Note

Attitude, Evaluation, and DecisionMaking by Civil Litigants
and Their Lawyers
Findings from the Nationwide Surveys(Part 1 of 2)

Daniel FOOTE, Mikio KAWAI,
Akira MORIYA, Shusuke KAKIUCHI,
Yuriko KAMINAGA, Yasuhiro WADA,
Tomohiko MAEDA, Shozo OTA

Preface

In this and following issue, we present a collection of essays based on ourpresentations at the mini-symposium held in the annual meeting of theJapanese Association of Law and Society on 10 May 2008.
We appreciate it that the Meijo University Law Association has given us theopportunity to publish these essays all together just as in the original minisymposium. It helps us very much to present the results of the Civil Litigation
Behavior Research Project from various angles and to provide a comprehensive
general view of this extensive research project.

(1)

(名城

'09)

58−3− 158

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート
their problems, dispute consciousness, and the roles played by lawyers andNationwide Survey of Civil Litigation Behavior
Introduction and Overview

extrajudicial dispute resolution processes.
Our group, the Civil Litigation Behavior Research Group (otherwise known
as Group C), has focused primarily on the civil litigation process. Group C consists of sixteen researchers: myself as the research representative; the following

Daniel H. Footesix principal researchers: KAMINAGA Yuriko (Senshu University), KAWAI
Mikio (Toin Yokohama University), MORIYA Akira (Kwansei Gakuin
The essays contained in this special collection (which will appear in this andUniversity), WADA Yasuhiro (Osaka Prefecture University), and OTA Shozo

the following volume of Meijo Law Review) explore various facets of the re-and KAKIUCHI Shusuke (both of The University of Tokyo); and the following

search and findings from a major multi-year study of civil litigation behavior innine cooperating researchers: MAEDA Tomohiko (Meijo University), FUJITAJapan, the Civil Litigation Behavior Research Project. That research project,

Masahiro (National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies), HASEGAWA

which commenced in 2003 and is still underway, is part of an even broader study

Kiyoshi (Tokyo Metropolitan University), IIDA Takashi (Seikei University),of civil disputes, the Nationwide Survey on Civil Disputes (Japan): Disputeand HIRATA Ayako, IRIE Hideaki, ONO Hiroaki, SAEKI Masahiko, andResolution and Civil Justice in a Legalizing Society.

SAKAI Masahiro (all of The University of Tokyo).

The overall research project, which is headed by Professor MURAYAMA

There are four principal components to the research our group has under-

Masayuki of Meiji University, includes several teams of researchers. The re-taken: (1) compilation of data from the court files for 1132 randomly selected

search builds on such models as the (Wisconsin) Civil Litigation Research

civil cases, from courts throughout Japan; (2) a questionnaire survey addressed

Project1 , a path-breaking study conducted in the United States in the early

to all individual litigants and lawyers involved in those 1132 cases; (3) a ques-

1980s, which sought to provide a clearer picture of the civil litigation processtionnaire survey addressed to members of the general public, utilizing identicalthrough an analysis of case files and interviews with the parties and lawyers in-or similar questions to those utilized in phase (2) of the research; and (4) an

volved, and Paths to Justice (Genn, 1999), another path-breaking study con-Internet survey, utilizing several case scenarios to elucidate perceptions of theducted in England in the late 1990s, which focused on the questions of how often

civil litigation process. (I have deliberately used the word "components," rather

people experience problems that might have a legal solution ("justiciable

than "stages" or "phases," because the various components have overlapped sub-events") and how they set about solving such problems. Here in Japan, the over-stantially.) The following brief essay provides an overview of each of those com-

all research project seeks to elucidate what kinds of legal problems Japaneseponents.

citizens have, how those problems develop into legal disputes, and how and why
disputants bring those cases to court. Other teams of researchers involved in the

1. Case File Researchoverall project have investigated such matters as the types of legal problems
Japanese citizens experience, the approaches disputants have taken to resolving
58−3−157 (名城 '09)

(2)

The first major component of our research is a compilation of information
(3)

(名城

'09)

58−3− 156

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノートfrom the official court files for well over 1000 civil cases from throughout

ordinary civil cases during the main stage of the research and leave out family

Japan. This component proceeded in two stages, a preliminary stage under-

matters. While recognizing the importance of empirical study of family cases,

taken in 2003 and 2004, and the main stage, conducted primarily in 2005. For

we reached this decision for several reasons. These included the low proportion

both stages, the Supreme Court of Japan and the court staff at courts through-of family matters in the caseload of district courts and the likelihood of low re-out Japan afforded us unprecedented cooperation in conducting the research.

sponse rates by parties in such cases, both of which would make it difficult to

The preliminary stage was designed to pre-test and refine the data collection

reach meaningful conclusions unless the sample size was expanded greatly, as

process. During the preliminary stage, research teams (for which researchers

well as a major change in jurisdictional standards, shifting most family mattersfrom other groups assisted researchers from Group C) collected informationthat previously had been under district court jurisdiction to family courts rightfrom the case files for 125 cases, 25 cases each from five district courts (those inat the time on which the main stage of our research would focus.

Tokyo, Osaka, Sapporo, Fukuoka, and Okayama). In this stage, we were rather

In the main stage, teams of researchers compiled information from the caseambitious with regard to the types of information collected. For example, forfiles for 1132 ordinary civil cases concluded during calendar year 2004. The re-the 125 cases examined in the preliminary stage, researchers compiled informa-search focused on cases involving at least one individual litigant (in othertion regarding the contents of each hearing date throughout the proceedings.

words, business-business disputes and other disputes involving only institu-

Cases examined during the preliminary stage included both ordinary civil cases

tional litigants were excluded), and excluding family matters. The Supreme

and family matters.

Court's General Secretariat provided us with a list of the case numbers for all

The preliminary stage provided us with many valuable lessons. Perhaps thecivil cases nationwide that met our research criteria. We were then allowed tomost important lesson was the need to streamline and refine the data collection

randomize that list ourselves, in order to specify the cases we would investigate.

process. Otherwise, given the relative unwieldiness of the coding process we

In doing so, we calculated the proportion of the total nationwide caseload occu-

were using and the amount of information we were seeking to assemble, experi-

pied by each of the 50 district court districts throughout Japan (the area ofenced researchers found that processing even relatively straightforward cases

which is identical to that of each of the 47 prefectures, with the exception of

was rather time-consuming, with more complex cases sometimes requiring a

Hokkaido, which is divided into four districts), and weighted our sample of 1132

full day. Given our plan to examine over 1000 cases nationwide, utilizing stu-cases accordingly. Utilizing the list of cases we had compiled, we then made ar-dents to assist in the data collection effort, feasibility concerns necessitatedrangements, with the assistance of the Supreme Court's General Secretariat, forstreamlining the process. Bearing the above lesson in mind, over the subsequent

court clerks at district courts in each of the districts to assemble the files foryear members of Group C, with the assistance of a computer software design

those cases and facilitate our investigation of the files.

professional, devised a special software package for coding and inputting caseIn the summer and fall of 2005, teams of researchers (including members offile information, which included guidance on difficult and/or frequently arisingGroup C, researchers from other groups, and students who had attended special

questions; and we also prepared a manual for researchers.

training sessions and who were supervised by team members) visited each of theAfter the preliminary stage, the members of Group C also decided to focus on

50 districts and compiled data from the case files, in accordance with the data-58−3−155 (名城 '09)

(5)

(4)

(名城

'09)

58−3− 154

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート

input software package prepared by Group C. Through the above process, we as-

the Wisconsin Civil Litigation Research Project and in the Paths to Justice pro-sembled data on 1132 randomly selected civil cases concluded in 2004. In addition

ject, the survey instruments utilized by other groups in the Nationwide Survey

to information on court district, docket number, and date on which the case wasof Civil Disputes (Japan), discussions with lawyers, and numerous otherclosed, researchers compiled information on the following matters: names andsources. Members of Group C also devised numerous questions of our own,

addresses (and, if identifiable, gender, approximate age, occupation, etc.) of all

aimed at exploring such matters as the impact of gender, as well as features ofparties; whether parties were represented or not and, if either or both sides were

the Japanese civil litigation system that have attracted widespread attention,

represented, names and addresses (and, if identifiable, gender, approximate age,such as the weight said to be placed on settlement. In early 2005, the question-etc.) of all attorneys; number of court dates, by category (e.g., preparatory ses-naires prepared for the pre-test stage of our research were implemented (bysions, oral testimony sessions, settlement sessions, etc.); nature of claim (as re-Central Research Services, Inc., an opinion research instituted based in Tokyo),corded by the court clerk); summary of claim (as set forth in the pleadings);

targeting the 301 individual litigants and lawyers who were involved in the 125

amount claimed; existence of counter-suit; preliminary dispositions; orders re-cases investigated in the preliminary stage of the case file research. Of those 301

lating to payment, evidence, or other matters; certain other procedural matters;

subjects, 76 responded, yielding an overall response rate of 25.2%.

result (including, where applicable, terms of decree, existence of provisional dis-Based on the results from the pre-testing of the questionnaires, discussions

position, award of court fees, amount of settlement, etc.); and existence of ap-

with researchers from Central Research Services who had directly implemented

peals (and, if appealed, result (s) of appeal (s)).

the survey, interviews with five individual litigants, and other considerations,
during 2005 and 2006 the members of Group C extensively revised the question-

2. Survey of Litigants and Lawyers

naires. As with the case file research, one of our goals was to streamline thequestionnaires so as to reduce the burden on respondents (with the further hope

The second major component of our research is a survey of individual liti-

this might improve the response rate). Thus, for example, the questionnaires

gants and lawyers involved in district court civil cases. As with the case file re-addressed to represented litigants were reduced from 66 to 48 questions (plussearch, the survey of litigants and lawyers also proceeded in two major stages:

face sheets). Even after the streamlining, the questionnaires addressed a rather

the preliminary, pre-test stage and the main stage.

broad range of topics, including the following: access to lawyers; access to liti-

Over the course of numerous workshops and retreats held during 2003 andgation; the respective roles of the litigants and lawyers in making decisions re-2004, the members of Group C prepared survey instruments (questionnaires)

lated to litigation; factors influencing the decision whether to settle the case or

aimed at those who had actually experienced litigation, in a total of six versions

proceed to judgment; evaluation of the result; evaluation of the courts, proce-(unrepresented [self-represented] plaintiff, unrepresented [self-represented] de-dures and judges by litigants and lawyers; and evaluation of lawyers by liti-

fendant, represented plaintiff, represented defendant, plaintiff-side lawyer, andgants. In addition, a number of the questions sought to explore the impact ofdefendant-side lawyer). In compiling these questionnaires, we referred to a wide

gender and other factors.

range of sources (including consideration of the survey instruments utilized in
58−3−153 (名城 '09)

(6)

In the main stage of this component of our research, Central Research
(7)

(名城

'09)

58−3− 152

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート

Services implemented the revised questionnaires from December 2006 throughunnatural (such as, for example, questions inquiring about litigants' actual ex-

March 2007, targeting all individual litigants and lawyers involved in the 1132

periences), similar to those used in the surveys addressed to litigants describedcases investigated in the main stage of the case file research. Calculating the re-above. Two versions of this questionnaire were prepared; the two versions weresponse rate of course depends on what one uses as the base. In conducting theessentially the same, except that one specified "civil litigation" every time themain stage of our survey, we sent advance notification and requests for coopera-

word "litigation" appeared, whereas the other left out the word "civil." (As ittion to all the individual litigants and lawyers involved in the 1132 cases (or,turned out, in nearly all respects the results were very similar for the two ver-more precisely, to all we could locate). At that time, we provided a reply card insions.) These surveys were administered in March 2007 (again by Central

which one of the options they could choose was to decline to take part in the sur-

Research Services) to 500 randomly selected respondents each. For this survey,

vey, because, even though their names were listed in the court files, they had notCentral Research Services utilized a quota sampling procedure, drawing respon-

actually participated in the litigation. (In many cases, for example, several law-dents from twenty locations in total from ten regions across Japan (adjusted toyers were listed, but only one or two had significant responsibility.) Leaving

reflect the population of each region).

out those who asked to be excluded because they had not actually participated

To our knowledge, the use of a survey of the general public, paralleling thein the litigation, the total numbers of subjects, total numbers of respondents,

survey of litigants, represents a novel feature of the research conducted byand response rates for each of the six categories are as follows: unrepresented

Group C. In the Wisconsin Civil Litigation Research Project and other surveys

plaintiffs: 82 subjects, 37 respondents, 45.1% response rate; unrepresented defen-of litigants of which we are aware, no parallel survey was conducted of the atti-

dants: 521 subjects, 116 respondents, 22.3% response rate; represented plaintiffs:

tudes of the general public, utilizing the same or closely similar questions. As

677 subjects, 243 respondents, 35.9% response rate; represented defendants: 461

some of the essays in this collection will show, we have found this parallel sur-subjects, 137 respondents, 29.7% response rate; plaintiff-side lawyers: 828 sub-vey highly valuable in providing a basis for comparing the views and attitudes

jects, 211 respondents, 25.5% response rate; defendant-side lawyers: 569 subjects,of the general public and those who have experienced litigation.

