Private trials are a form of alternative dispute resolution that parties utilize to avoid a trial in the court system while preserving the right of appeal. The parties agree upon a neutral — usually a retired judge — to sit as a judge pro tempore. In California, for example, the court approves the agreement, and the activity is shifted to the private realm. The lawsuit, however, remains pending on the books in the courthouse until a decision is reached and the matter is concluded.
The advantages of private trials are well promoted. They help assure privacy, or at least discretion, because they are conducted away from the public setting of a courtroom. This approach has great appeal to celebrities who wish to avoid publicity or businesses that are concerned about disclosing sensitive information. The parties have the ability to decide among themselves which procedural and evidentiary rules govern. Private trials are intended to give the parties more control over timing, and the trial date is likely to be set without the risk of postponement due to congestion in the courts. A private judge is in a position to devote as much time as necessary without interruptions or the demands of a crowded docket.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
