Illinois rule changes that may increase the availability of counsel for alternative dispute resolution processes take effect in two weeks. After July 1, 2013, it will be easier for lawyers to work with clients on one clearly defined portion of a civil legal matter without taking on other issues or proceedings within the case. Updated forms and procedures streamline representation for clients who wish to retain a lawyer for settlement negotiations only, understanding that the lawyer will not be responsible for taking the case to trial. (more…)
Archive for the ‘Policy-making’ Category
Illinois Rule Changes Increase Opportunities for Legal Representation in ADR
Just Court ADR, June 17th, 2013What Does the Transformation of Justice Look Like? British Columbia Has an Answer
Jennifer Shack, June 7th, 2013With the financial crunch that has hit courts, jurisdiction after jurisdiction has asked what ADR’s role should be. Should ADR be the method through which courts can both serve litigants and save money, or is it a financial burden on courts that should be eliminated or privatized? In many courts in the US, the answer has been the latter. This was seen most recently with the closure of Los Angeles County’s ADR program – the largest in the country. As mediators there work to develop a private system to replace services the court once provided, the government of British Columbia is moving in a different direction. There, the eye is on developing integrated administrative systems, including ADR, that would limit use of the courts to those disputes most appropriate for litigation. (more…)
Montana Overwhelmed by Record Number of Cases; Looks to Innovate
Jennifer Shack, May 7th, 2013Montana’s civil caseload topped 50,000 last year. That may not seem to be a lot to those in more populated states, but it’s enough to drive the state’s legislature to act. Citing an overwhelmed bench and litigants deprived of “prompt, careful consideration,” the legislature issued a joint resolution that the state evaluate the cost and effectiveness of current court processes and “identify measures that will help improve the administration of justice and promote the nonadversarial resolution of family law disputes.” It’s yet to be seen if the study will be undertaken, as studies requested by the legislature are prioritized at the end of the legislative session.
It’s great to see a state legislature looking to get data on court performance and trying to find evidence-based solutions to what appears to be a problem for the courts. They say necessity is the mother of invention. Here, it appears to be the mother of evaluation as well.
New Perspective on Domestic Violence and Mediation in Montana
Just Court ADR, April 26th, 2013Should domestic violence survivors and their abusers ever undergo family court mediation together? This is one of the thorniest debates in the ADR community. This week, the Montana Legislature weighed in with a qualified “yes.” The legislature passed a bill to revise state mediation laws on domestic violence. The bill, HB 555, enables survivors to give informed consent to mediation, while requiring specialized training for eligible mediators. This reverses the state’s prior understanding, in which a suspicion of any past abuse between parties, whether physical, sexual, or emotional, created an “absolute bar” to any court-ordered mediation. The history of the Montana mediation rules captures the evolution of thought on this topic, from rule creation to court re-interpretation to legislative refinement. (more…)
