Settlement Conferences in State Appellate Courts

The increased volume of appeals in cases has led to delays in finalizing an appeal. This has prompted state appellate courts to re-evaluate their case management procedures and adopt methods that promote speedier resolution of appellate cases.

This article focuses on the use of settlement conferences prior to oral argument to reduce the backlog of cases and accelerate the appeal process. The stated goals of settlement conference programs are to encourage the settlement of appeals, simplify the issues, expedite appeals, and reduce costs.

Voluntary Participation in Settlement Conferences

Some states, such as Oregon and Texas, have a program of voluntary settlement conferences. The settlement conferences are typically conducted by attorney mediators or retired judges in an informal manner. The settlement judge or mediator encourages the litigants to narrow the issues. The settlement judge also reminds the litigants of the expense associated with pursuing the appeal and facilitates negotiation between the litigants.

Mandatory Participation in Settlement Conferences

Some states, such as Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, require settlement conferences prior to oral argument and decision by the appellate court. Connecticut uses retired judges to conduct settlement conferences. The conferences are informal, and the retired judge acts as a mediator between the litigants. The judge's role is to see whether a settlement can be reached before briefs are filed and oral arguments are held.

Types of Cases in Which Settlement Conferences Are Used

Most state appellate courts limit settlement conferences to appeals in civil cases. Settlement conferences are generally not used in criminal or juvenile cases. Some states do not use settlement conferences in paternity or child custody cases or in lawsuits involving the termination of parental rights.