Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Judicial Performance Evaluation and Settlement Skills

Stephen Colbran

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    This article proposes five measures of judicial settlement skills, which may be used in an Australian pilot program for judicial performance evaluation. The measures are evaluated by a national survey of barristers and a national survey of judicial officers. The data was also verified by a series of judicial key informant interviews. Both barristers and judicial officers who responded to the surveys thought the proposed measures of judicial settlement skills were important measures of judicial performance. The measures have a high level of internal consistency for barristers but not for judicial officers. There was considerable divergence amongst judicial officers concerning the measures. No significant gender bias was evident in the data. Male and female judges were perceived to be similar performers on settlement skills. Curiously, appellate judges were perceived to be better performers than first instance judges. There was a strong indication that judicial settlement skills decline with judicial age and experience. Consistent with the approaches adopted in Alaska, New Jersey, Hawaii, Arizona and Nova Scotia, any pilot judicial performance evaluation program in Australia should include measures related to judicial settlement skills. This is all the more necessary with the increasing use of and encouragement for alternative dispute resolution techniques and the rise of managerial judging.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)180-204
    JournalJournal of Judicial Administration
    Volume11
    Issue number4
    Publication statusPublished - 2002

    Keywords

    • Legal Practice, Lawyering and the Legal Profession

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Judicial Performance Evaluation and Settlement Skills'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this