IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v22y2025i4p502-524.html

Settlementality

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica Bregant
  • Jennifer K. Robbennolt
  • Verity Winship

Abstract

Is settlement of civil litigation good or bad for the legal system? Should we have more or less of it? Should settlement have a private or public purpose? Legal scholars and lawyers have considered these questions for decades, but very little is known about the views of ordinary people. This Article reports results from a nationally representative survey of over 1000 U.S. adults about what respondents thought settlement should look like. Respondents indicated, for example, the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements like these: “A settlement between two parties is nobody's business but their own.” “Settling parties are more interested in money than justice.” Our findings convey nuanced lay intuitions about civil settlement, including mixed views about secrecy and settlements, and a tendency to want settling defendants to admit fault and apologize. We also discover that a striking number of lay observers prefer private resolution through contract to oversight by judges. Indeed, a considerable majority thought that at least 75% of disputes would be resolved by settlement in an ideal world, with 100% being the most common choice. The view that more cases should settle was both striking and complicated, highlighting the tension between private resolution of disputes and the public function of litigation and courts.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Bregant & Jennifer K. Robbennolt & Verity Winship, 2025. "Settlementality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 502-524, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:22:y:2025:i:4:p:502-524
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.70008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70008
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.70008?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira & Lester Kenyatta Spence, 2003. "Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(2), pages 354-367, April.
    2. Jennifer K. Robbennolt & Jessica Bregant & Verity Winship, 2023. "Settlement schemas: How laypeople understand civil settlement," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 488-533, September.
    3. MacCoun Robert & Pacula Rosalie Liccardo & Chriqui Jamie & Harris Katherine & Reuter Peter, 2009. "Do Citizens Know Whether Their State Has Decriminalized Marijuana? Assessing the Perceptual Component of Deterrence Theory," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 347-371, June.
    4. Jennifer K. Robbennolt, 2006. "Apologies and Settlement Levers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 333-373, July.
    5. Theodore Eisenberg & Charlotte Lanvers, 2009. "What is the Settlement Rate and Why Should We Care?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 111-146, March.
    6. Kristina Murphy & Tom R. Tyler & Amy Curtis, 2009. "Nurturing regulatory compliance: Is procedural justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 1-26, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jennifer K. Robbennolt & Jessica Bregant & Verity Winship, 2023. "Settlement schemas: How laypeople understand civil settlement," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 488-533, September.
    2. Kantorowicz-Reznichenko Elena, 2015. "Day-Fines: Should the Rich Pay More?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 481-501, November.
    3. James L. Gibson*, 2007. "“Truth” And “Reconciliation” As Social Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 257-281, April.
    4. Barry Oliver & Chuyi Yang & Lei Zhang, 2025. "On the persistence of law firm performance in securities class action lawsuits," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 65(3), pages 2544-2588, September.
    5. Mark Gough, 2021. "A Tale of Two Forums: Employment Discrimination Outcomes in Arbitration and Litigation," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 74(4), pages 875-897, August.
    6. Risa Kitagawa, 2024. "Justice as fairness or retribution? Citizen reactions to domestic trials of wartime violence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(4), pages 612-626, July.
    7. Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2023. "Modern judicial confirmation hearings and institutional support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(3), pages 364-369, May.
    8. Grajzl, Peter & Cepec, Jaka & Mörec, Barbara, 2026. "Does court-annexed mediation facilitate case disposition? Evidence from civil and commercial lawsuits," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    9. John J. Donohue III & Benjamin Ewing & David Pelopquin, 2010. "Rethinking America's Illegal Drug Policy," NBER Chapters, in: Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs, pages 215-281, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Friehe, Tim & Pham, Cat Lam, 2021. "Accident avoidance and settlement bargaining: The role of reciprocity," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    11. Nathan T. Carrington & Logan Strother, 2023. "Plugging the pipe? Evaluating the (null) effects of leaks on Supreme Court legitimacy," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 669-712, September.
    12. Aaron Chalfin & Justin McCrary, 2017. "Criminal Deterrence: A Review of the Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(1), pages 5-48, March.
    13. Chu, Yu-Wei Luke, 2014. "The effects of medical marijuana laws on illegal marijuana use," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 43-61.
    14. Stig S. Gezelius, 2026. "Administrative Sanctions and Loose Legal Norms: Resistance and Street‐Level Policy Reversal in Norway," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 734-748, April.
    15. Pacula Rosalie Liccardo & Kilmer Beau & Grossman Michael & Chaloupka Frank J, 2010. "Risks and Prices: The Role of User Sanctions in Marijuana Markets," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-38, February.
    16. Daryl Koehn & Maria Goranova, 2018. "Do Investors See Value in Ethically Sound CEO Apologies? Investigating Stock Market Reaction to CEO Apologies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 311-322, October.
    17. Jonas Tallberg & Michael Zürn, 2019. "The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 581-606, December.
    18. Ana M. Aranda & Tal Simons, 2023. "Clearing the Smoke: Regulations, Moral Legitimacy, and Performance in the U.S. Tobacco Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(4), pages 803-819, November.
    19. Claudine Desrieux & Romain Espinosa, 2019. "Case selection and judicial decision-making: evidence from French labor courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 57-88, February.
    20. Jenny Williams & Rosalie Liccardo Pacula & Rosanna Smart, 2019. "De Facto or De Jure? Ethnic Differences in Quit Responses to Legal Protections of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries," NBER Working Papers 25555, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:22:y:2025:i:4:p:502-524. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.