Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:42:51.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of in-court settlements: empirical evidence from a German trial court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2018

MICHAEL BERLEMANN  and
ROBIN CHRISTMANN
MICHAEL BERLEMANN*
Affiliation:
Helmut-Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany
ROBIN CHRISTMANN*
Affiliation:
Leibniz School of Business, Hanover, Germany
*
*Email: michael.berlemann@hsu-hh.de
**Email: christmann@leibniz-fh.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Because verdicts are typically the more costly resolution of legal disputes, most governments are interested in high settlement rates. In this paper, we use a unique dataset of 860 case records from a German trial court to explore which institutional factors have a significant impact on the decision to settle in civil law litigation. We find that procedural aspects and individual characteristics of the involved judge have a significant impact on in-court settlement probability. We also find that judge-specific aspects such as the judge's gender may have an impact on settlement probabilities in certain subfields of law. Based on our empirical results, we derive some conclusions for legal policies that aim at increasing settlement rates.

Type
Symposium on the Empirics of Judicial Institutions
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 143 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ai, C., and Norton, E. (2003), “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models,” Economics Letters 80: 123–9.Google Scholar
Bartus, T. (2005), “Estimation of Marginal Effects Using Margeff,” Stata Journal 5 (3): 309–29.Google Scholar
Berlemann, M., and Christmann, R. (2016), “Do judges react to the probability of appellate review? Empirical evidence from court procedures,” Applied Economics Letters 23: 202–5.Google Scholar
Bielen, S., Marneffe, W., and Veereck, L. (2015), “An Empirical Analysis of Case Disposition Time in Belgium,” Review of Law and Economics 11 (2): 293–316.Google Scholar
Bielen, S., Grajzl, P., and Marneffe, W. (2016), “Understanding the Time to Court Case Resolution: A Competing Risk Analysis Using Belgian Data,” unpublished manuscript, Faculty of Business Economics, Hasselt University.Google Scholar
Boyd, C., and Hoffman, D. (2012), “Litigating toward Settlement,” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 29 (4): 898–929.Google Scholar
Bundestag (2000), Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Reform des Zivilprozesses, Drucksache 14/4722, Berlin: Bundestag.Google Scholar
Christensen, R., and Szmer, J. (2012), “Examining the efficiency of the US courts of appeals: Pathologies and Prescriptions,” International Review of Law and Economics 32 (1): 30–7.Google Scholar
Cremers, K., and Schliessler, P. (2015), “Patent Litigation Settlement in Germany: Why Parties Settle During Trial,” European Journal of Law and Economics 40 (2): 185–208.Google Scholar
Croson, R., and Gneezy, U. (2009), “Gender Differences in Preferences,” Journal of Economic Literature 47 (2): 1–27.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T. (1990), “Testing the Selection Effect: A New Theoretical Framework with Empirical Tests,” Journal of Legal Studies 19 (2): 337–58.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T., and Lanvers, C. (2009), ‘What is the Settlement Rate and Why Should We Care?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6 (1): 111–46.Google Scholar
Fenn, P., and Rickmann, N. (2001), “Asymmetric Information and the Settlement of Insurance Claims,” Journal of Risk and Insurance 68 (4): 615–30.Google Scholar
Fon, V., and Parisi, F. (2006), “Judicial Precedents in Civil Law Systems: A Dynamic Analysis,” International Review of Law and Economics 26 (4): 519–35.Google Scholar
Gould, J. (1973), “The Economics of Legal Conflict,” Journal of Legal Studies 108 (1–2): 279–300.Google Scholar
Grajzl, P., and Zajc, K. (2016), “Litigation and the Timing of Settlement: Evidence from Commercial Disputes,” European Journal of Law and Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Hilbe, J. (2009), Logistic Regression Models, Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Huber, M. (2009), “Grundwissen– Zivilprozessrecht: Früher erster Termin oder schriftliches Vorverfahren,” Juristische Schulung 8 (9): 683–4.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. (2010), Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, Norwich: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kulik, C., Perry, E., and Pepper, M. (2003), “Here Comes the Judge: The Influence of Judge Personal Characteristics on Federal Sexual Harassment Case Outcomes,” Law and Human Behavior 27 (1): 69–86.Google Scholar
Landes, W. (1971), “An Economic Analysis of the Courts,” Journal of Law and Economics 14 (1): 61–107.Google Scholar
Ledermann, L. (1999), “Which Cases Go to Trial?: An Empirical Study of Predictors of Failure to Settle,” Case Western Reserve Law Review 49 (2): 315–58.Google Scholar
Lurie, P. (2013), “Guided choice: early mediated settlements and/or customized arbritrations,” Journal of the American College of Construction Lawyers 7 (2): 167–75.Google Scholar
Mailath, G., and Samuelson, L. (2006), Repeated Games and Reputations, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McBride, M., and Skaperdas, S. (2014), “Conflict, Settlement, and the Shadow of the Future,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 105: 75–89.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (1973), “An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration,” Journal of Legal Studies 2 (2): 399–458.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (1985), “Reexamining the Selection Hypothesis: Learning from Wittman's Mistakes,” Journal of Legal Studies 14: 215–43.Google Scholar
Priest, G., and Klein, B. (1984), “The Selection of Disputes for Litigation,” Journal of Legal Studies 13: 1–55.Google Scholar
Ramseyer, M. (2012), “Talent Matters: Judicial Productivity and Speed in Japan,” International Review of Law and Economics 32: 38–48.Google Scholar
Schneider, M. (2005), “Judicial Career Incentives and Court Performance: An Empirical Study of the German Labour Courts of Appeal,” European Journal of Law and Economics 20: 127–44.Google Scholar
Shavell, S. (1982), “The Social Versus the Private Incentive to Bring Suit in a Costly Legal System,” Journal of Legal Studies 11: 333–9.Google Scholar
Shavell, S. (1995), “Alternative Dispute Resolution: An Economic Analysis,” Journal of Legal Studies 24 (1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Spier, K. (1992), “The Dynamics of Pretrial Negotiations,” Review of Economic Studies 59: 93–108.Google Scholar
Spier, K. (2007), “Litigation,” in Shavell, S. & Polinsky, A. (eds), Handbook of Law and Economics, 259–342, New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
Spier, K., and Hay, B. (1998), “Litigation and Settlement,” in Newmann, P. (ed.), New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, 442, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt (2009), “Rechtspflege: Zivilgerichte. Korrigierte Ergebnisse,” Fachserie 10, Reihe 2.1, Wiesbaden: Bundesdruckerei.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt (2016), “Justiz- & Rechtspflege: Gerichtsverfahren,” https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Rechtspflege/Tabellen/Gerichtsverfahren.html;jsessionid=0F5B91AE654AC1C5104FD6A9A395DA75.cae1 (downloaded January 31, 2017).Google Scholar
US Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (1982), “Judicial Conference of the United States,” final draft, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Wittman, D. (1985), “Is the Selection of Cases for Trial Biased?” Journal of Legal Studies 14: 185–214.Google Scholar
Yildiz, M. (2011), “Bargaining with optimism,” Annual Review of Economics 3: 451–78.Google Scholar