Remembering the role of justice in resolution: Insights from procedural and social justice theories

Journal of Legal Education

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 49-59

  Welsh, Nancy A ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042810097     PISSN: 00222208     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (91)

1. See Julie Macfarlane, Culture Change? A Tale of Two Cities and Mandatory Court-Connected Mediation, 2002 J. Disp. Resol. 241.
2. E-mail correspondence from Julie Macfarlane to Nancy Welsh (Aug. 31, 2003) (on file with author).
3. See also Judith Resnik, Mediating Preferences: Litigant Preferences for Process and Judicial Preferences for Settlement, 2002 J. Disp. Resol. 155, 165.
4. Id. But see Jean Sternlight, Mandatory Binding Arbitration and the Demise of the Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial, 16 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 669, 673-74 (2001).
5. Id. But see Jean Sternlight, Mandatory Binding Arbitration and the Demise of the Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial, 16 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 669, 673-74 (2001).
6. See Owen Fiss, Against Settlement, 93 Yale L.J. 1073, 1076-78, 1089 (1984). Fiss's concerns about ADR and settlement bear a second look in light of the successful institutionalization of ADR, but it must also be noted that his rosy assessment of litigation can be criticized-and has been-for its lack of realism. See Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlement of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 Cornell L. Rev. 1159, 1172-73 (1995).
7. See Owen Fiss, Against Settlement, 93 Yale L.J. 1073, 1076-78, 1089 (1984). Fiss's concerns about ADR and settlement bear a second look in light of the successful institutionalization of ADR, but it must also be noted that his rosy assessment of litigation can be criticized-and has been-for its lack of realism. See Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and the Settlement of Mass Torts: When the Rules Meet the Road, 80 Cornell L. Rev. 1159, 1172-73 (1995).
8. See Hope Viner Samborn, The Vanishing Trial, A.B.A. J., Oct. 2002, at 24, 24.
9. See Nancy A. Welsh, Making Deals in Court-Connected Mediation: What's Justice Got to Do with It? 79 Wash. U. L.Q, 787, 801-03 (2001) [hereinafter Making Deals]; Nancy A. Welsh, Reconciling Self-Determination, Coercion and Settlement in Court-Connected Mediation, in Mediating Family and Divorce Disputes: Current Practices and Applications (forthcoming 2004) [hereinafter Reconciling].
10. See Nancy A. Welsh, Making Deals in Court-Connected Mediation: What's Justice Got to Do with It? 79 Wash. U. L.Q, 787, 801-03 (2001) [hereinafter Making Deals]; Nancy A. Welsh, Reconciling Self-Determination, Coercion and Settlement in Court-Connected Mediation, in Mediating Family and Divorce Disputes: Current Practices and Applications (forthcoming 2004) [hereinafter Reconciling].
11. See Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7, at 805-06; Welsh, Reconciling, supra note 7.
12. See Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7, at 805-06; Welsh, Reconciling, supra note 7.
13. See Nancy A. Welsh, Disputants' Decision Control in Court-Connected Mediation: A Hollow Promise Without Procedural Justice, 2002 J. Disp. Resol. 179, 181-84.
14. See Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Whose Dispute Is It Anyway? A Philosophical and Democratic Defense of Settlement (in Some Cases), 83 Geo. L.J. 2663, 2689-90 (1995) (urging that appropriate should replace alternative in describing mediation and other nontrial dispute resolution processes).
15. See E. Allan Lind & Tom R. Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice 7-40 (New York, 1988) [hereinafter Social Psychology]; Tom R. Tyler & E. Allan Lind, Procedural Justice, in Handbook of justice Research in Law, eds. Joseph Sanders &V. Lee Hamilton, 65, 69-70 (New York, 2001) [hereinafter Procedural Justice] ; Laurens Walker et al., Reactions of Participants and Observers to Modes of Adjudication, 4J. Applied Soc. Psychol. 295 (1974); Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7, at 841-43.
16. See E. Allan Lind & Tom R. Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice 7-40 (New York, 1988) [hereinafter Social Psychology]; Tom R. Tyler & E. Allan Lind, Procedural Justice, in Handbook of justice Research in Law, eds. Joseph Sanders &V. Lee Hamilton, 65, 69-70 (New York, 2001) [hereinafter Procedural Justice] ; Laurens Walker et al., Reactions of Participants and Observers to Modes of Adjudication, 4J. Applied Soc. Psychol. 295 (1974); Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7, at 841-43.
