. The Transformation of American Law 1780–1860. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Horowitz, M., 1992. The Transformation of American Law 1870–1960. New York: Oxford University Press.
Howard, P.K., 1994. The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America. New York: Random House.
Kagan, R., 2001. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kantor, J., and Twohey, M., 2019. She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement. New York: Penguin Press.
Katsh, E., and Rabinovich-Einy, O., 2017. Digital Justice: Technology and the Internet of Disputes [online]. New York: Oxford University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190464585.001.0001 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Katvan, E., et al., eds., 2017. Too Many Lawyers?: The Future of the Legal Profession. London/New York: Routledge.
Kritzer, H.M., 1986. Adjudication to Settlement: Shading in the Gray. Judicature, 70, 161–65.
Kritzer, H.M., 2004. Advocacy and Rhetoric vs. Scholarship and Evidence in the Debate over Contingency Fees: A Response to Professor Brickman. Washington University Law Quarterly, 82, 477–97.
Lahav, A.L., 2006. The Roles of Litigation in American Democracy. Emory Law Journal [online], 65, 1657–1704. Available from: http://law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/65/6/lahav.pdf [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Lind, A.E., and Tyler, T., 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice [online]. New York: Plenum Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Luban, D., 1995. Settlements and the Erosion of the Public Realm. Georgetown Law Journal, 83, 2619–62.
Manning, B., 1977. Hyperlexis: Our National Disease. Northwestern University Law Review, 71(6), 767–782.
Mayer, J., 2019. The Case of Al Franken: A close look at the accusations against the former Senator. The New Yorker [online], 29 July. Available from: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken?currentPage=all [Accessed 4 March 2020].
McGovern, F., 1989. Resolving Mature Mass Tort Litigation. Boston University Law Review [online], 69, 659. Available from: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/673/ [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 1979. The 59th Street Clinic: Evaluation of the Experiment. Chicago: ABA Press.
Menkel-Meadow, C., 1984. Toward Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem Solving. UCLA Law Review, 31, 754–842.
Menkel-Meadow, C., 1993. Public Access to Private Settlements: Conflicting Legal Policies. Alternatives to High Costs of Litigation [online], 11(6), 85–87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/alt.3810110608 [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 1995a. Ethics of Mass Torts Settlements: When the Rules Meet the Road. Cornell Law Review [online], 80(4), 1159. Available from: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol80/iss4/14/ [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 1995b. Whose Dispute Is It, Anyway? A Philosophical and Democratic Defense of Settlement (In Some Cases). Georgetown Law Journal [online], 83, 2663–2696. Available from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1767/ [Accessed 4 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 1996. The Trouble with The Adversary System in a Post-Modern, Multi-cultural World. William and Mary Law Review [online], 38, 5–44. Available from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1745 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 1997. When Dispute Resolution Begets Disputes of its Own: Conflicts Among Dispute Professionals. UCLA Law Review [online], 44, 1871. Available from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1762 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 1998. Taking the Mass Out of Mass Torts: Reflections of a Dalkon Shield Arbitrator on Alternative Dispute Resolution, Judging, Neutrality, Gender and Process. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review [online], 31, 513–550. Available from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1761 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2000. Mothers and Fathers of Invention: The Intellectual Founders of ADR. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution [online], 16(1), 1–37. Available from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/523 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2001. Aha? Is Creativity Possible in Legal Problem Solving and Teachable in Legal Education? Harvard Negotiation. Law Review [online], 6, 97–144. Available from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/177 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2002. When Litigation is Not the Only Way: Consensus Building and Mediation as Public Interest Lawyering. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy [online], 10(1), 37–61. Available from: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol10/iss1/4 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2003. Dispute Processing and Conflict Resolution: Theory, Practice and Policy. Farnham: Ashgate.
