 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kamaunu v. Kaaea11/7/2002
te the settlement process lawyers value those in which the judge . . . expresses an opinion, offers a suggestion or conducts some analysis much more than they value the techniques in which the judge asks the attorneys to make some presentation or conduct some analysis. . . . hat litigators want most from judges in settlement conferences is expression of analytical opinion.
William L. Adams, Let's Make a Deal: Effective Utilization of Judicial Settlements in State and Federal Courts, 72 Or. L. Rev. 427, 446-47 (1993) (quoting Wayne D. Brazil, Settling Civil Suits: Litigators, Views About Appropriate Roles and Effective Techniques for Federal Judges 2 (1985)) (emphases added). Allowing judges access to information regarding underlying arbitration proceedings will enable them -- in their mediation role -- to better assess the value of a case and the respective strengths or weaknesses in the positions of the parties, thereby rendering the settlement process more meaningful for all of the participants. See also Samuel G. DeSimone, The National Judicial College, Judicial Settlement Manual, Fostering Settlements Through Judicial Activism, 10-11 (1991) ("The judge active in the settlement process should also consider the use of . . . complementary means of resolving the dispute. . . . . I can think of no better way than to submit such a matter before an arbitration panel acting in effect as a court who will come up with a value for the case. The settlement judge [(as mediator)], armed with this non-mandatory arbitration figure, may well then settle the case in a quick fashion." (Emphasis added.)).
In the event that a trial court's efforts to promote a settlement prove fruitless and the case proceeds to a jury trial, the interests of party litigants in the confidentiality of information disclosed during an arbitration proceeding are preserved by virtue of HAR Rule 23. The rule makes clear that the jury, as the trier of fact, is to be insulated from knowledge of the underlying CAAP proceeding. Similarly, the jury will not be privy to inadmissible evidence or confidences that may have emerged during the pretrial settlement process.
In jury-waived trial situations, we acknowledge the fact that HAR Rule 23 provides in relevant part that:
(A) The clerk shall seal any arbitration award if a trial de novo is requested. . . . The sealed arbitration award shall not be opened . . . until after the judge has rendered a decision in a court trial.
HAR Rule 23(A) (emphasis added). However, even in a bench trial, the interests of the party litigants are similarly preserved because the settlement judge customarily would not preside over the trial, unless counsel and the parties affirmatively stipulate to the trial judge's participation in settlement discussions. Nevertheless, where a party litigant is concerned that a judge presiding over a jury-waived trial has become biased as the result of exposure to the confidential information shared during the settlement conference, the party is free to move for disqualification pursuant to HRS ยง 601-7 (1993). See State v. Ross, 89 Hawaii 371, 974 P.2d 11 (1998) (analyzing the appropriate procedure for seeking disqualification based on personal bias).
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we overrule the ICA's admonition to the trial courts. In all other respects, we affirm the ICA's decision.
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|