Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

Archive for the ‘Program Management’ Category

Court-Ordered Mediation Agreement Must Be Written

Susan M. Yates, July 27th, 2010

The Missouri Court of Appeals has issued a decision that is instructive as to what can happen when an agreement reached in a court-ordered mediation is not reduced to writing before everyone leaves the mediation. The decision also highlights the potential tension between an emphasis on good faith participation and confidentiality, although it never discusses good faith.

Missouri’s Supreme Court Rules 17.01(d) and 17.06(c) specifically require that agreements be memorialized. In this situation, one party left the mediation, saying they would return to finalize the agreement, but did not do so for an hour, at which point the other party and the mediator ended the mediation. During the ensuing week, there were follow-up efforts to finalize the agreement, but the party who had left the mediation quibbled with various drafts of the agreement.

The Appellate Court, reversing the trial court, found that the plain language of Supreme Court Rule 17.06 (c), (more…)

“Nudge”

Susan M. Yates, May 17th, 2010

I have started reading “Nudge” by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of University of Chicago. While I don’t know yet what I will think of all their ideas, they have captivated me with some already. Their discussion of “choice architects,” people who have the “responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions,” immediately got me thinking about how court ADR programs are designed, particularly decisions about referrals.

The authors describe the example of choice architects in a cafeteria putting salad and fruit at the beginning of the food line to promote healthy eating as a form of “libertarian paternalism,” a phrase they distinguish from the popular meanings of either word. (more…)

Dialogue & Deliberation

Susan M. Yates, April 30th, 2010

As we in court ADR continue to define what mediation, arbitration and other processes are, it might do us well to look at others who are defining processes. This came to mind when I was checking out the web site of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, www.NCDD.org. Their introduction to the “streams” and processes of dialogue and deliberation contains almost 20 processes in the four streams: exploration, conflict transformation, decision-making, and collaborative action.

I’m not suggesting that most of these are the types of processes to which courts are going to refer litigants, but there are approaches that courts and their kin (mediation centers, bar associations, etc.) might think about using when designing and reviewing court ADR programs. A fresh approach might be just what is needed to think outside the box about ADR as it becomes increasingly institutionalized.

Florida Breaks New Ground in Mediator Standards

Jennifer Shack, April 6th, 2010

Former judges in Florida no longer can promote their mediation practice by using the title “Judge” or appearing in judge’s robes in advertisements. In amendments to the marketing rule of the “Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators,” the Florida Supreme Court seeks to make sure that the “integrity of the judicial system” is not impugned by judges using the prestige of their former office to serve their own commercial interests.  The amendments go further in limiting what former judges (and arbitrators) may say by prohibiting any implication “that prior adjudicative experience makes one a better or more-qualified mediator.”

As this was the first time I’d heard of such a limitation, I searched the Research Library on CourtADR.org for other standards in place around the U.S. It appears that only Florida mentions anything in their mediator standards about how judges may advertise their services. Am I right? Does anyone have other examples of this type of rule?

Verified by ExactMetrics