Reassessing the Essential Role of Public Courts: Learning from the American Experience

  • Richard MarcusEmail author
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 70)


Over the years, the United States has introduced different alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, thus ‘outsourcing’ some of the court’s tasks. The ADR movement was a reaction to costly and lengthy proceedings the United States was coping with. It is doubtful whether such ‘outsourcing’ indeed routinely saves time and money and contributes to the public goals of civil justice. This contribution describes the evolution of American civil procedure, thereby explaining the issues that the American civil justice system has faced over the years and mechanisms which have been identified and chosen to fight those challenges. This experience is a lesson to other countries trying to reach the same goals.


  1. Bar B (2007) Some attorneys questioning advantages of arbitration. New York Law J, 17 May 2007Google Scholar
  2. Barkoff R (2007) Is the bloom off the rose of alternative dispute resolution? Franchise Update, 4 Dec 2007. Accessed 7 June 2018
  3. Brunet E (1987) Questioning the quality of alternative dispute resolution. Tulane Law Rev 62:1–56Google Scholar
  4. Burbank S, Subrin S (2011) Litigation and democracy: Reassessing a realistic prospect of trial. Harvard Civ Rights-Civ Liberties Law Rev 46:399–414Google Scholar
  5. Burbank S, Farhang S, Kritzer H (2013) Private enforcement. Lewis & Clark Law Rev 17:637–722Google Scholar
  6. Carrington P (1979) Adjudication as a private good: a comment. J Legal Stud 8:303–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavanagh E (2015) Federal civil litigation at the crossroads: reshaping the role of the federal courts in twenty-first century dispute resolution. Oregon Law Rev 93:631–685Google Scholar
  8. Chayes A (1976) The role of the judge in public law litigation. Harvard Law Rev 89:1281–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davey M (2015) Concerns grow as court races draw big cash. New York Times, 28 March 2015Google Scholar
  10. de Tocqueville A (1835) Democracy in AmericaGoogle Scholar
  11. Drahozal C, Wittorck Q (2008) Is there a flight from arbitration? Hofstra Law Rev 37:71–116Google Scholar
  12. Edwards H (1986) Alternative dispute resolution: Panacea or Anathema? Harvard Law Rev 99:668–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenberg T, Miller G (2007) The flight from arbitration: an empirical study of ex ante arbitration clauses in the contracts of publicly held companies. DePaul Law Rev 56:335–374Google Scholar
  14. Executive Office of the President (2013) Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  15. Farhang S (2010) The litigation state. Princeton University Press, Princeton and OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feldman N (2010) Scorpions: the battles and triumphs of FDR’s great supreme court justices. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiss O (1979) Foreword: the forms of justice. Harvard Law Rev 93:1–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiss O (1984) Against settlement. Yale Law J 93:1073–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galanter M, Palay T (1991) Tournament of lawyers. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Garth B (1993) From civil litigation to private justice: legal practice at war with the profession and its values. Brooklyn Law Rev 59:931–960Google Scholar
  21. Garth B (1998) The worlds of civil discovery: from studies of cost and delay to the markets in legal services and legal reform. Boston Coll Law Rev 39:597–612Google Scholar
  22. Gilson R (1990) The devolution of the legal profession: a demand side perspective. Maryland Law Rev 49:869–916Google Scholar
  23. Goodman C (2004) Justice and civil procedure in Japan. Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Grodin J (1989) In pursuit of justice: reflections of a state supreme court justice. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  25. Herman G (2001) Collaborative divorce: a short overview. Divorce Litigation 4:68–79Google Scholar
  26. Hodges C, Benöhr I, Creutzfeldg-Banda N (2012) Consumer ADR in Europe. Hart Publishing, Oxford & PortlandGoogle Scholar
  27. Kronman A (1993) The lost lawyer. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Landes WZ, Posner R (1979) Adjudication as a private good. J Legal Stud 8:235–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee J (2002) Dirty laundry: online for all to see. New York Times, 5 Sept 2002Google Scholar
  30. Lieberman J, Henry J (1986) Lessons from the alternative dispute movement. Univ Chicago Law Rev 53:424–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luban D (1995) Settlements and the erosion of the public realm. Georgetown Law J 83:2619–2651Google Scholar
  32. Marcus R (1983) Myth and reality in protective order litigation. Cornell Law Rev 69:1–75Google Scholar
  33. Marcus R (1989) Completing equity’s conquest? Reflections on the future of trial under the federal rules of civil procedure. Univ Pittsburgh Law Rev 50:725–788Google Scholar
  34. Marcus R (1993) Who should discipline federal judges, and how? Fed Rules Decis 149:375–434Google Scholar