17. See E. Allan Lind & Tom R. Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice 7-40 (New York, 1988) [hereinafter Social Psychology]; Tom R. Tyler & E. Allan Lind, Procedural Justice, in Handbook of justice Research in Law, eds. Joseph Sanders &V. Lee Hamilton, 65, 69-70 (New York, 2001) [hereinafter Procedural Justice] ; Laurens Walker et al., Reactions of Participants and Observers to Modes of Adjudication, 4J. Applied Soc. Psychol. 295 (1974); Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7, at 841-43.
18. See E. Allan Lind & Tom R. Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice 7-40 (New York, 1988) [hereinafter Social Psychology]; Tom R. Tyler & E. Allan Lind, Procedural Justice, in Handbook of justice Research in Law, eds. Joseph Sanders &V. Lee Hamilton, 65, 69-70 (New York, 2001) [hereinafter Procedural Justice] ; Laurens Walker et al., Reactions of Participants and Observers to Modes of Adjudication, 4J. Applied Soc. Psychol. 295 (1974); Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7, at 841-43.
19. See Lind & Tyler, Social Psychology, supra note 11, at 61-127; E. Allan Lind, Procedural Justice, Disputing, and Reactions to Legal Authorities, in Everyday Practices and Trouble Cases, eds. Austin Sarat et al., 177 (New York, 1998) [hereinafter Everyday Practices] ; Tyler & Lind, Procedural Justice, supra note 11, at 70-74. See also Debra L. Shapiro & Jeanne M. Brett, Comparing Three Processes Underlying Judgments of Procedural Justice: A Field Study of Mediation and Arbitration, 65 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 1167 (1993); E. Allan Lind et al., In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of Their Experiences in the Civil Justice System, 24 Law & Soc'y Rev. 953 (1990).
20. See Lind & Tyler, Social Psychology, supra note 11, at 61-127; E. Allan Lind, Procedural Justice, Disputing, and Reactions to Legal Authorities, in Everyday Practices and Trouble Cases, eds. Austin Sarat et al., 177 (New York, 1998) [hereinafter Everyday Practices] ; Tyler & Lind, Procedural Justice, supra note 11, at 70-74. See also Debra L. Shapiro & Jeanne M. Brett, Comparing Three Processes Underlying Judgments of Procedural Justice: A Field Study of Mediation and Arbitration, 65 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 1167 (1993); E. Allan Lind et al., In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of Their Experiences in the Civil Justice System, 24 Law & Soc'y Rev. 953 (1990).
21. See Lind & Tyler, Social Psychology, supra note 11, at 61-127; E. Allan Lind, Procedural Justice, Disputing, and Reactions to Legal Authorities, in Everyday Practices and Trouble Cases, eds. Austin Sarat et al., 177 (New York, 1998) [hereinafter Everyday Practices] ; Tyler & Lind, Procedural Justice, supra note 11, at 70-74. See also Debra L. Shapiro & Jeanne M. Brett, Comparing Three Processes Underlying Judgments of Procedural Justice: A Field Study of Mediation and Arbitration, 65 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 1167 (1993); E. Allan Lind et al., In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of Their Experiences in the Civil Justice System, 24 Law & Soc'y Rev. 953 (1990).
22. See Lind & Tyler, Social Psychology, supra note 11, at 61-127; E. Allan Lind, Procedural Justice, Disputing, and Reactions to Legal Authorities, in Everyday Practices and Trouble Cases, eds. Austin Sarat et al., 177 (New York, 1998) [hereinafter Everyday Practices] ; Tyler & Lind, Procedural Justice, supra note 11, at 70-74. See also Debra L. Shapiro & Jeanne M. Brett, Comparing Three Processes Underlying Judgments of Procedural Justice: A Field Study of Mediation and Arbitration, 65 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 1167 (1993); E. Allan Lind et al., In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of Their Experiences in the Civil Justice System, 24 Law & Soc'y Rev. 953 (1990).
23. See Lind & Tyler, Social Psychology, supra note 11, at 61-127; E. Allan Lind, Procedural Justice, Disputing, and Reactions to Legal Authorities, in Everyday Practices and Trouble Cases, eds. Austin Sarat et al., 177 (New York, 1998) [hereinafter Everyday Practices] ; Tyler & Lind, Procedural Justice, supra note 11, at 70-74. See also Debra L. Shapiro & Jeanne M. Brett, Comparing Three Processes Underlying Judgments of Procedural Justice: A Field Study of Mediation and Arbitration, 65 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 1167 (1993); E. Allan Lind et al., In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of Their Experiences in the Civil Justice System, 24 Law & Soc'y Rev. 953 (1990).