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2006a. Peace and Justice: Notes on the Evolution and Purposes of Plural Legal Processes. Georgetown Law Journal [online], 94, 553–580. Available from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/fac_lectures/10/ [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2006b. Why Hasn’t The World Gotten To Yes?: An Appreciation and Some Reflections. Negotiation Journal [online], 22(3), 485–503. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2006.00119.x [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2007. Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work? Annual Review of Law and Social Science [online], vol. 3, 161–187. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.110005 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2009. Are There Systemic Ethics Issues in Dispute System Design? And What We Should (Not) Do About It: Lessons from International and Domestic Fronts. Harvard Negotiation. Law Review [online], vol. 14, 195–231. Available from: https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1207&context=faculty_scholarship [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2010. Empirical Studies of ADR: The Baseline Problem of What ADR Is and What It is Compared To. In: P. Cane and H. Kritzer, eds., Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research. Oxford University Press.
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2013. Regulation of Dispute Resolution in the United States of America: From the Formal to the Informal to the Semi-Formal. In: F. Steffek et al., eds., Regulation of Dispute Resolution – ADR and Access to Justice at the Crossroads. Oxford/Portland: Hart.
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2015. Variations in the Uptake of and Resistance to Mediation Outside of the United States. In: A. Rovine, ed., Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2014 [online]. Leiden: Brill Nijhoof, pp. 189–221. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004305595_015 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2016a. Is ODR ADR? Reflections of an ADR Founder from 15th ODR Conference, The Hague. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution [online], 3(1), 4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5553/IJODR/235250022016003001002 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2016b. Mediation and Its Applications for Good Decision Making and Dispute Resolution [online]. London/Antwerp: Intersentia. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0192 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2018. Mediation 3.0: The Uses and Problems with Technology in Dispute Resolution. Asian Journal on Mediation, 1–22.
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2020. Hybrid and Mixed Dispute Resolution Processes: Integrities of Process Pluralism. In: M. Palmer, M. Roberts and M. Moscati, eds., Comparative Dispute Resolution Research Handbook. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Menkel-Meadow, C., and Dingwall, R., 2017. Scripts: What to Do When Big Bad Companies Won’t Negotiate. In: C. Honeyman and A.K. Schneider, eds., Negotiator’s Desk Reference. St Paul: DRI.
Menkel-Meadow, C., and Garth, B., 2010. Civil Procedure and Courts. In: P. Cane and H. Kritzer, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research [online]. Oxford University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199542475.013.0029 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Menkel-Meadow, C., et al., 2019. Dispute Resolution: Beyond the Adversary Model. 3rd ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law and Business.
Merry, S.E., 1990. Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness among Working-Class Americans. University of Chicago Press.
Merry, S.E., and Milner, N., 1993. The Possibility of Popular Justice: A Case Study of Community Mediation in the United States [online]. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.13313 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Miller, R.E, and Sarat, A., 1980–81. Grievances, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture. Law and Society Review [online], 15(3/4), 525–566. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053502 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Mnookin, R.M., and Kornhauser, L., 1979. Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce. Yale Law Journal [online], 88(5), 950. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/795824 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Moran, M., 2019. Cardinal Sins: How the Catholic Church Sexual Abuse Crisis Changed Private Law. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law [online], XXI. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3373968 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Morris, A., 2018. Why 3 BigLaw Firms Ended Use of Mandatory Arbitration Clauses. ABA Journal [online], 1 June. Available from: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/biglaw_mandatory_arbitration_clauses [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Nelson, R., and Nielsen, L.B., 2005. Rights Realized? An Empirical Analysis of Employment Discrimination as A Claiming System. Wisconsin Law Review, 2005(2), 663–712.
Nolan-Haley, J., Deason, E.E., and Hernandez-Crespo Gonstead, M., 2019. Global Issues in Mediation. St. Paul: West Academic.
