Customized Litigation: The Case for Making Civil Procedure Negotiable

53 Pages Posted: 8 Mar 2006  

Michael L. Moffitt

University of Oregon - School of Law

Abstract

This article calls for a complete re-conceptualization of the procedural rules governing modern litigation. Specifically, it suggests that litigants ought to be given the opportunity to customize their litigation experience - that procedural rules should be treated as default rules from which parties can mutually negotiate deviations. Although they are not typically labeled as such, modest examples of customization already occur both within the rules of civil procedure and extra-judicially. This article argues that much greater tailoring is possible, and it suggests three criteria for assessing how much deviation from the current baseline is tolerable. This article argues that a judicial system that presents an opportunity for customized litigation would be more procedurally just, more efficient, and more accessible than one with only a set of non-negotiable procedural rules.

Keywords: Litigation, Civil Procedure, Default Rules, Customization

JEL Classification: K00, K10, K40, K41, K49

Suggested Citation

Moffitt, Michael L., Customized Litigation: The Case for Making Civil Procedure Negotiable. George Washington Law Review, Vol. 75, 2007. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=888221

Michael L. Moffitt (Contact Author)

University of Oregon - School of Law ( email )

1515 Agate Street
Eugene, OR Oregon 97403
United States
541-346-0506 (Phone)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
204
rank
136,384
Abstract Views
1,213
PlumX