24. See Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7, at 820-22, 841-44.
25. Id. at 820-23.
26. Id. at 821-24.
27. Id. at 820-26.
28. Tina Nabatchi & Lisa Bingham, Expanding Our Models of justice in Dispute Resolution: A Field Test of the Contribution of Interactional Justice (paper presented at conference of the International Association for Conflict Management, June 9-12, 2002) (on file with author).
29. See Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7.
30. Focusing on the substantive fairness of the outcomes themselves. See Morton Deutsch, Justice and Conflict, in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, eds. Morton Deutsch & Peter T. Coleman, 41, 41-44 (San Francisco, 2000).
31. See Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7, at 818-20.
32. Id. at 826-27.
33. See Welsh, supra note 9, at 187-91; Jerry L. Mashaw, The Supreme Court's Due Process Calculus for Administrative Adjudication in Mathews v. Eldridge: Three Factors in Search of a Theory of Value, 44 U. Chi. L. Rev. 28, 46-48 (1976).
34. See Welsh, supra note 9, at 187-91; Jerry L. Mashaw, The Supreme Court's Due Process Calculus for Administrative Adjudication in Mathews v. Eldridge: Three Factors in Search of a Theory of Value, 44 U. Chi. L. Rev. 28, 46-48 (1976).
35. See Welsh, supra note 9, at 187-91.
36. See Lind, supra note 12, at 180-81.
37. See Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7, at 827-29.
38. See Lind, supra note 12, at 177; Tyler & Lind, Procedural Justice, supra note 11, at 77-81.
39. See Lind, supra note 12, at 177; Tyler & Lind, Procedural Justice, supra note 11, at 77-81.
40. See Nancy A. Welsh & Barbara Gray, Searching for a Sense of Control: The Challenge Presented by Community Conflicts over Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, 10 Penn. St. Envtl. L. Rev. 295, 306 (2002); Tyler & Lind, Procedural Justice, supra note 11, at 80.
41. See Nancy A. Welsh & Barbara Gray, Searching for a Sense of Control: The Challenge Presented by Community Conflicts over Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, 10 Penn. St. Envtl. L. Rev. 295, 306 (2002); Tyler & Lind, Procedural Justice, supra note 11, at 80.
42. Tyler & Lind, Procedural Justice, supra note 11, at 77.
43. See Keith Allred, Anger and Retaliation in Conflict, in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, supra note 19; Ronald Fisher, Intergroup Conflict, in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, supra note 19, at 170-74.
44. See Keith Allred, Anger and Retaliation in Conflict, in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, supra note 19; Ronald Fisher, Intergroup Conflict, in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, supra note 19, at 170-74.
45. See Kwok Leung & Michael Morris, Justice Through the Lens of Culture and Ethnicity, in Handbook of Justice Research in Law, supra note 11, at 369.
46. See Allred, supra note 29, at 250.
47. Allen Buchanan, A Critical Introduction to Rawls' Theory of Justice, in John Rawls' Theory of Social Justice: An Introduction, eds. H. Gene Blocker & Elizabeth H. Smith, 3, 7 (Athens, Ohio, 1980) [hereinafter John Rawls' Theory].
48. Fiss, supra note 5, at 1076-78, 1085.
49. See Gary LaFree & Christine Rack, The Effects of Participants' Ethnicity and Gender on Monetary Outcomes in Mediated and Adjudicated Civil Cases, 30 Law & Soc'y Rev. 767, 789 (1996).
50. See Robert A. Baruch Bush & Joseph P. Folger, The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition 18-19 (San Francisco, 1994).
51. See Deutsch, supra note 19, at 41 (describing distributive justice). Many theories have been developed to serve as the bases for defining a just society, including utilitarianism, liberalism, socialism, libertarianism and communitarianism, to name just a few.
52. There are other approaches, besides that of Rawls, which also have potential links to procedural justice in their elaboration of social justice. See, e.g. Georgia Warnke, Justice and Interpretation (Cambridge, Mass., 1993) (critical hermeneutics); Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg (Cambridge, Mass., 1996) (discourse theory) ; Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2d ed. (Notre Dame, 1984) (Aristotelian virtue ethics as the development of a tradition).