Perman, S., 2019. Deal at Risk as Mogul’s Accusers Bicker. Los Angeles Times [online], 5 June. Available from: https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=61e1de45-4de2-40f7-a3fe-d69ebae4612e [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Radin, M., 2014. Boilerplate: The Fine Print, Vanishing Rights and the Rule of Law [online]. Princeton University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400844838 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Resnik, J., 2011. Fairness in Numbers: A Comment on AT&T Mobility v Concepcion, Wal-Mart v Dukes and Turner v Rogers. Harvard Law Review [online], 125, 78–170. Available from: https://harvardlawreview.org/2011/11/fairness-in-numbers-a-comment-on-att-v-concepcion-wal-mart-v-dukes-and-turner-v-rogers/ [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Resnik, J., 2015. Diffusing Disputes: The Public in the Private of Adjudication, the Private in Courts and the Erasure of Rights. Yale Law Journal [online], 124, 2804. Available from: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5950&context=fss_papers [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Rosenberg, G., 2008. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? [online]. University of Chicago Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226726687.001.0001 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Saks, M., 1992. Do We Really Know Anything about the Behavior of the Tort Litigation System and Why Not? University of Pennsylvania Law Review [online], 140(4), 1147–1292. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/3312403 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Saks, M., 1993. Malpractice Misconceptions and Other Lessons about the Litigation System. Justice System Journal [online], 16(2), 7–19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/23277556.1993.10871169 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Sandefur, R., 2014. Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the Community Needs and Services Study [online]. Chicago: American Bar Foundation. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2478040 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Sandefur, R., 2016. What We Know and Need to Know about the Legal Needs of the Public. University of South Carolina Law Review [online], vol. 667. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2949010 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Sander, F.E.A., 1976. Varieties of Dispute Processing. F.R.D., 70, 79–132.
Scheingold, S., 1974. The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy and Political Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schlanger, M., 2004. The Politics of Inmate Litigation. Harvard Law Review [online], 117(8), 2799–803. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/4093420 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Sela, A., 2018. Can Computers Be Fair? How Automated and Human-Powered Online Dispute Resolution Affect Procedural Justice in Mediation and Arbitration. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 33(1), 91–148.
Shapira, R., 2019. Mandatory Arbitration and the Market for Reputation. Boston University Law Review [online], 99(3), 873–914. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3376781 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Shapiro, M., 1981. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis [online]. University of Chicago Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226161341.001.0001 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Slater, D., 2008. The Story Behind American Apparel’s Sham Arbitration. Wall Street Journal Law Blog [online], 4 November. Available from: https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/04/the-story-behind-american-apparels-sham-arbitration/ [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Southworth, A., 2008. Lawyers on the Right: Professionalizing the Conservative Coalition [online]. University of Chicago Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226768366.001.0001 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Steffek, F., et al., eds., 2013. Regulation of Dispute Resolution – ADR and Access to Justice at the Crossroads. Oxford/Portland: Hart.
Sternlight, J., 1996. Panacea or Corporate Tool?: Debunking the Supreme Court’s Preference for Binding Arbitration. Washington University Law Quarterly [online], 74(3), 637. Available from: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol74/iss3/6/ [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Sternlight, J., 2002. Is the U.S. Out on a Limb? Comparing the U.S. Approach to Mandatory Consumer and Employment Arbitration to that of the Rest of the World. University of Miami Law Review [online], 56, 831–64. Available from: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/273/ [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Sternlight, J., 2004. In Search of the Best Procedure for Enforcing Employment Discrimination Laws: A Comparative Analysis. Tulane Law Review [online], vol. 78, 1401–1499. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=571163 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Sternlight, J., 2012. Tsunami: AT&T Mobility v Concepcion Impedes Access to Justice. Oregon Law Review [online], vol. 90, 703. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1924365 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Sternlight, J., 2019. Mandatory Arbitration Stymies Progress Towards Justice in Employment Law: Where to, #MeToo? Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review [online], 54, 156–210. Available from: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/1178?utm_source=scholars.law.unlv.edu%2Ffacpub%2F1178 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Sternlight, J., 2020a. Justice in a Brave New World? Technology, Trials and Dispute Resolution-Moving Beyond Truth to Justice. Connecticut Law Review, 22.
Sternlight, J., 2020b. Pouring A Little Psychological Cold Water on ODR. Journal of Dispute Resolution [online], 2020(1). Available from: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2020/iss1/5/ [Accessed 20 July 2020].
