Summary Jury Trials as an Alternative to Litigation

Trials have become so expensive that few clients choose to go through them. A modified version of so-called “summary jury trials” could provide an affordable solution to that problem, according to the author.

In a summary jury trial, both parties participate in an abbreviated, mock trial before an advisory jury. The process is non-binding, and it is intended to be a flexible.

The author proposes holding summary jury trials – with some binding effect – after initial discovery has been completed, but before the close of discovery. The advisory jury might hear only lawyers’ arguments, or they might hear some testimony from witnesses.

If used as the author proposes, and at an early stage of a case, the summary jury trial would allow the parties to observe the perception of jurors on the main merits of their case.

It also would be an efficient form of discovery, regardless of whether the case settles. Each side would see the other’s key documents and witnesses.

This would help boil down the key evidence. Counsel for both sides would be in a better position to streamline any further discovery and prepare for trial. And, if the parties failed to reach settlement, they’d still have enough money left to try the case on the merits.

The author analyzes an expedited trial program offered by a California court and says it compares unfavorably to a summary jury trial, if the case in question is complex.