skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 99733 Find in a Library
Title: Private Judging - A New Variation of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Journal: Trial  Volume:21  Issue:10  Dated:(October 1985)  Pages:38-43
Author(s): E D Green
Date Published: 1985
Page Count: 8
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article describes procedures and benefits of using private judges as mediators between disputing parties, with particular emphasis on the California system.
Abstract: In private judging, the court appoints a neutral third party, agreed upon by the disputants, who has powers to hear and decide a case. Trial procedures may range from formal proceedings to alternatives such as arbitration. After the proceedings, the referee submits a written report detailing findings of fact and conclusions of law which then become the findings of the referring court. The finding, however, is of the referring court. The finding, however, is nonprecedential and may be appealed to a higher court. Advantages of this process include the greater control accorded disputants, flexibility of rules and procedures, expedience, greater scheduling flexibility, the assurance of a binding and appealable decision, and its confidentiality. A major argument against private judging is that access by the poor is restricted by the requirement that the parties pay the fees rather than the State. However, this is equally true of most civil matters adjudicated by the courts. Similarly, criticisms of the privacy of private judging fail to note that there also is no right to access of settlement negotiations and that disputing parties have other options for settlement that are equally closed from scrutiny. Included are 22 footnotes.
Index Term(s): Alternative dispute settlement; California; Cost/Benefit Analysis; Privatization
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.