Stevens, A., and Holden, B.A., 1994. How Bigotry Charges Rocked White and Case. Wall Street Journal, 19 August, B-1.
Sturdevant, J.C., 2019. Settlement Agreements: Clauses that Don’t Belong and Ethical Considerations [Presentation]. myLawCLE [online], 10 June. Available from: https://mylawcle.com/products/video-broadcasts/settlement-agreements-clauses-that-dont-belong-and-ethical-considerations/ [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., and Thomas-Larmer, J., 1999. The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement [online]. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Available from: http://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231389 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Szalai, I.S., 2018. The Failure of Legal Ethics to Address the Abuses of Forced Arbitration. Harvard Negotiation Law Review [online], 24, 127–183. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3447432 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Tannen, D., 1998. The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random House.
Thompson, A.C., 2002. Courting Disorder: Some Thoughts on Community Courts. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy [online], 10(1), 63. Available from: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol10/iss1/5 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Tippett, E., 2018. The Legal Implications of the #Metoo Movement. Minnesota Law Review [online], 103, 229–88. Available from: https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/12Tippett_MLR.pdf [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Tippett, E., 2019. Non-disclosure Agreements and the #MeToo Movement-What do we do now? Dispute Resolution Magazine [online], 25(2-#MeToo: Special Issue), 12–15. Available from: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/dispute_resolution/publications/dispute_resolution_magazine/2019/winter-2019-me-too/non-disclosure-agreements-and-the-metoo-movement/ [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Tuerkheimer, D., 2019. Beyond #Metoo. New York University Law Review [online], 94(5), 101–160. Available from: https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-94-number-5/beyond-metoo/ [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Umbreit, M., 1994. When Victim Meets Offender. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.
West, R., 2011. The Limits of Process. In: J.E. Fleming, ed., Getting to the Rule of Law: NOMOS L [online], 32–51. New York University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814728437.003.0002 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Wexler, L., 2019. 2018 Symposium Lecture: #MeToo and Procedural Justice. Richmond Public Interest Law Review, 22(2), 13–23.
Wexler, L., Robbennolt, J., and Murphy, C., 2019. #MeToo, Times Up and Theories of Justice. University of Illinois Law Review [online], 2019(45). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3135442 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Williams, J.B., Singh, L.O., and Mezey, N., 2019. #MeToo as Catalyst: A Glimpse into 21st Century Activism. University of Chicago Legal Forum [online], 2019(371). Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3520217 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Yablon, C.M., 2019. The Lawyer as Accomplice: Cannabis, Uber, Airbnb and the Ethics of Advising Disruptive Businesses, Minnesota Law Review / Cardozo Legal Studies [online], Research Paper Nº. 580. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3389559 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Zimmer, M.B., 2019. Judges and Courts Respond to Opioid Litigation Engulfing U.S. Court Systems. International Journal for Court Administration [online], 10(1), 5–11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.290 [Accessed 5 March 2020].
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 Carrie Joan Menkel-Meadow
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los autores conservan el copyright de sus trabajos, que se publicarán en OSLS bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento NoComercial SinObraDerivada. Puede consultar más detalles en: http://es.creativecommons.org/licencia/. Si no está de acuerdo con esta licencia, por favor, póngase en contacto con nosotros.
El autor concede los permisos necesarios para difundir la información bibliográfica del artículo, incluyendo el resumen, y autorizar a otros, incluyendo las bases de datos bibliográficas, de índices y servicios de alerta de contenidos, a copiar y comunicar esta información.
Para más información sobre los permisos para distribuir su artículo en cada fase de la producción, por favor, lea nuestra Política de Autoarchivo y Divulgación (en inglés).
Las condiciones de copyright con el nombre de autores y co-autores, y la licencia Creative Commons se mostrarán en el artículo. Estas condiciones se deben aceptar como parte del proceso de envío de un artículo a la revista. Por favor, asegúrese de que todos los co-autores se mencionan correctamente, y que entienden y aceptan estos términos.
