Since the Civil Litigation Research Project in the 1980s, sociolegal researchers have referenced the metaphor of the dispute pyramid to understand dispute resolution. The pyramid focuses on formal legal dispute resolution and represents disputes as a linear process of attrition in which only a small proportion of perceived injuries proceed to adjudication. Although a fertile metaphor, the dispute pyramid approach left important processes undertheorized and understudied. We propose a new

more »

... : the dispute tree. The dispute tree has many branches, both legal and nonlegal, through which grievances may be resolved. Grievances may move along several branches simultaneously, and dispute resolution may be a nonlinear process. Branches represent the evolving nature of disputes as living organisms that may bear flowers and fruit or may wither and die. Not only dispute trees but also their forests are subjects for study. Dispute trees exist in social environments that may foster or inhibit healthy growth; they may grow within public or privately governed forests. We argue that the dispute tree metaphor better represents decades of research on disputing, which has identified myriad disputing channels outside of courts, as well as both individual and collective mobilization. We also believe that this new metaphor for disputes and the dispute process will open new avenues of inquiry. Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:105-131. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of California -Berkeley on 02/18/15. For personal use only. a central trunk. Some branches represent traditional paths through the legal system, with side branches for settlement and private ordering, truncated branches for injuries named and blamed but not claimed, and fruitless tips for grievances that were pursued without remedy then abandoned. Other branches represent quasi-legal alternative dispute resolution processes for potential legal claims, including grievance procedures within organizations, community mediation and dispute resolution mechanisms, and formal alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such as the formal processes often required by courts before adjudication. Still other branches represent extralegal alternatives to formal legal claims, such as informal legal mobilization, collective action, self-help, and even self-reflection and prayer. The tree imagery improves upon the pyramid not only because it better represents the multiplicity of options, but also because it reflects the living and evolving nature of disputes. Branches may produce flowers, fruit, or both, or they may wither and die. Flowers represent symbolic indicia of justice, such as the public opportunity to be heard, the recognition of injuries and responsibility (e.g., a formal apology), and the like. Fruit, by contrast, represents material remedies such as reinstatement at work or financial compensation for injury. The dispute tree metaphor suggests new avenues of inquiry regarding the dispute resolution process. How has the shape of the tree changed over time? New branches for ADR and internal dispute resolution processes within organizations have grown dramatically in recent years, for example. Which branches bear only flowers (i.e., symbolic remedies without material compensation), which branches yield only fruit (i.e., compensation without symbolic recognition), and which branches produce both? Which branches are easily accessible, with low-hanging fruit if you will, and which branches are accessible only to those with ladders (i.e., significant resources)? Are there missing branches, branches we might expect to grow that haven't? How and under what circumstances do individuals engage with trees, by enjoying their flowers, eating their fruit, climbing them, sitting in their shade, jumping from branch to branch, or walking by without stopping? How often do individuals get lost in the legal forest, and do guides (i.e., lawyers) make a difference? The metaphor may be extended further, into a forest of trees representing different kinds of disputes, such as contract, tort, or discrimination claims. Which trees grow vigorously and which are stunted? For example, which trees have been lopped off across the top through caps on damages or procedural barriers to bringing claims? Which trees are prevented from growing at all by pruning the trunk (named injuries) from the roots (un-PIEs)? Are there missing trees that perhaps should have grown but didn't? Which are most numerous and which are scarce, and who benefits as a result of this distribution? Are there both public forests and private orchards (i.e., public and private legal orders)? Who owns and controls these places? Who may enter and who is excluded? How does the environment (e.g., social structure and processes) affect the population, growth, and health of the forest? The dispute tree metaphor moves the inquiry away from focusing on the individual's trajectory up the pyramid toward theorizing the role of structural processes that shape dispute resolution more generally. In other words, the tree metaphor not only invites questions about whether and how individuals climb a given tree but also examines the conditions under which a particular tree and its many branches will flourish or die. It also sweeps more broadly to consider the overall health of the forest as well as individuals' paths through that forest. In this article, we discuss the empirical work on dispute resolution with this new metaphor in mind. We begin by considering precursors to the dispute pyramid that offer alternative models for how disputes evolve and progress. We then review literature about the stages of the dispute pyramid, considering empirical evidence about social factors that influence claiming and remedial benefits along the traditional legal path. We go on to examine the literature about institutionalized noncourt alternatives for dispute resolution, with an eye toward the rapid development of these alternatives, how well they provide the flowers and fruit of remedies for injuries, and the implications for the forest of dispute resolution in general. Then, we step back to consider the www.annualreviews.org • The Dispute Tree and the Legal Forest 109 The Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.