  35. Marcus R (1998) Discovery containment redux. Boston Coll Law Rev 39:747–784Google Scholar
  36. Marcus R (2003) Reining in the American litigator: the new role of American judges. Hastings Int Comp Law J 27:3–30Google Scholar
  37. Marcus R (2013a) Bomb throwing, democratic theory, and basic values—a new path to procedural harmonization. Northwest Univ Law Rev 107:475–510Google Scholar
  38. Marcus R (2013b) Procedure in a time of austerity. Int J Procedural Law 3:133–158Google Scholar
  39. Marcus R (2014) Looking backward to 1938. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev 162:1691–1730Google Scholar
  40. Marcus R (2015a) Once more into the breach? Further possible amendments to Rule 23. Judicature 99:57–66Google Scholar
  41. Marcus R (2015b) A genuine civil justice crisis. XVth international association of procedural law world congress. Onikilevha, Istanbul, pp 27–54Google Scholar
  42. Marcus R (2016) Bending in the breeze: American class actions in the 21st century. DePaul Law Rev 65:497–534Google Scholar
  43. Marcus R (2018) Evolution v. Revolution in class action reform. North Carolina Law Rev (in press)Google Scholar
  44. Marlow L (1985) The rule of law in divorce mediation. Mediation Q 9:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McEwen C, Maiman R (1984) Mediation in small claims court: achieving compliance through consent. Law SocRev 18:11–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Menkel-Meadow C (1995) Whose dispute is it anyway? A philosophical and democratic defense of settlement (in some cases). Georgetown Law J 83:2663–2696Google Scholar
  47. Millar R (1952) Procedure in the trial court in historical perspective. Law Center of New York University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller A (2003) The pretrial rush to judgment: are the ‘litigation explosion,’ ‘liability crisis,’ and efficiency clichés eroding our day in court and jury trial commitments? New York U Law Rev 78:982–1134Google Scholar
  49. Mnookin R, Kornhauser L (1979) Bargaining in the shadow of the law: the case of divorce. Yale Law J 88:950–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Murray P, Stürner R (2004) German civil justice. Carolina Academic Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  51. Musalo K, Moore J, Boswell R (2011) Refugee law and policy: a comparative and international approach. Carolina Academic Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Shea J (2005) Private judges keep divorce quiet. San Francisco Recorder, 13 Jun 2005Google Scholar
  53. Peckham R (1985) A judicial response to the cost of litigation: case management, two-stage discovery planning and alternative dispute resolution. Rutgers Law Rev 37:253–278Google Scholar
  54. Pildes R (2014) Romanticizing democracy, political fragmentation, and the decline in American Government. Yale Law J 124:804–852Google Scholar
  55. Pound R (1906) The causes of popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice. Rep Am Bar Assoc 29:395–417Google Scholar
  56. Redish M, Marshall L (1984) Adjudicatory independence and the values of procedural due process. Yale Law J 95:455–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Resnik J (1982) Managerial judges. Harvard Law Rev 96:374–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Resnik J (2014) Reinventing courts as democratic institutions. Daedalus 143(3):9–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rice C (1996) Meet John Doe: is it time for federal civil procedure to recognize John Doe parties? Univ Pittsburgh Law Rev 57:883–958Google Scholar
  60. Rogers J (2015) Firms like arbitration for malpractice claims, but it’s not without downsides, experts say. Bloomberg BNA Class Action Litigation Rep 16:292Google Scholar
  61. Rubenstein W (2004) On what a ‘private attorney general’ is—and why it matters. Vanderbilt Law Rev 57:2129–2173Google Scholar
  62. Said C (2014) When arbitration causes frustration. San Francisco Chronicle, 13 Jan 2014Google Scholar
  63. San Francisco Chronicle (2015) Abuse of law. San Francisco Chronicle, 13 April 2015Google Scholar
  64. Shaffer T, Mcthenia A (1985) For reconciliation. Yale Law J 94:1661–1705Google Scholar
  65. Sherwin E (2008) Precedent by accident: the story of Conley. In: Clermont K (ed) Civil procedure stories, 2d edn. Thomson/Foundation Press, New York, pp 295–322Google Scholar
  66. Smith M (2015) Partisanship a worry in Wisconsin supreme court election. New York Times, 6 April 2015Google Scholar
  67. Steinman J (1985) Pseudonymous parties: when should litigants be permitted to keep their identifies confidential? Hastings Law J 37:1–90Google Scholar
  68. Sterngold J (1992) Japan’s rigged Casino. New York Times, 26 April 1992Google Scholar
  69. Stolberg S (1992) Politics and the judiciary coexist, but often uneasily. Los Angeles Times, 21 Mar 1992Google Scholar
  70. Strom S (2014) General Mills reverses itself on consumers’ right to sue. New York Times, 20 April 2014Google Scholar
  71. Survey of Civil Justice in New York (1931) Institute of law, Johns Hopkins UniversityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hastings College of the LawUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations