Housing advocates are lauding the Nevada Supreme Court’s trio of decisions, released Thursday, about Nevada’s foreclosure mediation program. However, under the surface of Pasillas, Redmon, and Leyva lurks factors that could cause upheaval (more…)
Archive for the ‘Policy-making’ Category
Groundbreaking Court Decision Requires Courts to Comply with Mediators
Just Court ADR, July 15th, 2011Uniform Mediation Act – Ten Years Later
Susan M. Yates, July 1st, 2011The JAMS Dispute Resolution Alert has a good article by Justin Kelly about the ten-year anniversary of the Uniform Mediation Act. Having participated in some of the deliberations during the drafting of the Act, I have been interested to see how it has been implemented.
One thing that stands out to me, even after ten years, is the lack of clarity among mediators, lawyers and the mediating public about exactly what the Act provides in terms of confidentiality. Many see the UMA as providing confidentiality of all mediation communications. In fact, what it provides is much narrower than that. (more…)
Professor Seeks Domestic Violence Screening Tools
Susan M. Yates, June 28th, 2011Prof. Susan Raines of Kennesaw State University is seeking examples of instruments used by mediation programs to screen for domestic violence. She writes:
“As Georgia considers revising its screening tools and policies for domestic violence in mediation, I am seeking examples from other jurisdictions within and outside the United States. As a researcher at Kennesaw State University’s Conflict Management Master’s Program, it is my hope that any changes to Georgia’s DV screening and policies will reflect the current state of knowledge on the subject as well as best practices from our peer courts.”
If your state or program has tools to share please send them to Susan (sraines@kennesaw.edu). She may also conduct a small number of interviews with court staff, judges, or mediators in other states. If Susan’s name sounds familiar, it may be because she is the editor of Conflict Resolution Quarterly, where she does a great job juggling lots of potential articles and putting together a quality publication.
ADR and Self-Represented Litigants
Susan M. Yates, June 24th, 2011The Center for American Progress has published a paper, “Grounds for Objection: Causes and Consequences of America’s Pro Se Crisis and How to Solve the Problem of Unrepresented Litigants” that recommends ADR as one method for helping the growing numbers of pro se litigants in the country’s courtrooms:
“Alternative dispute resolution methods administered by lawyers and nonlawyers alike can help people avoid court altogether. Mediation is often considered particularly useful in family law cases where it can promote cooperation in parents who must remain significantly involved with one another after their case is resolved.”
The author wisely points out that ADR is not a panacea:
“For some litigants, alternatives to the traditional client-attorney relationship will not work. They may be unable to resolve their disputes in mediation, their case may be too complicated, or they may face personal issues such as mental health problems that make both ADR and self-representation poor options.”
This takes a very healthy perspective, one that those of us who care about both ADR and about individuals with limited resources should embody. We should think broadly about how the processes we promote can assist people and what the limits are to the effectiveness of these processes.