113 respondents, 19.9% response rate. Combined, the total litigant response rate
4. Internet Survey

was 30.6% and the total lawyer response rate was 23.2%.

3. Survey of General Public

The fourth and final major component of our research is an Internet survey.
Through this survey, we seek to explore attitudes of the Japanese public regard-

To enable us to compare the knowledge and perceptions of members of theing use of lawyers, litigation, and other aspects of the legal system, by reference

general public with the knowledge and assessments by those who have actually

to several concrete situations. In doing so, we seek to explore the impact of dif-experienced litigation, we also undertook a survey addressed to members of theferences in such factors as the amount at stake or degree of injury, duration andgeneral public. That survey, the third major component of our research, utilized

outcome of proceedings, gender, and existence or non-existence of apology. In

questions identical or, in cases where identical questions would have been

addition, this survey seeks to explore the impact of personality.

58−3−151 (名城 '09)

(8)

(9)

(名城

'09)

58−3− 150

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers
To explore these issues, over the course of numerous workshops and meetings
during 2007, the members of Group C prepared a new set of survey instruments.
The survey instruments contain questions relating to experiences with litigation and legal disputes, perceptions of litigation and the courts, and attitudes

研究ノート[Notes]１See, e.g., Sarat et al. (1983).

[Bibliography]
Sarat, Austin, Joel B. Grossman, and David M. Trubek (1983) Civil Litigation Research
Project Final Report,University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School.

toward law and the legal system. The survey instruments also include a seriesGenn, Hazel with National Centre for Social Research (1999) Paths to Justice - Whatof personality profile questions. Above all, however, the key feature of these

People Do and Think About Going to Law, Hart Publishing.

survey instruments lies in a series of three concrete case scenarios: a loan between relatives, a physical assault by a stranger, and a case involving domestic
violence. For each of the case scenarios, several variations were prepared, basedon such matters as degree of injury, gender of the parties, etc.
Through combinations of the various permutations of the case scenarios,
Group C prepared twelve different survey instruments. In early 2008, Central
Research Services administered this survey via the Internet, on behalf of GroupC, with 100 respondents for each of the twelve variations, resulting in a total of1200 respondents.

5. Concluding Remarks

This brief introductory essay has summarized the principal components of
the research undertaken by the Civil Litigation Behavior Research Project.
While the analysis of the results is still ongoing, subsequent essays in this special collection explore a number of the findings from our research and identify
some of the avenues we will be pursuing in our further analysis of the data. In
closing, let me express, on behalf of myself and the other members of Group C,
our appreciation to Meijo Law Review for providing us this opportunity toshare our research with your readers.

58−3−149 (名城 '09)

( 10 )( 11 )(名城'09)58−3− 148

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート
in a Legalizing Society") selected randomly, with the assistance of the Supreme

Characteristics of Japanese Litigants

Court' General Secretariat, 1132 civil cases terminated in 2004. One or more ofAnalysis of questionnaire survey

our research member visited every 50 district courts in Japan with assistantteachers of law faculty, graduates students of law faculty, or law school students (University of Tokyo, University of Kyoto, University of Kobe, Senshu

Mikio KAWAI

University, Kanseigakuinn University, and Toin University of Yokohama).
The records of the selected cases were prepared by the district court before our
1. Introduction

arrival. And we referenced them in the formal way. We had hand-in the application form, which with fiscal stamp and seal, for each civil litigation record indi-

It seems that many people think Japanese people dislike litigating. Some people do not admit this because there is lack of concrete evidence. It is a kind of
mystic belief for them. Any way, it is true that the number of litigations is very
low in comparison with those of Occidental countries.

vidually.
The court reserved a reading room for us. We collected Data by our own computers.
We compiled the name and address of litigants, then we contacted with thoseThis low rate of litigation means that it is not normal but special to bring alitigants to finish our questionnaire.

lawsuit in Japan. It let us question whether Japanese people bring a lawsuit in
special case or it is special persons who bring a lawsuit in Japan. The purpose

3. Sampling methodof this paper consists of an analysis about the characteristics of Japanese litigants, utilizing our questionnaire survey done in 2006.

We did a research about the civil cases concluded in2004. This decision is based

At the beginning we have a description about our survey in detail, especiallythe sampling method.

on the experience of our civil litigation.
There are 50 district courts in Japan. These district courts are scattered geo-

And then, we have a comparison between the result of our survey and the one

graphically to protect the right to litigation. By the way, the district courts

when done by Japanese Supreme Court in the same year. This comparison must

situated in big cities have a large amount of litigations in proportion to their

allow us estimation of our research. At the end, we will analyze the characteris-

populations. We sampled the cases in proportion to the number of cases of eachtics of Japanese litigants from the data.

district court. In consequence, we selected 321 cases (28.4%) from Tokyo District
Court and 169 cases (14.9%) from Osaka District Court within 1132 cases in

2. Civil Litigation Behavior Research

total.
Family law cases are omitted. These cases are conserved in the family court

We, Civil Litigation Behavior Research Group (Group C of the Nationwide
Survey on Civil Disputes research project, "Dispute Resolution and Civil Justice58−3−147 (名城 '09)

( 12 )

but not in the district court. The most important reason is the litigants ofFamily law cases would not apply to questionnaire.
( 13 )(名城'09)58−3− 146

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers
On the other hand, those case files, which sent to the upper courts, were omit-

研究ノート

Number ofindividual
plaintiff

Frequency

Percentage

Number ofindividual
defendant

Frequency

Percentage

0

504

44.5

0

237

20.9

1

499

44.1

1

646

57.1

2

68

6.0

2

155

13.7

3

24

2.1

3

46

4.1

4

18

1.6

4

20

1.8

5

3

0.3

5

9

0.8

legal (judicial) person and the refused case, we substituted cases from the same

6

6

0.5

6

6

0.5

district court separately.

7

3

0.3

7

1

0.1

9

1

0.1

8

2

0.2

14

1

0.1

9

2

0.2

16

1

0.1

10

1

0.1

27

1

0.1

11

1

0.1

30

1

0.1

13

2

0.2

38

1

0.1

14

1

0.1

Unknown1

0.1

Unknown

3

0.3

Total

1132

100.0

Total

1132

100.0

Number ofindividual
plaintiff(Legal person)

Frequency

Percentage

Number ofindividual
defendant(Legal person)

Frequency

Percentage

0

593

52.4

0

766

67.7

1

525

46.4

1

313

27.7

2

8

0.7

2

31

2.7

3

2

0.2

3

13

1.1

4

1

0.1

4

3

0.3

7

2

0.2

5

1

0.1

Unknown

1

0.1

9

1

0.1

1132

100.0

15

1

0.1

Unknown

3

0.3

1132

100.0

ted too.
In addition, we excluded about those cases that both parties are legal (judicial) person. Fortunately, it was under 10%. And there was only one case file,which was refused to read by the court.
To keep the balance of the district, about those cases that both parties are

4. Effect of the civil litigation document research

Let us look at summaries 1132 cases of Japanese civil trials. The Supreme
Court has released the report of these cases at the same period. (July 2007
Supreme Court Office 'the report on the relatively regarding the speediness oftrial') This research is subject to over 100000 cases from first instance trail between April and December 2004.Personal status cases are also included, but very
few. By contrasting the report from the Supreme Court, you can understand therelativity of this research.
Natural person or legal person
According to the research, there are around 50% of the plaintiff and 80% of the

Total

defendant is natural person.
Then, almost all of the case that the plaintiff is legal person are only one legal

Total

person proceed against. On the other hand, there are some cases that more than
one legal person as the defendant. And most of them are against Consumer
credit for overpayment.



Variation of civil cases
Usually, the substance of cases divides the variation of civil cases. Since there

must be some difference in standard between every district court, so we examined case by case to re-classified them once again.
58−3−145 (名城 '09)

( 14 )( 15 )(名城'09)58−3− 144

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート

Heading and Variety of case

Result of the first instanceFrequency Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

In-court settlement

389

34.4

Eviction from land or building

249

22.0

Affirmation of claim

371

32.8

Torts (excl. traffic accidents)

142

12.6

Withdrawal

146

12.9

Loan-related

127

11.2

Partial affirmation of claim

86

7.6

Credit-related [incl. credit card-related claims]/Indemnification

112

9.9

Dismissal with prejudice on the merits

66

5.8

Other

98

8.7

Acknowledgment

13

1.1

Traffic accidents

73

6.5

Dismissal without prejudice8

0.7

Surety-related

53

4.7

Multiple results

36

3.2

Unjust enrichment (incl.overpayment of interest on consumer loans)

51

4.5

Other

16

1.4

Contract-related damages

37

3.3

No record

Real property title registration-related

36

3.2

Total

Labor

24

2.1

Purchase money-related

21

1.9

Subcontract-related

21

1.9

Inheritance-related

19

1.7

Rent-related

16

1.4

of the Supreme Court. Definitely, the result of us is very close to the one of theConfirmation of non-existence of obligation

16

1.4

Supreme Court. It proofed the high representatively of 1132-selected case.

Deposit12

1.1

Ownership of land or building

90.8

Promissory note

7

0.6

Determination of boundary5

0.4

Divorce-related

2

0.2

1130

100.0



0.1
100.0

Amount in dispute
We made a comparison between the Stake values of our research and the one

Category of the Stake values

According to the research, 'Eviction from land or building' is the most, which is 22%.
The second is 'Torts (excl. traffic accidents)', which is 12.6%. The third is 'Loan-related',
which is 11.2%.



1
1132

Form of conclusion
The following table is the result of the first instance in District court. Single

Frequency

Percentage

Data of theSupreme Court

Below 5 million yen

733

64.9

63

Below 10 million yen

135

11.9

14.3

Below 50 million yen

175

15.5

16.2

Below 100 million yen

39

3.5

3.1

Below 500 million yen

27

2.4

2

Below 1 billion yen

1

0.1

0.1

Below 5 billion yen

3

0.3

0

Incalculable・non-property
Total

result of cases are collected as 'settlement' and 'Affirmation of Claim', except

17
1130

1.5
100

1.1
100

multiple results from a portion of multiple parties which were 'Settlement and
Affirmation of Claim', and 'Settlement and Withdrawal'.

58−3−143 (名城 '09)

( 16 )( 17 )(名城'09)58−3− 142

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers



研究ノート

Frequency

Percentage

Data of The
Supreme Court

Both with lawyers

460

40.7

40.1

Plaintiff's lawyers only

470

41.6

35.6

Defendant's lawyers only

54

4.8

4.5

Both without lawyers

145

12.8

19.7

Total

1129

100

100

Participation of lawyers
The numbers of plaintiff's lawyer and the numbers of defendant's lawyer are

shown as below

Number ofplaintiff's
lawyers

Frequency

Percentage

Numbers ofdefendant's
lawyers

Frequency

Percentage

0

212

18.7

0

625

55.2

However, the statistics, which we took account of the number of lawyers only.

1

472

41.7

1

270

23.9

Due to the difference of the counting method it showed a great difference to the

2

202

17.8

2

104

9.2

3

108

9.5

3

36

3.2

4

50

4.4

4

33

2.9

5

36

3.2

5

21

1.9

6

16

1.4

6

14

1.2

7

14

1.2

7

9

0.8

8

5

0.4

8

4

0.4

one of Supreme Court. We counted up all the lawyers on the record of civil litigation, but the Supreme Court was counted up the lawyers who are practicallyattended only.

Number of lawyers

Frequency

Percentage

Data of The
Supreme court

9

3

0.3

9

2

0.2

Plaintiff 1・Defendant 1

139

30.8

69.3

10

3

0.3

10

4

0.4

Plaintiff 1・Defendant 2 〜 9

96

21.2

22

11

1

0.1

11

1

0.1

Plaintiff 1・Defendant 10 〜

5

1.1

0.5

12

3

0.3

12

1

0.1

Plaintiff 2 〜 9・Defendant 1

98

21.7

5.4

13

2

0.2

13

2

0.2

Plaintiff 2 〜 9・Defendant 2 〜 9

100

22.1

2.6

18

1

0.1

16

1

0.1

Plaintiff 2 〜 9・Defendant 10 〜

4

0.9

0

40

1

0.1

17

1

0.1

Plaintiff 10 〜・Defendant 1

3

0.7

0.2

47

1

0.1

20

1

0.1

Plaintiff 10 〜・Defendant 2 〜 9

5

1.1

0.1

Unknown

2

0.1

51

1

0.1

Plaintiff 10 〜・Defendant 10 〜

1132

100.0

Unknown

2

0.2

1132

100.0

Total

Total

We compared our research with the one of the Supreme Court in 2 different

1
451

0.2

0

100

100

4. Questionnaire Survey

ways.
The first table is to compared the statistics, which took into account the factthat whether the party with lawyers or not.

To finish our questionnaire we compiled the name and address of litigants.
The result is shown as below.

We found that the result was fairly similar to the Supreme Court's one.
58−3−141 (名城 '09)

( 18 )( 19 )(名城'09)58−3− 140

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers
Number of
Named on the
Object of
Response
Out ofthe people
Responses
Refuselist without
research
ratecontacton the list
participation

General public

888

Defendants represented by lawyers

627

502

137

27.3%

198

210

41

20

Unrepresented
Plaintiffs

100

82

37

45.1%

28

29

0

0

Unrepresented
Defendants

734

531

116

21.8%

9

160

10

6

243

32.4%

292

244

72

Frequency

479

521

1000

%

47.9

52.1

100.0

Other

Plaintiffs represented by lawyers

749

研究ノート

23



Frequency

833

700

1533

%

54.3

45.7

100.0

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
There is no clear relationship between the substance of the case and the educa-

tional background of the parties.
The follow is the examination of the answerer's attribution in the society.

It is not difficult to imagine that the defendant of cases, that about not get-We also handed out 1000 questionnaires to the public and we made a compari-ting out of the debt or asked for evacuate, has low educational background.

son between the litigants and Japanese public. The distribution this 1000 ques-

However, many plaintiffs are low qualification too. Since the people who started

tionnaire is based on age and gender geographically.

their own business and becoming wealthy is the feature of Japan

GENDERNo formal
education

For the gender data, the number of male is more than the number of female.
For male case, the number of the unrepresented party is greater than theparty with lawyer. The number of the Unrepresented party in male is more thanthe party represented by lawyers in male. The reason is if the party is couple,
the male will be the represented, as female would be domesticated non-careerhousewives.

Plaintiffs represented by lawyers

Defendants represented by lawyers

Unrepresented plaintiffs

Unrepresented defendants

58−3−139 (名城 '09)

Primaryschool,Juniorhigh schoolHigh
schoolJuniorcollege,
Graduate
University
Total
Technical
schoolcollege

Plaintiffs represented Frequency
by lawyers
%

0

43

96

32

56

6

233

0.0

18.5

41.2

13.7

24.0

2.6

100.0

Defendants
repre- Frequency
sented by lawyers
%

0

28

55

8

44

2

137

0.0

20.4

40.1

5.8

32.1

1.5

100.0

Unrepresented
Plaintiffs

Frequency

0

6

19

2

10

0

37

%

0.0

16.2

51.4

5.4

27.0

0.0

100.0

Unrepresented
Defendants

Frequency

0

23

59

7

25

0

114

%

0.0

20.2

51.8

6.1

21.9

0.0

100.0

MALE

FEMALETOTALNUMBERS

Frequency

1

134

494

122

206

18

975

Frequency

152

91

243

%

0.1

13.7

50.7

12.5

21.1

1.8

100.0

%

62.6

37.4

100.0

Frequency

1

234

723

171

341

26

1496

Frequency

90

47

137

%

65.7

34.3

100.0

Frequency

27

10

37

%

73.0

27.0

100.0

Frequency

85

31

116

%

73.3

26.7

100.0

( 20 )

General PublicHousehold income
The family income of most of the party,which litigated with lawyers, is highincome group.Relatively,most of the unrepresented party is low income group.

( 21 )(名城'09)58−3− 138

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート

700
2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5
thouBelow
million million million million million
sand
Over
yen to yen to yen to yen to yen to700
No
yen to
15
thou5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Total
income2.5
millionsand
million million million million million
yenmillion
yen
yen
yen
yen
yen
yen
yen
below below below below below
below
Plaintiffs represented Frequency
by lawyers%
Defendants
repre- Frequency
sented by lawyers
%

5

10

31

57

46

20

19

6

22

216

2.3

4.6

14.4

26.4

21.3

9.3

8.8

2.8

10.2

100

3

2

22

26

27

19

8

12

12

131

2.3

1.5

16.8

19.8

20.6

14.5

6.1

9.2

9.2

100

Unrepresented
Plaintiffs

Frequency

3

2

4

12

7

1

4

2

1

36

%

8.3

5.6

11.1

33.3

19.4

2.8

11.1

5.6

2.8

100

Unrepresented
Defendants

Frequency

5

7

20

42

17

10

5

1

1

108

General Public

5. Conclusion

We did a research about the civil litigations, which terminated in2004, bysending questionnaire to the litigants. To make an analysis of the attribution of
the litigants in the society, we divided the parties as Plaintiff represented bylawyers, Unrepresented Plaintiff, Defendant represented by lawyers andUnrepresented Defendants.
As a result, most of the party is male. Especially the ratio of male in'unrepresented party' is over 70%.

%

4.6

6.5

18.5

38.9

15.7

9.3

4.6

0.9

0.9

100

Most of the parties are coming from both high-level educational background

Frequency

19

17

117

268

215

119

52

24

18

849

and low-level educational background. However, only a few of the parties are

%

2.2

2

13.8

31.6

25.3

14

6.1

2.8

2.1

100

Frequency

35

38

194

405

312

169

88

45

54

1340

coming from the mid-level. Considering the factor of family income and grossproperty, only a few people are coming from the mid-level too.

Household net worth
Analyzing these data, we can conclude those who have experienced the litigaMost of the litigants are wealthy. However, 70% of Unrepresented

tion are some how special kind of people.

Defendants, their gross property is extremely lower than the others. To add up
the figures with family income, we can see that no matter the party is wealthy
or not, the litigant is being taken or they are being involved in the litigation.

10million 30million 50million 70million
BelowOver 100
yen toyen toyen toyen to10million
million Total
30million 50million 70million 100million
yen
yen
yen below yen below yen below yen below
Plaintiffs
repre- Frequency
sented by lawyers
%

80

47

28

17

14

20

206

38.8

22.8

13.6

8.3

6.8

9.7

100.0

Defendants repre- Frequency
sented by lawyers
%

49

24

13

9

9

15

119

41.2

20.2

10.9

7.6

7.6

12.6

100.0

Unrepresented
Plaintiffs

Frequency

13

3

1

3

3

8

31

%

41.9

9.7

3.2

9.7

9.7

25.8

100.0

Unrepresented
Defendants

Frequency

67

15

3

2

3

6

96

%

69.8

15.6

3.1

2.1

3.1

6.3

100.0

General Public

Frequency

409

188

89

37

25

27

775

%

52.8

24.3

11.5

4.8

3.2

3.5

100.0

Frequency

618

277

134

68

54

76

1227

58−3−137 (名城 '09)

( 22 )( 23 )(名城'09)58−3− 136

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート
Then, we will try to find some reasons why many litigants nevertheless settle

Factors Contributing to In-court Settlement in Japan:

their cases in court.

Recognizing the Gaps between Litigants' Expectation for
2. Results of Survey on Litigants

Judgment and Lawyers' Preference for SettlementNumber of respondents

Akira MORIYA
The survey of litigants includes four categories of respondents. The numberof each category is as follows (see, table 1).
1. Introduction
Table 1: Number of Respondents
N

Percent

Valid %

Cumulative %Plaintiffs represented by lawyers

243

45.6 %

45.6 %

45.6%

Defendants represented by lawyers

137

25.7 %

25.7 %

71.3%

Unrepresented plaintiffs

37

6.9 %

6.9 %

78.2%

tionwide survey on litigants, their lawyers and the general public. It has been

Unrepresented defendants

116

21.8 %

21.8 %

100.0%

said that the Japanese try to settle their disputes through negotiations to avoid

Total

533

100.0 %

100.0 %

This paper examines the expectations of disputing parties for litigation andthe reasons why only half of litigations are ended by judgments and the otherhalf by in-court settlements or withdrawals, based on the findings from the na-

litigation, especially when disputes arise among families, neighbors and friends,
but that once they come to decide that they will go to court, their relationshipbreaks down completely, and that judges are expected to bring clear-cut justicefor them.



Results of the first instance: judgment or in-court settlement
In our survey, 49% of respondents answered that their procedures were ended

by judgment and 43% by settlement in court (see, Table 2). The percentage of in-

Even if this is the popular image of Japanese civil justice process, only half ofcourt settlement in our survey is higher than the one shown in the annual re-the cases placed in court are decided by judges. The other half are either settled

port of the Supreme Court1 . One of the possible explanations is that somein court or assumed to have been settled out of court. The percentage of judg-

litigants mistook their out-of-court settlements for in-court ones because theyment, roughly 50%, may be high when compared with the judgment rates in

did not actually participate in the settlement procedure. But we found, throughWestern countries, but it is still worth examining why litigants who are sup-the comparative analysis between respondents' answers and court records, that

posed be confrontational to each other can agree to a settlement proposal during

not only some litigants who ended by settlement but also some who ended by

the court procedure.

judgment mistook their results. We also found that the rate of mistakes is espe-

In this paper, we will first make clear that litigants have a strong expectation

cially high among plaintiffs represented by lawyers and unrepresented defen-

for having right and wrong decided clearly in court, and that the majority ofdants. Finding the reasons why so many litigants mistook their results is an

litigants show negative intentions to negotiate with the opponents in court.

important but separate theme for research.

58−3−135 (名城 '09)

( 24 )( 25 )(名城'09)58−3− 134

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers
Table 2: Results of the First Instance

Valid

Missing

3. Expectations for Lawsuit

N

Percent

Valid %

Cumulative %Judgment
In-court settlement
Withdrawal
Other

230
202
25
9

43.2
37.9
4.7
1.7

49.4
43.3
5.4
1.9

49.4
92.7
98.1
100.0

Total

466

87.4

100.0

Don't Know
No answer

61
6

11.4
1.1

Total

67

12.6

533

100.0

Total

研究ノート



Overall results
In the survey, respondents were asked several questions concerning the expec-

tations for their lawsuits (or goals of litigation). Each question is asked on a 5point scale; 1 representing "I expected", 3 "Can't say one way or the other", and
5 "I didn't expect". The questions and answers are shown in Figure 1.
The expectation for "having right and wrong clearly decided" was the highest,
even for those who ended their lawsuits by settlements. It was followed by "pro-

Results of the first instance and categories of respondents
Though the overall percentage of in-court settlements of the first instance is

To have right and wrong clearly
decided**To protect your rights **in Table 3, the percentage of settlement is highest among unrepresented defen-

To resolve the dispute quickly

Table 3: Results of the First Instance and the Categories of Respondents
Total

Judgment

Settlement

Other

Plaintiffs represented by lawyers

100
48.5%

88
42.7%

18
8.7%

206
100.0%

Defendants represented by lawyers

70
56.0%

51
40.8%

4
3.2%

125
100.0%

Unrepresented plaintiffs

26
70.3%

9
24.3%

2
5.4%

37
100.0%

Unrepresented defendants

34
34.7%

54
55.1%

10
10.2%

98
100.0%

230
49.4%

202
43.3%

34
7.3%

466
100.0%

To protect your interests

To have a judge hear what you
have to say
To punish the other side *㪏㪋㪡㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋
㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋㪎㪏㪊㪐㪡㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋

㪈㪐㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋

㪉㪈

㪌㪋

㪋㪌

㪋㪎
㪉㪇

㪉㪊
㪉㪎

㪇㩼

㪈

㪏

㪈㪌

㪈㪉

㪈㪎

㪉㪇

㪈㪋
㪊㪉

㪊㪐

㪉㪉

㪎㪋
㪊㪉

㪊㪇

㪋㪈

㪈㪉㪋
㪉㪊

㪏㪏

㪋㪇㩼

㪉

㪈㪋 㪈㪊

㪈㪊

㪊㪇

㪊㪈

㪉㪇㩼

㪉㪊

㪈㪍

㪋㪍

㪉㪎

㪊㪍

㪉㪋

㪊㪍

㪊㪐

㪌㪊

㪡㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋
㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋

㪏 㪈㪌

㪊㪍

㪌㪊

㪋㪋

㪉㪈

㪊㪌

㪍㪋

㪍㪍

㪡㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋

To restore relations with the otherside *

㪌㪌
㪌㪍

㪈㪊 㪎

㪈㪇

㪉㪌

㪈㪈㪋
㪎㪐

㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋To get the opportunity to talk withthe other side㪋㪎㪌㪊㪡㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋
㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋

㪐 㪐

㪊㪉

㪈㪉㪏
㪎㪋

㪎㪌
㪈㪇 㪊

㪉㪋

㪌㪊

㪡㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋

㪐

㪈㪏
㪉㪈

㪋㪐

㪏㪇

㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋

㪈㪋

㪍㪍
㪈㪉㪏

㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋㪈㪋 㪍 㪎㪈㪎㪍㪈㪐㪈㪡㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋

㩷
To compel the other side to admit
he/she was wrong **

㪐 㪍

㪌㪏
㪌㪎

㪈㪊㪍

㪡㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋㪈㪍 㪋 㪐
㪉㪐㪈㪊㪐㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋To achieve social justice *

㪋㪇
㪋㪎

㪐㪉

㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋

dants (55.1%), and is lowest among unrepresented plaintiffs (24.3%).

Total

㪈㪌㪈
㪈㪇㪇

㪡㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋

43%, the percentage differentiates according to respondent categories. As shown

Results of District Court㪡㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋
㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋

㪍㪇㩼

㪏㪇㩼

㪊

㪋

㪈㪇㪇㩼

㪌

“1”=”Expected”, “3”=”Can’t say one way or the other”, “5”=”Did not expect”

Figure 1: Litigants' Expectations for Lawsuit

58−3−133 (名城 '09)

( 26 )( 27 )(名城'09)58−3− 132

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers
tecting their rights", "resolving the disputes quickly", "achieving social justice",

研究ノート
asked as real or supposed litigants.

and so on. On the other hand, the expectations for "restoring relations with the

When litigants are divided into two groups according to the results of theirother party", and "getting opportunities to talk to the other party" were thelawsuits, those whose cases were ended by judgment showed significantly

lowest.

higher expectation for having right and wrong clearly decided than those whose

Compared with the group who ended their lawsuits by settlement, the groupcases were ended by settlement (see, Table 4). As seen above, litigants as a

who ended by judgment shows stronger expectations for most of the terms. The

whole showed as strong an expectation for having right and wrong decided

only exception was the expectation for "restoring relations with the otherclearly as the general public, but expectations of those whose cases ended by set-

party"2.

tlement were comparatively weak (which is statistically significant). On theother hand, as to the expectation for getting the opportunities to talk with theStrong preference for "having right and wrong clearly decided"
other side, the two groups did not show any difference (see, Table 5).
Among the expectations of litigants for lawsuits, two items are especially in-

Therefore, comparatively weak expectations for having right and wrong de-teresting for our present concern; one is their expectation for "having right andcided may explain, at least in part, the reason why some litigants chose settle-

wrong clearly decided", and the other is; "getting the opportunity to talk withment, but the expectations for getting the opportunity to talk with the otherthe other side". As to the question of whether they expected to have right andside did not seem to affect the result of cases as a whole. It is partly because notwrong clearly decided, we found that the average score of the general public wasonly those who did not expect to get the opportunity to talk but also those who

1.6, and that of litigants was 1.7, which means that there is no significant differ-

did expect to get the opportunity to talk show a tendency to judgment rather

ences between the two groups and that both the general public and litigants

than settlement (see, Figure 1).

seem to have strong interests in having their cases decided clearly through litiTable 4: Goal of Litigation: to have right and wrong decided clearlygation.
On the other hand, as to the expectation for getting the opportunity to talkN

with the other side, the score of the general public was 2.2 and that of litigants
was 3.2, which means that litigants' expectation was significantly lower thanthat of the general public. This may be because litigants had already lowered

Litigants who ended by judgment
General public
Litigants who ended by settlement

220
973
191

Subgroups by α= .05
2

1

1.55
1.62
1.82

their level of expectation for reconciliation before they decided to come to court,or because disputing parties who had strong expectations for reconciliation pre-Table 5: Goals of Litigation: to get the opportunity to talk with the other sideferred non-judicial processes for resolving their disputes.

N

In any case, the Japanese, not only the litigants but also the general public,
seem to have a much stronger preference for having their case clearly decided
than for getting the opportunity to talk with the other side, as long as they are
58−3−131 (名城 '09)

( 28 )

General public
Litigants who ended by settlement
Litigants who ended by judgment( 29 )

948
186
221

Subgroups by α= .05
1

2

2.15
2.97
3.17

(名城

'09)

58−3− 130

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers



研究ノート
and the latter showed the weakest expectations for "getting the opportunity to

Expectations for lawsuits and categories of litigants
talk" and strong expectations for "having right and wrong decided clearly".
As shown in Table 6 and Table 7, when expectations for lawsuits are com-Also, unrepresented defendants should have preferred settlements to judgments

pared according to the categories of litigants, unrepresented plaintiffs showedbecause their expectation for "having right and wrong decided clearly" is thethe strongest preference for "having right and wrong decided clearly" (average

weakest and their expectation for "getting the opportunity to talk" is compara-point is 1.3), while unrepresented defendants showed the lowest (average point

tively high.

2.2). As to the expectation for getting the opportunity to talk with the other

Checking the hypothesis with the data, it seems to apply to the categories ofside, the average point of unrepresented plaintiffs and unrepresented defendants

unrepresented plaintiffs and unrepresented defendants, but not to the category

is both 2.9, which is significantly higher than that of plaintiffs represented byof plaintiffs represented by lawyers, since its rate of judgment is under average

lawyers (average point is 3.3).

and is even lower than that of defendants represented by lawyers. Then, we need

From the results above, we may guess that unrepresented plaintiffs and plain-

to look for other factors to explain why more than 40% of plaintiffs represented

tiffs represented by lawyers should have preferred judgments to settlements,

by lawyers chose settlement in court. Since defendants represented by lawyers

since the former showed the strongest expectation for "having right and wrong

showed more or less similar tendencies with plaintiffs represented by lawyers,

decided clearly" among the four categories (but this might have been set off

it would help explain their reasons to settle too. It seems that the very fact thatpartly by relatively strong expectations for "getting the opportunity to talk"),

they were represented by lawyers is critical. Their expectations for their lawsuits might be the cause and/or the result of their decision to hand their case to

Table 6: Expectation for Lawsuit: to have right and wrong clearly decided
Categories of litigants
Unrepresented plaintiffs
Plaintiffs represented by lawyers
General public
Defendants represented by lawyers
Unrepresented defendants

N
37
230
973
127
96

lawyers. We will see the lawyers' role later in this paper.

Subgroups by α= .05
1

2

1.32
1.53
1.62

3

1.53
1.62
1.76

4. Litigants' Choice of Settlement

2.15

Litigants' concerns for settlement
Despite the fact that litigants had strong expectations for having right andwrong decided clearly, nearly half of them ended their case by settlement. Many
Table 7: Expectation for Lawsuit: to get opportunity to talk with the other side

factors must have influenced their decision. Among them, when plaintiffs andSubgroups by α= .05

defendants are represented by lawyers, their recommendations or suggestions

Categories of litigants
General public
Unrepresented defendants
Unrepresented plaintiffs
Defendants represented by lawyers
Plaintiffs represented by lawyers

58−3−129 (名城 '09)

N
948
98
37
124
228

1

2

3

2.15
2.86
2.86
3.12

could have been vital for their clients.
Asked about considerations they took into account when they decided to settle

3.12
3.33

( 30 )

their cases, more than 80% of litigants answered that they took into account"recommendation by lawyers" at least to some extent, and more than 70% of( 31 )(名城'09)58−3− 128

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers㪩㪼㪺㫆㫄㫄㪼㫅㪻㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㪹㫐㩷㫃㪸㫎㫐㪼㫉㪋㪋㪍㪊㪩㪼㪺㫆㫄㫄㪼㫅㪻㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㪹㫐㩷㫁㫌㪻㪾㪼㪋㪌㪠㪽㩷㫐㫆㫌㩷㪻㫀㪻㩷㫅㫆㫋㩷㫊㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㪃㩷㫃㪸㫎㫊㫌㫀㫋㩷㫎㫆㫌㫃㪻㩷㪺㫆㫊㫋㩷㫄㫆㫉㪼㩷㫄㫆㫅㪼㫐㪋㪉㪍㪈㪣㫀㫂㪼㫃㫀㪿㫆㫆㪻㩷㫆㫋㪿㪼㫉㩷㫊㫀㪻㪼㩷㫎㫆㫌㫃㪻㩷㪸㪹㫀㪻㪼㩷㪹㫐㩷㫊㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋㪋㪋㪌㪐㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋㩷㫎㪸㫊㩷㫀㫅㩷㪸㪺㪺㫆㫉㪻㪸㫅㪺㪼㩷㫎㫀㫋㪿㩷㫋㫐㫇㫀㪺㪸㫃㩷㫉㪼㫊㫆㫃㫌㫋㫀㫆㫅㪉㪎㪫㪼㫉㫄㫊㩷㫆㪽㩷㫊㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋㩷㫎㪼㫉㪼㩷㫊㫆㫄㪼㫋㪿㫀㫅㪾㩷㫐㫆㫌㩷㪺㫆㫌㫃㪻㩷㪸㪺㪺㪼㫇㫋㪊㪈㪫㫆㩷㫇㫌㫋㩷㪸㫅㩷㪼㫅㪻㩷㫋㫆㩷㫋㪿㪼㩷㪻㫀㫊㫇㫌㫋㪼㩷㫈㫌㫀㪺㫂㫃㫐㪩㪼㪺㫆㫄㫄㪼㫅㪻㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㪹㫐㩷㪽㪸㫄㫀㫃㫐㪈㪐㪟㫆㫎㩷㪽㪸㫄㫀㫃㫐㩷㫄㪼㫄㪹㪼㫉㫊㩷㪼㫋㪺㪅㩷㫎㫆㫌㫃㪻㩷㫍㫀㪼㫎㩷㪺㫆㫅㫋㫀㫅㫌㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫆㪽㩷㫃㪸㫎㫊㫌㫀㫋

㪈㪌
㪇㩼

㪉㪊
㪐

㪏㪉

㪋 㪐

㪊㪌
㪊㪌

㪈㪇 㪈㪉
㪈㪏

㪋㪍

㪋㪈

㪉㪉

㪋㪏
㪍㪈

㪌㪍

㪊㪉

㪌㪋
㪊㪌

㪋㪎

㪎㪋

㪉㪎

㪫㫉㫆㫌㪹㫃㪼㩷㫋㫆㩷㪽㪸㫄㫀㫃㫐㩷㫄㪼㫄㪹㪼㫉㫊㩷㪼㫋㪺㪅㩷㪽㫉㫆㫄㩷㪺㫆㫅㫋㫀㫅㫌㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫆㪽㩷㫃㪸㫎㫊㫌㫀㫋

㪋㪇
㪉㪌

㪎㪊

㪊㪉

Table 8: Litigants' Concerns in Settlement (factor analysis)㪈㪊 㪉 㪏

㪏㪇㪍㪊㪰㫆㫌㩾㪻㩷㪾㫆㫋㫋㪼㫅㩷㫋㫀㫉㪼㪻㩷㫆㪽㩷㫃㪸㫎㫊㫌㫀㫋

研究ノート

㪈㪈
㪈㪇

㪉㪇

㪉㪎

㪊㪎

㪉㪍

㪉㪇㩼

㪋㪇㩼

㪍㪇㩼

㪈㪇

㪈㪎

㪋㪈
㪌㪉
㪍㪇
㪌㪋
㪏㪇㩼

㪈㪇㪇㩼

Figure 2: Terms Taken into Account when Litigants Decide to Settle their Casethem took into account "putting an end to the dispute quickly" and "recommendation by judges". On the contrary, "troubles to family members, colleagues at

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Recommendation by judge

0.121

0.139

0.112

Trouble to family members etc. from continuation of lawsuit

0.950

0.110

0.262

How family members etc. would view continuation of lawsuit

0.874

0.162

0.253

Recommendation by family

0.469

0.300

0.332

Terms of settlement were something you could
accept

0.229

0.775

0.111

Recommendation by lawyer

0.166

0.680

0.309

Settlement was in accordance with typical solution

0.120

0.679

-0.098

Likelihood other side would abide by settlement

0.006

0.651

0.200

You'd gotten tired of lawsuit

0.268-0.0450.817

If you didn't settle, lawsuit would cost more money

0.397

0.185

0.576

To put an end to the dispute quickly

the workplace and neighbors from continuation of the lawsuit" and "how family

0.145

0.234

0.568

Relational

Practical

De-motivating

members, colleagues at the workplace and neighbors would view continuation oflawsuit" did not seem to affect their decision strongly.
Each question is asked on a 5-point scale; 1 representing "I took into account",

Generally speaking, litigants took practical and de-motivating factors more

3 "Can't say one way or the other", and 5 "I didn't take into account". The ques-

into consideration than relational ones. The average score of practical and de-tions and answers are shown in Figure 2.

motivating factors is 2.5 each on a 5-point scale, while the average score of therelational factor is 3.3. And it should be noted that "recommendation by lawyer"
Three factors determining litigants' concerns for settlement
is classified as an element of the practical factor, although it is only meaningful
From the survey results, three factors could be extracted relating to the con-for litigants represented by lawyers.

siderations of litigants at the time of settlement. The first factor can be charac-

Among these three factors, only the practical factor had statistically different

terized as "relational": the concerns of litigants for their family members,

effects on plaintiffs and defendants: average score of plaintiffs' concern for thecolleagues at their workplace and neighbors, who may have their own opinions

practical gain (2.3) is significantly higher than that of defendants' (2.6). Thisor feelings about, or be troubled by, continuation of the lawsuit. The second fac-suggests that decisions to settle by plaintiffs were more likely to be based on

tor can be stated as "practical": the concerns for reasonable gains, including thepractical considerations than those of defendants. The other two factors seem tolikelihood of the other party abiding by the settlement. And the third factor

have had no different effects whether litigants were plaintiffs or defendants.

may be called "de-motivating": the concerns for putting an end to the dispute
quickly, without further monetary and mental exhaustion (see, Table 8).
58−3−127 (名城 '09)

( 32 )( 33 )(名城'09)58−3− 126

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

Lawyers perceptions of the litigants' concerns for settlement
More or less the same factors of litigants' concern for settlement can bediscernable in the answers of their lawyers. In lawyers' eyes too, litigants

Didn’t consider φ



研究ノート

should be noted that the wording was different), and "to put an end to the dis-ψ Consideredfamily" belonged to de-motivating factor instead of relational factor (but it

㪊㪅㪌㪇

㪉㪅㪌㪇

3.29

3.08

3.25

2.66
2.36

2.33

2.28

2.20

2.77

2.19

㪉㪅㪇㪇
㪈㪅㪌㪇

㫇㫃㪸㫀㫅㫋㫀㪽㪽㫊㩷㫉㪼㫇㫉㪼㫊㪼㫅㫋㪼㪻㪹㫐㩷㫃㪸㫎㫐㪼㫉㫊pute quickly" was a practical factor instead of a de-motivating one. And "likeli-㪻㪼㪽㪼㫅㪻㪸㫅㫋㫊㫉㪼㫇㫉㪼㫊㪼㫅㫋㪼㪻㩷㪹㫐㫃㪸㫎㫐㪼㫉㫊

㫉㪼㫃㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㪸㫃hood the other side will abide by the settlement" did not seem to be influencing

㫇㫉㪸㪺㫋㫀㪺㪸㫃㫌㫅㫉㪼㫇㫉㪼㫊㪼㫅㫋㪼㪻㫇㫃㪸㫀㫅㫋㫀㪽㪽㫊㫌㫅㫉㪼㫇㫉㪼㫊㪼㫅㫋㪼㪻㪻㪼㪽㪼㫅㪻㪸㫅㫋㫊㪻㪼㫄㫆㫋㫀㫍㪸㫋㫀㫅㪾

Figure 3: Factors of Settlement and Categories of Litigantssignificantly in the case of lawyers, while it was part of the practical factor in
the case of litigants (see, Table 9).

4.00

㪋㪅㪇㪇

㪊㪅㪇㪇

seemed to take into account three settlement factors, i.e. relational, practicaland de-motivating, with some differences. In the case of lawyers, "pressure from

㪋㪅㪌㪇



Table 9: Concerns for Settlement of Clients, Perceived by Lawyers (factor analysis)

Litigants' concerns for settlement and the categories of litigants
Three factors of settlement might have different effects on the four categories

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

of litigants. Results of the variance analysis shows that average score of the

How family members etc. would view continuation of lawsuit

0.916

0.140

0.197

practical factor is lowest (that means the factor is most considered) in the cate-

Trouble to family members etc. from continuation of lawsuit

0.895

0.128

0.227

Terms of settlement were something your client could accept

0.065

0.793

-0.067

Recommendation of you as a lawyer

0.250

0.629

0.254

To put an end to the dispute quickly

0.107

0.595

0.256

Settlement was in accordance with typical solution

0.011

0.414

0.291

Your client had gotten tired of lawsuit

0.196

0.138

0.824

Pressure from family

0.360

0.126

0.627

seemed to show especially weak interests in relational concerns), but the differ-If your client didn't settle, lawsuit would costmore money

0.130

0.376

0.462

ences were not significant statistically.

Likelihood other side would abide by settlement

0.143

0.358

0.362

Recommendation by judge

0.261

0.283

0.192

Relational

Practical

De-motivating

gory of "plaintiffs represented by lawyers" and is highest (that means the factor
is least considered) in the category of "unrepresented defendants". Since the difference of those average points is statistically significant, plaintiffs represented
by lawyers are more practical than unrepresented defendants in deciding to settle in court. The average score of the other two factors also seemed to have different effects on the four categories (for example, unrepresented plaintiffs

Overall, three factors of litigants' concern for settlement did not have strong
relations with the four categories of litigants.
Litigants' concerns for settlement and the types of litigants
Litigants might be classified into groups according to their concerns for

58−3−125 (名城 '09)

( 34 )( 35 )(名城'09)58−3− 124

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers
Didn’t consider φ

㪌㪅㪇㪇

4.75

㪋㪅㪇㪇
㪊㪅㪇㪇

ψ Considered

㪉㪅㪇㪇

3.50

4.32

4.60
3.81

3.32

研究ノート
Table 10: Evaluation (Won or Lost)
and 5 Types

Table 11: Evaluation (Just or Unjust)and 5 Types

Evaluation of Outcome (Won="1" or Lost="5") subgroup α=0.05

Evaluation of Outcome (Just="1" orUnjust="5") subgroup α=0.05

N1Type ̲E

21

1.33

Type ̲A

70

Type ̲D
Type ̲C
Type ̲B

3.36
2.97

2.10
2.09

2.34
1.73

2.05
1.63

1.81

㪈㪅㪇㪇
㪇㪅㪇㪇

㫋㫐㫇㪼㪶㪘

㫋㫐㫇㪼㪶㪙

㫉㪼㫃㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㪸㫃㫋㫐㫇㪼㪶㪚

㫇㫉㪸㪺㫋㫀㪺㪸㫃㫋㫐㫇㪼㪶㪛

㫋㫐㫇㪼㪶㪜

significance

2

1

2

Type ̲E

21

1.86

2.76

Type ̲C

30

2.60

24

2.83

Type ̲A

69

2.74

31

2.87

Type ̲D

24

3.08

31

3.19

Type ̲B30

0.6

significance

1.00

2.60

3.40
0.12

0.08

㪻㪼㫄㫆㫋㫀㫍㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㪾

Figure 4: Measures of Settlements and Types of Litigants (cluster analysis)Table 12: Number in Each Cluster

settlements, despite the fact that they are not strongly influenced by their positions as litigants. Using cluster analysis, we divided litigants who ended by settlement into 5 groups3.
The result shows that litigants as a whole were a mixture of sub-groups (see,clusternpercent

Type ̲A

73

40.3%

Type ̲B

32

17.7%

Type ̲C

31

17.1%

Type ̲D

24

13.3%

Type ̲E21

11.6%

Figure 4) ; type A are the litigants who took all three factors into consideration,and type B are those who did not take all three factors into consideration. Typewith the other four groups (see, Table 10 and 11). As shown in Table 12, the per-C are the litigants who showed combined characteristics of type A and B, andcentage of the litigants who belong to type E is the lowest (only 11.6% of the liti-

type D showed the least concern for the relational factor but had a strong con-gants who ended by settlement), this type nevertheless seems to be the group

cern for practicality of settlement and were affected by de-motivating factors.

who finished their lawsuits most satisfactorily by settlement4.

Compared with these four types, litigants group of type E showed a strong
concern for practicality of settlement but showed the least concern for relational and de-motivating factors. In other words, litigants of type E are those
who took into consideration only the positive aspect (practical factors) when
they decided to settle cases and were not worried by the negative factors (relational and de-motivating factors).

5. Recommendation for settlement by judges and lawyers


Recommendation by judges
Litigants, especially those who actually decide to settle in court, are usually

recommended to settle by judges. In our survey, 94% of litigants answered that

Moreover, litigants of type E showed especially important features; they

they were advised to settle by judges. But the lawyers do not seem to agree toevaluated the results of lawsuits significantly on winning and just, compared

it, and 24% of them answered that they got no recommendation for settlement

58−3−123 (名城 '09)

( 36 )( 37 )(名城'09)58−3− 122

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers
by judges. Instead, nearly half of litigants said that they were moderately recommended to settle by judges, while only 30% of lawyers said they were so rec-

研究ノート



Judges' recommendation for settlement and the results of the caseommended. The pattern of litigants' recognition of recommendation by judges

When we analyzed the relationship between litigants' assessments on the(Figure 5) was more or less the same in case of litigants represented by lawyers

strength (or level) of recommendation by judges and the actual result of the(Figure 6). From this result, it may be determined that litigants, especiallycase, there seems to be only a weak tendency that stronger recommendations

those who represented by lawyers, were likely to have mistaken that they were

have brought about actual settlement. But it is not significant enough statisti-

recommended to settle by judges, through information from their lawyers.

cally (Variance analysis: p=0.058), shown in Figure 6. Statistically significant

Nevertheless, at least three quarters of litigants were likely to be advised tosettle by judges, and this fact must have affected the result of the case.

differences were not found in every category of litigants.
But as shown in Figure 7 as to lawyers' assessment, the strength of judges'
recommendation for settlement had a clear effect on the end result of the case
(Variance analysis: p=0.000). Judges' recommendations seems to have been

㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪏㪅㪊㩼

㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼

the settlement rate in each category. Since litigants represented by lawyers usu-

㪊㪇㪅㪉㩼

㪉㪎㪅㪍㩼
㪉㪊㪅㪏㩼

㪊㪇㪅㪇㩼

taken seriously by lawyers depending on their strength, which was reflected in㪉㪊㪅㪐㩼㪈㪈㪅㪊㩼 㪐㪅㪍㩼㪈㪇㪅㪍㩼 㪏㪅㪍㩼

㪈㪇㪇㩼

㪍㪅㪇㩼

㪏㪇㩼

㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪭㪼㫉㫐㩷㫊㫋㫉㫆㫅㪾㫃㫐㪪㫋㫉㫆㫅㪾㫃㫐

㪤㫆㪻㪼㫉㪸㫋㪼㫃㫐㪦㫅㫃㫐㩷㫎㪼㪸㫂㫃㫐

㪥㫆㫅㪼

㪍㪇㩼

㪎㪍㪅㪌㩼

㪎㪌㪅㪇㩼

㪎㪇㪅㪋㩼

㪉㪊㪅㪌㩼

㪉㪌㪅㪇㩼

㪉㪐㪅㪍㩼

㪭㪼㫉㫐㩷㫊㫋㫉㫆㫅㪾㫃㫐㪪㫋㫉㫆㫅㪾㫃㫐

㪤㫆㪻㪼㫉㪸㫋㪼㫃㫐

㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪦㫅㫃㫐㩷㫎㪼㪸㫂㫃㫐

㪥㫆㫅㪼

㪋㪇㩼

Figure 5: Level of Recommendation for Settlement by Judges (All Litigants and Lawyers)

㪉㪇㩼
㪇㩼
㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼

Figure 6: Level of Recommendation for Settlement by Judges and the Results of Cases (Litigants)

㪋㪍㪅㪎㩼

㪌㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪍㪅㪎㩼 㪉㪎㪅㪍㩼

㪊㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼
㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪈㪉㪅㪋㩼

㪊㪇㪅㪉㩼

㪈㪇㪇㩼

㪉㪊㪅㪐㩼

㪍㪅㪌㩼

㪏㪇㩼
㪐㪅㪍㩼

㪐㪅㪌㩼 㪏㪅㪍㩼

㪍㪇㩼

㪋㪅㪏㩼

㪏㪌㪅㪉㩼

㪏㪋㪅㪇㩼

㪍㪈㪅㪎㩼

㪐㪊㪅㪌㩼

㪋㪇㩼

㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪭㪼㫉㫐㩷㫊㫋㫉㫆㫅㪾㫃㫐㪪㫋㫉㫆㫅㪾㫃㫐

㪤㫆㪻㪼㫉㪸㫋㪼㫃㫐㪦㫅㫃㫐㩷㫎㪼㪸㫂㫃㫐

㪥㫆㫅㪼

㪉㪇㩼
㪇㩼

Figure 5: Level of Recommendation by Judges (Litigants represented
by Lawyers, and Lawyers)

㪈㪋㪅㪏㩼

㪈㪍㪅㪇㩼

㪭㪼㫉㫐㩷㫊㫋㫉㫆㫅㪾㫃㫐㪪㫋㫉㫆㫅㪾㫃㫐

㪋㪈㪅㪎㩼

㪊㪏㪅㪊㩼

㪤㫆㪻㪼㫉㪸㫋㪼㫃㫐㪌㪏㪅㪊㩼㪦㫅㫃㫐㩷㫎㪼㪸㫂㫃㫐㪥㫆㫅㪼

Figure 6: Level of Recommendation for Settlement by Judges and the Results of Cases (Lawyers)58−3−121 (名城 '09)

( 38 )( 39 )(名城'09)58−3− 120

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers
㪊㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪊㪇㪅㪇㩼

研究ノート



㪉㪐㪅㪏㩼

Prospect of the case and settlement; lawyers' view

㪉㪍㪅㪊㩼

㪉㪌㪅㪇㩼

㪉㪉㪅㪉㩼

When accepting the case, lawyers estimated that majority of cases (56%) were㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼

favorable to their client, and only 22% were thought to be favorable to the oppo-

㪈㪌㪅㪇㩼

㪈㪉㪅㪋㩼

nents.

㪐㪅㪉㩼

㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼

The results of the cases seem to have certain relations with the original pros-㪌㪅㪇㩼

pects of cases, that is statistically significant at the 5% level (variance analysis;㪇㪅㪇㩼㪝㪸㫍㫆㫉㪸㪹㫃㪼㩷㫋㫆㪺㫃㫀㪼㫅㫋㫊

㪚㪸㫅㩾㫋㩷㫊㪸㫐㩷㫆㫅㪼㫎㪸㫐㩷㫆㫉㩷㫋㪿㪼㩷㫆㫋㪿㪼㫉㪝㪸㫍㫆㫉㪸㪹㫃㪼㩷㫋㫆㫆㫇㫇㫆㫅㪼㫅㫋㫊

p=0.038). As shown in Figure 8, when the prospects were clearly favorable for
their clients, the cases were likely to be ended by judgment, while the prospects

Figure 7: Prospects of Cases at Acceptance by Lawyersthat were moderately, less favorable or un-favorable to their clients, were conally get judges' recommendations through and modified by lawyers, the fact

cluded by settlement. But the relations between prospects and results were notthat litigants' perceptions of judges' recommendations did not seem to have sig-

clear enough.

nificant effects on the end results of the cases does not necessarily mean that

When asked how much the original prospects were achieved at the end of law-

litigants were free in deciding whether to settle or not. Rather, judges' recom-

suit, the majority of lawyers (85%) answered that more than 50% of the original

mendations might have decisively influenced, either directly when litigants were

prospects had been achieved, and 29% of them said 100% had achieved (see,unrepresented, or indirectly when they were represented by lawyers.

Figure 9).

Even if litigants' decisions to settle in court were materially led by judges andWhat is interesting in this context is that, while it was natural that in thelawyers, it may not have raised serious problems as long as litigants were sat-materially lost cases (i.e., cases where the achievement ratio of the original

isfied to leave the management of their dispute to their lawyers from the outset.

prospect was less than 50%), the percentage of settlement was only 35%, and in

But there seems to be a large gap between a lawyer's judgment as to his/her cli-the 100% won cases, the percentage of settlement was 30%, cases between the two

ent's benefits and the litigant's expectations for the lawsuit when they brought
their dispute to court, considering the fact that litigants represented by lawyers
showed relatively strong interest in having right and wrong decided clearly andweak interest in getting the opportunities to talk to the other side. If the gaps
remained unclosed, advices or persuasions by lawyers to settle the case may
have aroused vague dissatisfaction or frustration among litigants, leading to

㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪐㪇㩼
㪏㪇㩼
㪎㪇㩼
㪍㪇㩼
㪌㪇㩼
㪋㪇㩼
㪊㪇㩼
㪉㪇㩼
㪈㪇㩼
㪇㩼

㪌㪎㪅㪈㩼

㪝㪸㫍㫆㫉㪸㪹㫃㪼㩷㫋㫆㪺㫃㫀㪼㫅㫋㫊

negative evaluation of in-court settlement and the lawsuit as a whole. Roles ofjudges' recommendation for settlement and lawyers' advice should to be ana-

㪍㪇㪅㪌㩼

㪌㪍㪅㪎㩼

㪊㪐㪅㪌㩼

㪋㪊㪅㪊㩼

㪍㪏㪅㪍㩼

㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪊㪈㪅㪋㩼

㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪚㪸㫅㩾㫋㩷㫊㪸㫐㩷㫆㫅㪼㫎㪸㫐㩷㫆㫉㩷㫋㪿㪼㫆㫋㪿㪼㫉㪝㪸㫍㫆㫉㪸㪹㫃㪼㩷㫋㫆㫆㫇㫇㫆㫅㪼㫅㫋㫊

Figure 8: Prospects of Cases and the Result

lyzed in more detail.
58−3−119 (名城 '09)㪋㪉㪅㪐㩼( 40 )( 41 )(名城'09)58−3− 118

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers
㪋㪇㪅㪇

through the lawsuit because their assertions are refused by the opponents, law-

㪊㪋㪅㪋

㪊㪌㪅㪇

yers prefer to find ways to avoid win or lose situation and settle cases with more

㪉㪐㪅㪈

㪊㪇㪅㪇
㪉㪌㪅㪇

or less preferable results to their clients, just because there are substantial con-

㪉㪈㪅㪌

㪉㪇㪅㪇

flicts of opinions between their clients and opponents.

㪈㪋㪅㪐

㪈㪌㪅㪇

研究ノート

㪈㪇㪅㪇



㪌㪅㪇
㪇㪅㪇

㫃㪼㫊㫊㩷㫋㪿㪸㫅㩷㪌㪇㩼㪌㪇㩷㪄㩷㪎㪐㩼

㪏㪇㩷㪄㩷㪐㪐㩼

Lawyers' concerns: winning the case or resolving the dispute
It is usually said that judgment is preferable when a clear-cut result is ex-㪈㪇㪇㩼pected, while settlement is more suitable when a complicated dispute is to be re-Figure 9: Levels of Achievement: Estimation by Lawyers

solved fundamentally. Asked which aspect they cared about more; wining the
㪈㪇㪇㩼
㪏㪇㩼

㪎㪊㪅㪊㩼

㪍㪇㩼
㪋㪇㩼
㪉㪇㩼

case or resolving the disputes, 50% of lawyers answered said that they attached

㪊㪇㪅㪋㩼

㪊㪌㪅㪇㩼

more importance to resolving the disputes than winning the case as shown in㪎㪋㪅㪎㩼

Figure 11.

㪍㪐㪅㪍㩼

㪍㪌㪅㪇㩼
㪉㪍㪅㪎㩼

㪉㪌㪅㪊㩼

㪌㪇㪄㪎㪐㩼

㪏㪇㪄㪐㪐㩼

㪇㩼㫃㪼㫊㫊㩷㫋㪿㪼㫅㩷㪌㪇㩼Comparing the answers of lawyers representing plaintiffs with those of defendants, we found that lawyers representing defendants were more likely to at-㪈㪇㪇㩼㫇㪼㫉㪺㪼㫅㫋㪸㪾㪼㩷㫆㪽㩷㪸㪺㪿㫀㪼㫍㫄㪼㫅㫋㩷㫆㪽㩷㫆㫉㫀㪾㫀㫅㪸㫃㩷㫇㫉㫆㫊㫇㪼㪺㫋㫊㪡㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋㫊tach importance to resolving the dispute than winning the case, which is㪪㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋㫊

statistically significant at the 1% level (see, Figure 12). But as shown in Table

Figure 10: Levels of Achievement of Original Prospects and the Results of Cases

3, the settlement rate of cases where defendants were represented by lawyers
was no higher than ones where plaintiffs were represented. In other words, itgroups were ended overwhelmingly by settlement (more than 70%), which isseems that lawyers' concern for resolving dispute did not necessarily lead toshown in Figure 10. This suggests that lawyers seemed to prefer settlement topreferences to settlement.

judgment unless they had strong confidence in winning by judgment. As thelikelihood to achieve the original prospect lowered, they turned to settlement,

㪉㪏㪅㪇㩼

㪊㪇㪅㪇㩼

but as the level of achievement lowered further to under the fifty percent level,

㪉㪊㪅㪉㩼
㪉㪇㪅㪇㩼

negotiations with the opponents got harder and the lawsuits were ended moreby judgments preferable to the opponents.

㪉㪈㪅㪎㩼
㪈㪋㪅㪇㩼

㪈㪊㪅㪈㩼

㪈㪇㪅㪇㩼

Inferring from the results above, the main concern of lawyers in the majority㪇㪅㪇㩼of cases where 100% achievement of original prospect by judgment is in doubt㪮㫀㫅㫀㫅㪾㩷㫋㪿㪼㪺㪸㫊㪼shifts to finding a way to settle the case with maximum gains to their clients.

( 42 )

㪩㪼㫊㫆㫃㫍㫀㫅㪾㩷㫋㪿㪼㪻㫀㫊㫇㫌㫋㪼

Figure 11: Lawyers' Concern: Winning the Case or Resolving the Dispute

Contrary to litigants' expectations to have right and wrong decided clearly
58−3−117 (名城 '09)㪚㪸㫅㩾㫋㩷㫊㪸㫐㩷㫆㫅㪼㫎㪸㫐㩷㫆㫉㩷㫋㪿㪼㫆㫋㪿㪼㫉

( 43 )(名城'09)58−3− 116

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート
reasonable gains with forthcoming judgment in mind, and the other is the time-㪛㪼㪽㪼㫅㪻㪸㫅㫋㫊㩾㩷㫃㪸㫎㫐㪼㫉㫊㪉㪌㪅㪉㩼㪏㪅㪋㩼 㪍㪅㪌㩼㪊㪍㪅㪋㩼oriented concern which makes a compromise a real option because of the various

㪉㪊㪅㪋㩼

costs including mental exhaustion. Although concerns for family, neighbors,㪧㫃㪸㫀㫅㫋㫀㪽㪽㫊㩾㩷㫃㪸㫎㫐㪼㫉㫊

㪉㪉㪅㪉㩼

㪈㪍㪅㪐㩼

㪈㪍㪅㪋㩼

㪉㪊㪅㪎㩼

and colleagues do not seem to occupy a major part in the list of settlement con-㪉㪇㪅㪏㩼siderations, it is likely that some litigants are nevertheless forced to decide to
㪇㩼

㪈㪇㩼

㪉㪇㩼

㪊㪇㩼

㪋㪇㩼

㪌㪇㩼

㪍㪇㩼

㪎㪇㩼

㪏㪇㩼

㪐㪇㩼

㪈㪇㪇㩼

Figure 12: Comparison of Lawyers' Concerns

settle their case unwillingly.
When litigants are represented by lawyers, their advice seems to have strong
effects on litigants when they choose settlement in court. Recommendations by㪈㪇㪇㩼

judges also seem to have a strong but indirect influence on litigants' decision,

㪏㪇㩼

㪌㪇㪅㪏㩼

㪋㪐㪅㪉㩼

㪍㪇㩼

㪍㪈㪅㪐㩼

㪌㪈㪅㪋㩼

㪍㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪌㪋㪅㪉㩼

㪊㪏㪅㪈㩼

㪋㪏㪅㪍㩼

㪋㪇㪅㪇㩼

㪋㪌㪅㪏㩼

through the lawyers' advice. Then, the ways lawyers respond and treat litigants'

㪋㪇㩼

expectations for the lawsuit, and at the same time, try to secure reasonable㪉㪇㩼

gains for their clients should be analyzed more fully, with the gap of orientation㪇㩼㪮㫀㫅㫅㫀㫅㪾㩷㫋㪿㪼㪺㪸㫊㪼㪚㪸㫅㩾㫋㩷㫊㪸㫐㩷㫆㫅㪼㫎㪸㫐㩷㫆㫉㩷㫋㪿㪼㫆㫋㪿㪼㫉㫁㫌㪻㪾㫄㪼㫅㫋

㪩㪼㫊㫆㫃㫍㫀㫅㪾㩷㫋㪿㪼㪻㫀㫊㫇㫌㫋㪼

between litigants and lawyers in mind. Recognition of this gap is especially important to find ways for better interactions between lawyers and their clients,
and increase litigants' satisfaction for the legal process and strengthening peo-㫊㪼㫋㫋㫃㪼㫄㪼㫅㫋

Figure 13: Levels of Lawyers' Concerns and Result of Cases

ple's trust in the judicial system.

We can confirm the assumption by checking the settlement rate according to
the levels of lawyers' concern for dispute resolution. As Figure 13 shows, law-

[Notes]１

According to the annual report of the Supreme Court, 48.0% of cases of the first instance at district courts were ended by judgment, 34.5% by in-court settlement andyers' concern for "winning the case" or "resolving the dispute" did not bring

14.2% by withdrawal in the fiscal year 2004.

about significant differences in judgment and settlement rates5.
２

When the difference of the average of two groups is statistically significant, "**" or"*" is put on the items of Figure 1. The mark "**" is put when the difference is signifi-

5. Conclusioncant in 1% level, and "*" in 5% level.
３

Generally speaking, litigants as a whole, with the exception of unrepresented

suits by settlement were divided into 5 clusters using the ward method.

defendants, did not seem to expect to settle their case in court at the outset. But
many litigants, showing expectations for having their case decided clearly,

In this analysis, each litigant's sub-scores of three factors of settlement were calculated using the factor analysis shown in Table 8, and litigants who ended their law-４

But each cluster of litigants does not have any significant relations with the four
categories of litigants statistically.

turned to settlement after taking various factors into consideration. Three sub５

The results of crosstabs analysis showed no correlations of statistically significant.

jective factors can be discerned: one is the practical concern for getting
58−3−115 (名城 '09)

( 44 )( 45 )(名城'09)58−3− 114

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート() Settlement discussions

Settlement and Evaluation of
Civil Litigation Experience

44% of respondents answered that they engaged in discussions relating to settlement during the course of the lawsuit whereas 56% answered that they did
not (Table 1). Of the cases in which settlement discussions took place, 65.4% terminated by in-court settlements whereas 65.8% of the cases without any settle-

Shusuke KAKIUCHI

ment discussions ended by judgments (Figure 1).
It is to be noted that among respondents answering that there were no settle1. Introductionment discussions, 29% reported that their cases ended by settlements. Some lawyer-represented respondents might have answered that there were no settlement

Overview
discussions without knowing that their counsels in fact engaged in such discusBased on the results of the "Litigation Behavior Survey", this paper discusses

sions. On the other hand, it is not clear why some of the unrepresented plaintiffs

the effects of settlement on litigants' evaluations of procedure, in order to consider the function of judgment and settlement to resolve civil disputes. It focuses

Table 1: Did you engage in discussions relating to settlement during the course of the lawsuit?
N

Percent

Valid %

Cum. %

Yes

193

36.2

44.0

44.0

No

246

46.2

56.0

100.0

Total

439

82.4

100.0

Don't know

76

14.3

No answer

18

3.4

on the relation between factors such as (i) result of the case (judgment or settlement), (ii) whether settlement discussions were held during the course of theValidlawsuit and the litigants' evaluation of procedure regarding (a) whether they
won or lost, (b) whether they regard the result as justified or unjustified, andMissing(c) whether they would use a lawsuit if a similar matter occurred in future.

Total

This examination suggests that there is no consistent tendency in favor of setTotal

tlement and that, rather, in certain cases a settlement or efforts toward it may

94

17.6

533

100.0

have a negative effect on litigants' view of procedure.
Preliminary remarks on the data of the "Litigation Behavior Survey"() Results at district court level: rate of judgments and settlements
Among 466 respondents who gave valid answers about their results at district
court level, 49% answered that their procedure ended by judgment and 43% by incourt settlement1.

Figure 1: Settlement discussions and result of the case58−3−113 (名城 '09)

( 46 )( 47 )(名城'09)58−3− 112

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート
Table 2: Types of litigation classified by types of litigants (I)Plaintiffs
Defendants
represented represented
by lawyers by lawyers

Figure 2: Extent to which judge (s) recommended settling the case(20%) as well as unrepresented defendants (44.2%) could settle without any discussion.

() Extent to which judge (s) recommended settling the case
Figure 2 shows to what extend judge (s) recommended settling in cases wheresettlement discussions took place. 48.3% of respondents answered that judge (s)recommended "somewhat", 23.8% "strongly" and 11.3% "very strongly". This result means that more than 80% respondents found that judge (s) recommended
settling more or less actively.

() Types of litigation
In our survey, the cases are classified into 21 groups according to the type ofclaim. This classification is primarily based on the classification by the court,

Unrepresented
plaintiffs

Unrepresented
defendants

Total

1. Loan-related

19

13

5

15

52

2. Surety-related

0

4

0

11

15

3. Purchase money-related

3

0

0

6

9

4. Credit-related [incl. credit cardrelated claims]/Indemnification

5

5

0

27

37

5. Contract-related damages

9

6

0

3

18

6. Subcontract-related

0

4

1

0

5

7. Traffic accidents

38

19

1

3

61

8. Torts (excl. traffic accidents)

44

32

10

5

91

9. Rent-related

8

0

0

2

10

10. Ownership of land or building

4

3

0

0

7

11. Eviction from land or building

28

10

2

24

64

12. Real property title registrationrelated

8

8

3

6

25

13. Divorce-related

0

1

0

0

1

14. Inheritance-related

13

7

0

0

20

15. Other

22

13

4

7

46

16. Unjust enrichment (incl. overpayment of interest on consumer loans)

16

1

2

0

19

17. Deposit

6

0

3

0

9

18. Confirmation of non-existence ofobligation

7

1

0

6

14

19. Labor

9

2

5

0

16

20. Promissory note

0

0

1

0

1

21. Determination of boundary

4

8

0

1

13

243

137

37

116

533

Total

which is marked on each case file. The numbers of the cases belonging to eachgroup are shown in Table 2.
However, as the numbers of cases falling into each group are often too small
for statistical analyses, it is necessary to regroup these classes. Table 3 shows
the result of the regrouping, which will serve as the base for the following
analyses concerning types of litigation.

2. Settlement and evaluations of procedureSettlement and evaluation of results
Regarding the evaluation of result (victory or loss), there is no significant

difference between litigants whose cases are ended by judgment (hereafter"judgment-litigants") and those whose cases are ended by settlement (hereafter"settlement-litigants") (Figure 3)2 . The result is similar for the evaluation
whether the result of the case was just or unjust (Figure 4).
58−3−111 (名城 '09)

( 48 )( 49 )(名城'09)58−3− 110

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート

Table 3: Types of litigation (Ⅱ)①Loan-related (104 cases)

1. Loan-related
2. Surety-related
4. Credit-related [incl credit card-related claims]/
Indemnification②Non-existence of obligation/
Unjust enrichment (33 cases)

16. Unjust enrichment (incl. overpayment of inte
rest on consumer loans)
18. Confirmation of non-existence of obligation③Contract-related (32 cases)

3. Purchase money-related
5. Contract-related damages
6. Subcontract-related④Traffic accidents-related(61 cases)

7. Traffic accidents⑤Other torts (91 cases)

8. Torts (excl. traffic accidents)⑥Real property-related(119 cases)

9. Rent-related
10. Ownership of land or building
11. Eviction from land or building
12. Real property title registration-related
21. Determination of boundary

Figure 4: Evaluation of result at district court level: Just or unjust (mean scores)

However, Figures 5 and 6 show that in certain types of litigation, there is⑦Inheritance-related (20 cases)

14. Inheritance-related

some difference between the evaluation of the result by judgment-litigants and⑧Other (73 cases)

13. Divorce-related
15. Other
17. Deposit
19. Labor
20. Promissory notesettlement-litigants. Namely, in "Non-existence of obligation/Unjust enrichment" cases, settlements are considered "victory" more often than judgments,
whereas the contrary is true in "Contract-related" cases (Figure 5). Regardingwhether the result was just or unjust, settlements are more often considered"just" than judgments in "Non-existence of obligation etc." cases as well (Figure
6).
These analyses show that, in general, litigants' evaluation of the result does
not depend on whether a case ends by judgment or settlement.
This result may suggest that for most of litigants, there is no significant difference with respect to the substance of the solution between a judgment and asettlement. In other words, there is no evidence that litigants are systematicallycompelled to accept an unfavorable or unjust solution in the form of judgment
or settlement. In that sense, we may conclude that, in general, litigants are

Figure 3: Evaluation of result at district court level: Victory or loss (mean scores)making reasonable choices between these two alternatives.
However, it is also to be noted that in certain types of litigation, there is somedeviation from this general current.

58−3−109 (名城 '09)

( 50 )( 51 )(名城'09)58−3− 108

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート



Results at the district court level and willingness to re-use a lawsuit
Interestingly, although there is no significant difference between the evalua-tion of the result by judgment-litigants and settlement-litigants, there is a significant difference regarding the willingness of litigant to re-use a lawsuit.
Figure 7 shows that in every category of litigant, judgment-litigants answered more often than settlement-litigants that they would use a lawsuit if asimilar matter occurred in future. The difference is statistically significant for
all respondents and particularly for represented defendants. Analysis by type of
litigation shows further that the difference is considerable in "Loan-related" andFigure 5: Evaluation of results at the district court level:"Contract-related" cases, whereas there is no such difference in "Real property-

Victory or loss (mean scores), classified according to type of litigation* Variance analysis: p=0.012 (Non-existence of obligations etc.); p=0.068 (Contract-related)

related" and "Inheritance-related" cases (Figure 8).
The question then arises, why are judgment-litigants are more willing thansettlement-litigants to re-use a lawsuit? Since judgments are not necessarily
considered to be more favorable or more just than settlements (see (1) above),the substance of the solution itself cannot explain this result. In this regard,
something that deserves our attention is that even in "Non-existence of obliga-

Figure 6: Evaluation of results at the district court level:
Just or unjust (mean scores), classified according to type of litigation* Variance analysis: p=0.055 (Non-existence of obligation etc.)

