IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v12y2015i4p686-715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inside the Caucus: An Empirical Analysis of Mediation from Within

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Klerman
  • Lisa Klerman

Abstract

This article provides a glimpse into the worlds of mediation and settlement negotiation. Because they are almost always private, there has been relatively little empirical analysis of the dynamics of settlement or mediation. This article analyzes a unique data set derived from a mediator's contemporaneous notes of mediations involving employment disputes, such as claims of discrimination or wrongful termination. Although the data set includes more than 400 cases, since they were all mediated by a single mediator, this article can be viewed as a case study. Among the most interesting facts uncovered by this analysis are the following. Mediation can be extremely effective in facilitating settlement. The mediator studied here achieved a settlement rate of over 94 percent. There are very few gender differences, whether one looks at the gender of the plaintiff or the gender of the lawyers. For example, settlement rates are the same for male and female plaintiffs and lawyers. On average, cases settle much closer to the defendant's first offer than the plaintiff's, irrespective of case type, size of law firm, or other factors. A mediator's proposal appears to be the most effective mediation technique. A mediator's proposal was used in almost 90 percent of cases and, when it was used, the settlement rate was over 99 percent.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Klerman & Lisa Klerman, 2015. "Inside the Caucus: An Empirical Analysis of Mediation from Within," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 686-715, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:12:y:2015:i:4:p:686-715
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12089
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12089
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12089?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benjamin Balzer & Johannes Schneider, 2021. "Managing a conflict: optimal alternative dispute resolution," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(2), pages 415-445, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:12:y:2015:i:4:p:686-715. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.