53. There are other approaches, besides that of Rawls, which also have potential links to procedural justice in their elaboration of social justice. See, e.g. Georgia Warnke, Justice and Interpretation (Cambridge, Mass., 1993) (critical hermeneutics); Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg (Cambridge, Mass., 1996) (discourse theory) ; Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2d ed. (Notre Dame, 1984) (Aristotelian virtue ethics as the development of a tradition).
54. There are other approaches, besides that of Rawls, which also have potential links to procedural justice in their elaboration of social justice. See, e.g. Georgia Warnke, Justice and Interpretation (Cambridge, Mass., 1993) (critical hermeneutics); Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg (Cambridge, Mass., 1996) (discourse theory) ; Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2d ed. (Notre Dame, 1984) (Aristotelian virtue ethics as the development of a tradition).
55. See Buchanan, supra note 32, at 6.
56. John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement 41 (Cambridge, Mass. 2001) (emphasis added) [hereinafter Justice as Fairness]. See also John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass., 1971); John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York, 1996).
57. John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement 41 (Cambridge, Mass. 2001) (emphasis added) [hereinafter Justice as Fairness]. See also John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass., 1971); John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York, 1996).
58. John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement 41 (Cambridge, Mass. 2001) (emphasis added) [hereinafter Justice as Fairness]. See also John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass., 1971); John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York, 1996).
59. Rawls, Justice as Fairness, supra note 39, at 42-43.
60. Id. at 48.
61. Id. at 50.
62. Id. at 49. Rawls, unlike most attorneys, seems to use adjudication to include all forms of political deliberation and decision making.
63. Id. at 56.
64. Id. at. 53.
65. Id. at 60. It is noteworthy that Rawls does not demand equality, just the scheme that most improves the position of those who may still be described as the least advantaged.
66. See Nancy A. Welsh, The Thinning Vision of Self-Determination in Court-Connected Mediation: The Inevitable Price of Institutionalization? 6 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 1, 15-18; Thomas E. Carbonneau, The Story of Arbitration Law, 14, No. 6 World Arb. & Mediation Rpt. 162, 163 (June 2003); Warren E. Burger, Isn't There a Better Way? 68 A.B.A. J. 274, 274-76.
67. See Nancy A. Welsh, The Thinning Vision of Self-Determination in Court-Connected Mediation: The Inevitable Price of Institutionalization? 6 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 1, 15-18; Thomas E. Carbonneau, The Story of Arbitration Law, 14, No. 6 World Arb. & Mediation Rpt. 162, 163 (June 2003); Warren E. Burger, Isn't There a Better Way? 68 A.B.A. J. 274, 274-76.
68. See Nancy A. Welsh, The Thinning Vision of Self-Determination in Court-Connected Mediation: The Inevitable Price of Institutionalization? 6 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 1, 15-18; Thomas E. Carbonneau, The Story of Arbitration Law, 14, No. 6 World Arb. & Mediation Rpt. 162, 163 (June 2003); Warren E. Burger, Isn't There a Better Way? 68 A.B.A. J. 274, 274-76.
69. Diversity Issues in Mediadon: Controlling Negative Cultural Myths, 1995 J. Disp. Resol. 55, 67, 86 (1995).
70. Robert A. Baruch Bush, Mediation and Adjudication, Dispute Resolution and Ideology: An Imaginary Conversation, 3J. Contemp. Legal Issues 1, 11 (1989-90).
71. See Jonathan Cohen, Let's Put Ourselves Out of Business: On Respect, Responsibility and Dialogue in Dispute Resolution, 108 Penn St. L. Rev. 227 (2003).
72. See Tyler & Lind, Procedural Justice, supra note 11, at 86-88.
73. See Fiss, supra note 5, at 1076-78, 1089; Richard Delgado et al., Fairness and Formality: Minimizing the Risk of Prejudice in Alternative Dispute Resolution, 1985 Wis. L. Rev. 1359, 1400-04; Trina Grillo, The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women, 100 Yale L.J. 1545, 1600-10 (1999). See also Eric Yamamoto, ADR: Where Have the Critics Gone? 36 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1055 (1996).