Figure 7: Willingness to re-use a lawsuit (mean scores)* Variance analysis: p=0.001 (All respondents) ; p=0.003 (Represented defendants)

58−3−107 (名城 '09)

( 52 )( 53 )(名城'09)58−3− 106

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート
avoid using a lawsuit the next time.
In fact, certain expectations towards lawsuits correlate to the willingness to
re-use a lawsuit. For example, expectations such as "to clearly decide right andwrong" and "to punish the other side" have positive correlations to the willingness to re-use a lawsuit, whereas "to get the opportunity to talk with the otherside" and "to restore relations with the other side" have negative ones (Table 4).
This seems to be consistent with the above-mentioned hypothesis.

Table 4: Correlation of goals of litigation and willingness to re-use a lawsuit (All respondents)
Willingness to re-use alawsuitFigure 8: Willingness to re-use a lawsuit (mean scores), classified according to type of litigation

To achieve social justicePearson correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)N.133 (**).005
436

To protect your rights

Pearson correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.089
.060
445

To resolve the dispute quickly

Pearson correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.011
.812
455

To get the opportunity to talkwith the other side

Pearson correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)N-.163 (**)
.001
445

To restore relations with the other Pearson correlation
side
Sig. (2-tailed)N-.157 (**)
.001
440

To clearly decide right and wrong

Pearson correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)N.240 (**).000447

To protect your interests

Pearson correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)N.170 (**).000444

To punish the other side

Pearson correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)N.194 (**).000
435

To compel the other side to admit
he/she was wrong

Pearson correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)N.166 (**).000
442

To have a judge hear what you
have to say

Pearson correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.040
.412
429

* Variance analysis: p=0.033 (Loan-related) ; p=0.001 (Contract-related)tion etc." cases, where litigants consider settlements more favorable and morejust than judgments, litigants are more willing to re-use a lawsuit when theircases ended by judgment, though this is statistically not significant.
One possible explanation is that judgment-litigants' expectations towards
lawsuits are somewhat different from those of settlement-litigants. Namely, as
Professor Moriya discusses in his paper, judgment-litigants are expecting more
"to clearly decide right and wrong" and "to compel the other side to admit he/she
was wrong", whereas settlement-litigants are expecting more "to restore relations with the other side". It is then possible that while expectations such as "toclearly decide right and wrong" and "to compel the other side to admit he/she
was wrong" are satisfied relatively well by a judgment, it might be hard to satisfy expectations such as "to restore relations with the other side" even by a settlement, since the occurrence of a lawsuit is often equivalent to the definitive
rupture between litigants, which makes such restoration impossible. If so, settlement-litigants who hope to keep good relations with the other side would
58−3−105 (名城 '09)

( 54 )** Correlation is significant at 1% level (2-tailed).

( 55 )(名城'09)58−3− 104

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers



研究ノート

Result at district court level and evaluation of judge
Regarding the evaluation of judges, settlement-litigants tend to be more fa-

vorable to judges than judgment-litigants (Figure 9). The difference is significant for "listened carefully" at 5% and for "spoke in an easy-to-understandfashion" and "seemed to be looking down on you" at 10%. Among four groups oflitigants, this tendency is particularly clear for plaintiffs represented by lawyers (Figure 10).
However, analysis based on the type of litigation shows some deviations
again. On the one hand, there are some types of litigation, such as "Nonexistence of obligation/Unjust enrichment" cases, where settlement-litigants
give clearly higher evaluations to judges (Figure 11). On the other hand, there

Figure 10: Overall evaluation of judge (mean scores) (Plaintiffs represented by lawyers)

are some types of litigation, such as "Contract-related" cases, where, by con-

* Variance analysis: p=0.019 (Listened carefully); p=0.089 (Spoke in an easy-to-understandfashion); p=0.068 (Seemed to show favoritism to other side); p=0.022 (Seemed to be look-

trast, judgment-litigants give higher evaluations to judges (Figure 12). Thising down on you); p=0.072 (Was overbearing in trying to push trial forward)

may suggest that litigants of "Contract-related" cases are experiencing a certain

Figure 11: Overall evaluation of judge (mean scores) (Non-existence of obligation/ Unjust enrichment)

Figure 9: Overall evaluation of judge (mean scores)* Variance analysis: p=0.046 (Listened carefully) ; p=0.018 (Understood issues and back-* Variance analysis: p=0.033 (Listened carefully) ; p=0.091 (Spoke in an easy-to-understandfashion); p=0.066 (Seemed to be looking down on you)58−3−103 (名城 '09)

ground well) ; p=0.076 (Spoke in an easy-to-understand fashion) ; p=0.077 (Seemed toshow favoritism to other side) ; p=0.076 (Seemed to be looking down on you)( 56 )( 57 )(名城'09)58−3− 102

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート

Figure 13: Settlement discussions and evaluation of results at district court level(Victory or loss) (mean scores)

Figure 12: Overall evaluation of judge (mean scores) (Contract-related)* Variance analysis: p=0.087 (Listened carefully) ; p=0.003 (Seemed to be looking down on you)dissatisfaction with their settlements.

3. Settlement discussions and evaluations of procedureSettlement discussions and evaluation of judgment/settlement
So far, we have seen how judgment and settlement relate to evaluations ofprocedure. The next subject is how settlement discussions influence evaluations

Figure 14: Settlement discussions and evaluation of results at district court level(Just or unjust) (mean scores)of procedure.

* Variance analysis: p=0.060 (Settlement: Just or unjust)Figure 13 shows that experience of settlement discussions is unrelated to thelitigants' view about whether the judgment is a victory or a loss. On the other
hand, settlements are considered to be a victory less often when there were settlement discussions than when there were none, though this is statistically not

Analysis based on type of litigants shows that this tendency is primarilyfound in plaintiffs represented by lawyers (Figure 15 and 16).

significant. Similarly, settlement discussions have no influence on litigants'

Here again, analysis based on type of litigation shows some deviations.

evaluation of whether the judgment is just or unjust, whereas they seem to have

Namely, there are types of litigation showing clearly the same tendency (e.g.

certain negative influence on evaluation of the settlement (Figure 14).

"Non-existence of obligation etc." cases), while in "Other torts" cases, litigants

58−3−101 (名城 '09)

( 58 )( 59 )(名城'09)58−3− 100

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート

Figure 15: Settlement discussions and evaluation of settlements (Victory or loss) (mean scores)* Variance analysis: p=0.070 (Represented plaintiffs)
Figure 17: Settlement discussions and evaluation of settlement (Victory or loss)(mean scores), classified according to type of litigation* Variance analysis: ＊ p=0.104 (Non-existence of obligation/ Unjust enrichment); p=0.066(Other torts)

Figure 16: Settlement discussions and evaluation of Settlement (Just or unjust) (mean scores)

tend to consider their settlements more favorably when they have experienced
settlement discussions (Figure 17).
Figure 18: Settlement discussions and evaluation of settlement (Just or unjust)As for the question of whether the settlement was just or unjust, "Loanrelated" cases clearly show the same tendency as the respondents overall (Figure(mean scores), classified according to type of litigation* Variance analysis: p=0.009 (Loan-related)18).
To answer the question of why settlements discussions have a negative effect58−3−99(名城 '09)( 60 )( 61 )(名城'09)58−3− 98

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート

on evaluation of settlement, it is necessary to consider how litigants could settle
if they had no settlement discussions. One explanation may be that in such cases
there was no difficulty reaching an agreement so that litigants did not need toengage in discussion. If that is so, cases where litigants have experienced settlement discussions might be cases where there was a great deal of difficulty in arriving at an agreement. In such cases the gap between the claims of the litigants
might be more significant so that the realized agreement corresponds less withthe original intention of each litigant. However, the question of why this tendency is seen only in particular types of litigants or litigation needs further consideration.
Figure 20: Settlement discussions and willingness to re-use a lawsuit (mean scores),

Settlement discussions and willingness to re-use a lawsuitclassified according to type of litigation

Similarly, litigants without any experience of settlement discussions are more

* Variance analysis: p=0.058 (Other)willing than those with such experience to re-use a lawsuit if a similar matteroccurred in future (Figure 19). This tendency is clearly seen among represented

clear tendency. Only in the "other" cases, the difference is statistically signifi-

plaintiffs.

cant at 10% (Figure 20).

Analysis based on type of litigation shows that in most cases there is no such

The same hypothesis as (1) might be applicable to this case as well. Namely,
cases in which settlement discussions were held are often cases where the opposition between the litigants is serious, so that the realized compromise cannot
satisfy the original expectations of the litigants. This might result in less willingness to re-use a lawsuit. However, as Figure 21 shows, there is no such negative effect when the case ended by judgment. This suggests that there may beother factors peculiar to settlements.
Settlement discussions and evaluation of judges
As for the evaluation of judges, settlement discussions have neither positive

nor negative effect on it (Figure 22). However, it is worthwhile mentioning that
Figure 19: Settlement discussions and willingness to re-use a lawsuit (mean scores)* Variance analysis: p=0.010 (All respondents) ; p=0.007 (Represented plaintiffs)

58−3−97(名城 '09)

in represented defendants, settlement discussions have negative effects on someitems (Figure 23).

( 62 )( 63 )(名城'09)58−3− 96

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート

Figure 21: Settlement discussions and willingness to re-use a lawsuit (mean scores),classified according to result at district court level* Variance analysis: p=0.076 (Settlement)
Figure 23: Overall evaluation of judges (mean scores) (Represented defendants)* Variance analysis: p=0.028 (Seemed to be looking down on you); p=0.017 (Was overbearing in trying to push trial forward)

Figure 22: Overall evaluation of judge (mean scores)

On the other hand, analysis based on type of litigation shows that in "Nonexistence of obligation etc." cases, settlement discussions have a negative effecton the evaluation of judges (Figure 24), while in "Traffic accidents-related"

Figure 24: Overall evaluation of judge (mean scores)(Non-existence of obligation/ Unjust enrichment)

cases, they have positive effects on the contrary (Figure 25).
To conclude, although settlement discussions have in general no effects on
58−3−95(名城 '09)( 64 )* Variance analysis: p=0.025 (Was overbearing in trying to push trial forward)( 65 )(名城'09)58−3− 94

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers

研究ノート
4. Conclusion

The analyses so far give us the following findings regarding the function of
settlement and settlement discussions.
First, generally speaking, litigants' evaluation of the result of the case does
not depend much on whether the case ended by judgment or settlement. As forthe willingness to re-use a lawsuit, however, judgments have a certain advantage over settlements. On the other hand, settlements have certain positive effects on litigants' evaluation of judges.
Secondly, settlement discussions have some negative effects on the evaluationof the realized settlements and on the litigants' willingness to re-use a lawsuit.
Figure 25: Overall evaluation of judge (mean scores) (Traffic accidents-related)

On the other hand, they have generally no such effect on litigants' evaluation of* Variance analysis: p=0.099 (Understood issues and background well); p=0.087 (Was over-judges, while there are some categories of litigants and litigation, where they

bearing in trying to push trial forward)

have either positive or negative effects.
evaluation of judges, there are some categories of litigants or litigation where

As explanation for such results, this paper proposed following hypotheses. (i)they have some effects. Namely, for defendants represented by lawyers and liti-

Judgment-litigants' expectations towards lawsuit are somewhat different fromgants of "Non-existence of obligation etc." cases, settlement discussions havethose of settlement-litigants. Expectations such as "to clearly decide right andnegative effects on evaluation of judges, whereas in "Traffic accidents-related"

wrong" and "to compel the other side to admit he/she was wrong" may be satis-

cases, they have, on the contrary, some positive effects. This may suggest thatfied relatively well by a judgment, while it might be hard to suffice the expecta-

the way in which judges involve in settlement discussions differs according totion such as "to restore relations with the other side" by a settlement. (ii) Cases

type of litigation.

in which settlement discussions were held might be cases, where the opposition
between the litigants is serious, so that the realized compromise can not sufficethe original expectations of litigants.
Since the analyses of this paper are only primary ones, much more work remains to be done. In particular the question of how difference in types of litigants and cases results in differing evaluations of procedure, needs further
consideration.

58−3−93(名城 '09)( 66 )( 67 )(名城'09)58−3− 92

Attitude, Evaluation, and Decision-Making by Civil Litigants and Their Lawyers[notes]１

For details of the results, see Professor Moriya's paper in this volume.

２

Apparently, there is a certain difference for unrepresented plaintiffs. However, it isstatistically not significant (p=0.110 by variance analysis).

58−3−91(名城 '09)( 68 )