An Evaluation of the Effect of Court-Ordered Mediation and Proactive Case Management On the Pace of Civil Tort Litigation in Lake County, Indiana

Dywan, Jeffery J. Journal of Dispute Resolution, Jan. 1, 2003

A study compared time to disposition for mediated cases and non-mediated cases in two civil courtrooms. In one, the judge practiced "proactive case management." He referred cases at his discretion at the initial conference and set a deadline for the completion of mediation. In the other, the judge referred cases to mediation in a less systematic way at various points in the pre-trial process. Both judges took the view that a case must go through mediation prior to scheduling a trial unless the lawyers could provide a compelling reason that it should not.

The study looked at cases filed between 1993 and 1997, which numbered 400-600 each year. The Chronological Case Summary for each case was examined to determine the dates of filing, referral, trial, and settlement. Time to disposition and settlement rates were compared between the courtrooms and between mediated and non-mediated cases in each courtroom. The study also examined the impact of mediation on court backlog by comparing the number of pending cases that were referred to mediation to those that were not referred.

Median time to disposition was shorter for cases in the proactive case management courtroom. In both courtrooms, time to disposition was shorter for cases that were mediated as compared to those that were not - with a median difference of two months. However, the use of proactive case management had a greater impact on the pace of litigation than mediation did.Cases were more likely to go to jury trial in the proactive case management courtroom, and in that courtroom were more likely to go to trial if the case had been referred to mediation. Cases referred to mediation were more likely to have been closed at the time of study in 2001 than those that were not referred. Cases in the proactive case management courtroom were more likely to have been closed in August 2001.

Based on the findings of this study, the author recommends courts adopt a proactive case management system before they adopt mediation.

Description of Study: Examined time to disposition for civil cases in two courtrooms in Lake County, IN, following different case management procedures. One courtroom undertook proactive case management procedures, including mediation. The other had no standard case management procedures; hearings and mediation were scheduled at the attorneys’ request.

Method: Examined all cases filed in two courtrooms (one proactive and one traditional) from 1993 through 1997. Calculated median time to disposition for mediated and non-mediated cases and compared as well the time to disposition between the proactive and traditional courtroom. Uncontested and easily settled cases were separated from cases that were more difficult to settle in order to better compare between mediated and non-mediated cases. Statistics were aggregated by year, and then the median was averaged over the 5 years in the study period.

Comparative: Yes

Comparison Groups: All mediated and non-mediated cases in the proactive courtroom, and all cases in the proactive courtroom and the traditional courtroom.

Sample Size: 4,760 cases: 3,107 cases in the proactive courtroom and 1,653 cases in the traditional courtroom. 2,473 cases (52%) were mediated: 1,914 cases in the proactive courtroom (61.6%) and 559 cases in the traditional courtroom (33.8%)

Variables Examined: Time to disposition, Settlement rate

Program Variables: Voluntary program. In the proactive courtroom, an initial status conference was held 6 months after filing, at which time referral to mediation occurred for cases in which the judge felt it was appropriate. Mediation generally occurred after discovery was completed and before the pre-trial conference. In the traditional courtroom, cases were referred to mediation after the pre-trial conference, after the conclusion of a dispositive motion hearing or at the request of one of the attorneys.

Findings: Median time to disposition averaged 32% shorter for the proactive courtroom than for the traditional courtroom over each of the 5 years in the study period. Mediated cases took longer to reach disposition in both courtrooms. In the proactive courtroom, median time to disposition averaged 129% longer for mediated cases than for non-mediated cases; in the traditional courtroom, median time to disposition averaged 133% longer. However, when uncontested and easily settled cases were removed from the sample, median time to disposition for mediated cases averaged 4 months earlier than non-mediated cases.

A larger percent of cases in the proactive courtroom went to trial, and in the proactive courtroom, a higher percentage of mediated cases went to trial. The proactive courtroom was more effective at reducing backlog; 3% of the cases filed in the proactive courtroom during the study period remained open at the end of the study, while 8.9% of the cases filed in the traditional courtroom remained open. Mediated cases in the proactive courtroom were less likely to be open than non-mediated cases, while in the traditional courtroom, mediated cases were more likely to be open.