74. See Fiss, supra note 5, at 1076-78, 1089; Richard Delgado et al., Fairness and Formality: Minimizing the Risk of Prejudice in Alternative Dispute Resolution, 1985 Wis. L. Rev. 1359, 1400-04; Trina Grillo, The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women, 100 Yale L.J. 1545, 1600-10 (1999). See also Eric Yamamoto, ADR: Where Have the Critics Gone? 36 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1055 (1996).
75. See Fiss, supra note 5, at 1076-78, 1089; Richard Delgado et al., Fairness and Formality: Minimizing the Risk of Prejudice in Alternative Dispute Resolution, 1985 Wis. L. Rev. 1359, 1400-04; Trina Grillo, The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women, 100 Yale L.J. 1545, 1600-10 (1999). See also Eric Yamamoto, ADR: Where Have the Critics Gone? 36 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1055 (1996).
76. See Fiss, supra note 5, at 1076-78, 1089; Richard Delgado et al., Fairness and Formality: Minimizing the Risk of Prejudice in Alternative Dispute Resolution, 1985 Wis. L. Rev. 1359, 1400-04; Trina Grillo, The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women, 100 Yale L.J. 1545, 1600-10 (1999). See also Eric Yamamoto, ADR: Where Have the Critics Gone? 36 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1055 (1996).
77. This criticism bears some similarity to critics' attack on Rawls's "original position" in which agents deliberate behind the "veil of ignorance." See Robert G. Bone, Agreeing to Fair Process: The Problem with Contractarian Theories of Procedural Fairness, 83 B.U. L. Rev. 485, 531-39 (2003) ; Louis Katzner, The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance, in John Rawls' Theory, supra note 32, at 42.
78. This criticism bears some similarity to critics' attack on Rawls's "original position" in which agents deliberate behind the "veil of ignorance." See Robert G. Bone, Agreeing to Fair Process: The Problem with Contractarian Theories of Procedural Fairness, 83 B.U. L. Rev. 485, 531-39 (2003) ; Louis Katzner, The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance, in John Rawls' Theory, supra note 32, at 42.
79. See Sternlight, supra note 4, at 839; Menkel-Meadow, supra note 10, at 2670.
80. See Sternlight, supra note 4, at 839; Menkel-Meadow, supra note 10, at 2670.
81. Fiss, supra note 5, at 1078.
82. See Deborah Hensler, Our Courts, Ourselves: How the Alternative Dispute Resolution Movement Is Re-Shaping Our Legal System, 108 Penn St. L. Rev. 165 (2003); Deborah Hensler, Suppose It's Not True: Challenging Mediation Ideology, 2002 J. Disp. Resol. 81, 9699; Resnik, supra note 3.
83. See Deborah Hensler, Our Courts, Ourselves: How the Alternative Dispute Resolution Movement Is Re-Shaping Our Legal System, 108 Penn St. L. Rev. 165 (2003); Deborah Hensler, Suppose It's Not True: Challenging Mediation Ideology, 2002 J. Disp. Resol. 81, 9699; Resnik, supra note 3.
84. See Deborah Hensler, Our Courts, Ourselves: How the Alternative Dispute Resolution Movement Is Re-Shaping Our Legal System, 108 Penn St. L. Rev. 165 (2003); Deborah Hensler, Suppose It's Not True: Challenging Mediation Ideology, 2002 J. Disp. Resol. 81, 9699; Resnik, supra note 3.
85. See Judith Resnik, Trial as Error, Jurisdiction as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 925, 1034 (2000).
86. This represents a variation of Babcock and Massaro's problem case, "The Due Process Game." Barbara Babcock & Toni Massaro, Civil Procedure: Cases and Problems, 2d ed., l (Gaithersburg, 2001).
87. This is to counteract the disconnect that can afflict the attorney-client relationship. See Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7, at 840; Deborah Hensler, The Real World of Tort Litigation, in Everyday Practices, supranote 12, at 155.
88. This is to counteract the disconnect that can afflict the attorney-client relationship. See Welsh, Making Deals, supra note 7, at 840; Deborah Hensler, The Real World of Tort Litigation, in Everyday Practices, supranote 12, at 155.
89. "The Death Case" (unpublished classroom simulation) (on file with author).
90. See Wales, supra note 47, at 7-15.
91. See Nancy A. Welsh, Stepping Back Through the Looking Glass: Real Conversations with Real Disputants About the Place, Value and Meaning of Mediation, 19 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 573, 669-71 (2004).