Since the 1990’s, “apology laws” have been heralded as an effective component of a strategy for reducing the incidence of malpractice lawsuits. The theory is that these laws will encourage doctors to disclose errors to patients without fear that the disclosure or their expression of apology will result in litigation. Apology laws allow defendants to exclude statements of sympathy made after accidents from evidence.  Over a dozen states have passed apology laws. It is not at all clear whether these laws are as effective as proponents hoped, but there is also little evidence these laws do any harm.  In the courtroom, apology happens frequently. 

The Washington Post has an  article on the success or failure of apologies. Peter Kim, a professor at the University of Southern California, argues that whether or not apologies are effective depends on whether the underlying is perceived to be intentional or unintentional.   

No one has done much research on the courtroom apology and whether that is effective or not, but everyone knows that acceptance of responsibility is a time honored justification for mitigating punishment.  Judges hear “I did not understand the Court’s order” pretty regularly. 

For court administrators, a sincere apology can go a long way toward instilling loyalty.  If you explain how a mistake happened, people are much more likely to believe that you have analyzed it and taken steps to avoid its repetition.  As the Washington Post article points out, “everyone makes mistakes, the search is not for people who never make mistakes, it is for people who fix them and go on to use the experience to prevent them.”