scholarly journals In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of Their Experiences in the Civil Justice System

1990 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 953 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Allan Lind ◽  
Robert J. Maccoun ◽  
Patricia A. Ebener ◽  
William L. F. Felstiner ◽  
Deborah R. Hensler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Civil Justice System

scholarly journals The new Civil Procedure Rules. 1. The process of dispute resolution and litigation

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Rix
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Previous Article ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Civil Justice System

In the second of my previous two articles on the role of the expert witness, I anticipated the implementation of Lord Woolf's proposed reforms to the civil justice system in England and Wales (Rix, 1999). These changes came into effect on 26 April 1999 and they represent the most radical changes to the civil justice system for a hundred years. In the previous article, it was not possible to do more than list a few of the key points relevant to experts. The purpose of this article is to describe the changes in detail and show how they will, or can be expected to, affect the role of the expert.

Referral fees – the business of access to justice

Legal Studies ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Higgins
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Legal Services ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Civil Justice System

The paper examines the controversial issue of referral fees for personal injury claims. It looks at the function of referral fees in the civil justice system, their relationship to the guarantees of access to court and the right to seek legal assistance in ECHR Art 6, and the debate about promoting access to justice or a litigious society. It examines the experience of the referral fees market in England and Wales, where the costs of referrals have risen dramatically and there is concern that referrers are auctioning their customers to the highest bidder rather than helping them find competent lawyers. Sir Rupert Jackson recommended banning referral fees in his report on the costs of civil litigation, and the Government has announced it will implement this recommendation. The paper considers the potential effects of a ban on competition in the legal services market and its compatibility with UK and EU competition law. The paper argues that a combination of better regulation of the industry and proper regulation of costs rules is a better and more proportionate way of controlling legal costs and the quality of legal services than an outright ban. While referral fees have not delivered all the benefits one would expect from a for-profit independent referrals service, they can help people obtain information about their legal rights, and competent lawyers to enforce them. This service is particularly valuable given that the state has substantially cut public funding of the civil justice system in recent years.

Lay Expectations of the Civil Justice System

1988 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 137 ◽  
Author(s):  
William M. O'Barr ◽  
John M. Conley
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Civil Justice System

scholarly journals The American medical liability system: An alliance between legal and medical professionals can promote patient safety and be cost effective

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Steven E. Pegalis
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Liability ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Culture Of Safety ◽  
Civil Justice System

Objective: The aim of this paper is to evaluate a hypothesis premised on the idea that if medical leaders in the United States support an unfettered access for patients injured by medical error to the American civil justice system, that approach would improve patient safety and be cost effective. Method: An analysis of the relevant legal and medical literature. Results: Medical liability in the American civil justice system derived from traditional tort law is based on accountability. Reforms applied to medical liability cases urged by healthcare providers limit and in some cases eliminate legal rights of patients injured by healthcare error which rights exist for all others in non-medical cases. Yet medical liability cases have promoted a culture of safety. Information learned from medical liability cases has been used to make care safer with a reduced incidence of adverse outcomes and lower costs. A just culture of safety can limit provider emotional stress. Using the external pressures to reduce the incidence of law suits and promoting ethical mandates to be safer and disclose the truth can promote provider satisfaction. Conclusions: An alliance between legal and medical professionals on the common ground of respect for the due process legal rights of patients in the American system of justice and the need for accountability can make care safer and can be cost effective.

Jeffrey O’Connell and the Market in Tort Claims

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Sebok
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Insurance Scheme ◽  
Theoretical Assumptions ◽  
Tort System ◽  
Tort Litigation ◽  
Fault Compensation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Civil Justice System

AbstractThis article examines a transitional period in Jeffrey O’Connell’s long and productive career as an observer and critic of the American civil justice system. By the early 1970’s O’Connell had begun to abandon enterprise liability as a solution to the waste and undercompensation he saw in the tort system. Eventually O’Connell would develop solutions that focused on constraining plaintiffs’ attorneys, and less on no-fault compensation. Before reaching this point, O’Connell proposed a no-fault insurance scheme that would be paid for by fault-based tort litigation. This proposal, which he called “elective first party no-fault insurance” (“EFPI”) is the focus of this article. In EFPI tort suits would not disappear, and damages would not be limited, but litigation would be conducted by insurers who had been assigned their insured’s lawsuits. This article describes how this novel tort reform would work, and explores the theoretical assumptions upon which it is based. One assumption in particular, which is examined, is that a market in tort litigation could be socially efficient if the right sort of plaintiffs’ lawyers were recruited to conduct it. Finally, this article points out that O’Connell called for the repeal of champerty laws at least a decade before many other modern legal academics focused on the potential of a market in litigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document