Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

Archive for the ‘RSI Board of Directors’ Category

With Thanks to My Family, My Mentors and America, Recognizing our Professional Obligation to Keep Open the Gates of Justice

Just Court ADR, May 21st, 2025

On April 25, 2025, RSI presented its Harris H. Agnew Service to Community Award to Hon. Morton Denlow (Ret.). Many in attendance commented on how moving they found Judge Denlow’s acceptance speech, and he has been gracious enough to allow us to share it with you today. The speech has been edited for length. 

Thank you for this award. It means a great deal to me because Judge Harris Agnew was an innovative leader on the bench and at RSI in promoting access to justice through the use of ADR in our courts. This award gives me the opportunity to thank my family, the people who made the award possible, and those who mentored me and were role models to me throughout my career as a lawyer, judge and mediator. It also gives me an opportunity to tell you about my personal and professional journey and to emphasize the important role our profession and RSI play in providing equal access to justice in our courts.

A Little About How I Got Here

I want to thank America for welcoming my parents, a younger brother and me to this country in 1949. I am an immigrant. My parents were Polish Jewish Holocaust survivors. My mother was 14 and my father was 26 when the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939. They miraculously managed to survive for six years through World War II. They both lost their parents and most of their siblings and other family members during the war.

My parents met in a displaced persons camp outside of Munich in 1946, where they married and had their first two boys, including me. Our family immigrated to St. Louis, sponsored by an aunt who had immigrated with her family to St. Louis years before the war.

My parents became naturalized citizens in the federal courthouse in St. Louis in 1955. My favorite duty as a Magistrate Judge was to welcome new citizens and conduct Naturalization ceremonies where I could share my own experience as an immigrant.

My parents raised six kids: five sons and one daughter. I was the oldest. They were tailors and eventually opened their own tailor shop. My mother took over and ran the tailor shop after my Dad passed away when I was 23 years old and my youngest brother was only 4.

Fortunately for my family back then, America welcomed immigrants fleeing the ravages of war and provided my family with freedom, liberty and opportunity. The memory of my parents inspires me every day in both my personal and professional life.

I was fortunate to attend a Jewish day school through ninth grade when I had my first court appearance. Our ninth-grade class took a field trip to Washington, D.C., where we entered the Supreme Court building with the inscription “Equal Justice Under Law.” To our great surprise, we were ushered into the chambers of Chief Justice Earl Warren, where he spoke to us and answered questions about the court and his work. I looked around, and I thought: This might be a wonderful job. I later wrote a term paper about him and set my sights on going into law.

I attended a wonderful public high school and earned a scholarship to Washington University. I met my wife, Reva, during freshman orientation. I was walking around campus with a friend when we saw Reva walking ahead of us with her friend. I used my best pickup line: “Hey, girls.” It worked. We were married after our junior year. Fifty-six years later, we are still going strong.

My Career as a Lawyer

We moved to Chicago, where Reva worked as a teacher to put me through law school at Northwestern. I spent 24 years at several law firms in Chicago doing complex commercial and class action litigation.

During that time, I was privileged to have a number of great mentors and role models who were not only outstanding lawyers, but who also taught me the importance of pro bono work and public service. Bob Gettleman hired me and mentored me at my first job. He continued to mentor me after I joined the court. He now serves as a Senior District Court Judge here in Chicago. As a young lawyer I also worked closely for several years with the late Abner Mikva, who left private practice to serve as a congressman, D.C. Circuit Judge and counsel to President Clinton.

I was also privileged to be a young partner to the late Lowell Sachnoff, the top class action lawyer in Chicago for many years, who was still doing pro bono work representing Guantanamo prisoners into his late 80s. Lowell mentored a whole group of young lawyers who still meet monthly as Lowell’s “ducklings.”

These and other fine lawyers mentored me and led by example. At the same time as they managed a busy law practice they gave back to the community in a variety of pro bono activities, by taking cases, stepping up to community leadership roles and leaving private practice to perform public service.

How I Became Involved in Mediation

I had my first experience with mediation in the early 1990s. Two brothers were fighting over the ownership of a beer distributorship. They were in their 70s, and we appeared before Judge Sophia Hall to set the case for trial. She looked at our clients and said to the lawyers: “Why don’t you think about going to mediation?” I responded, “What is mediation?” I had no idea. She explained the mediation process and suggested we retain Professor Stephen Goldberg at Northwestern Law School to mediate the case. Our clients agreed. He mediated and helped the brothers settle the case through a creative buyout of my client’s interest in the business by his brother. My client was pleased.

A few weeks later, I called Professor Goldberg and said: “Can we have lunch? I want to find out how you did that.” He recommended I reach out to Linda Singer and Michael Lewis in D.C. and take their multi-day course. I took the course and came back to Chicago.

A few months later I reached out to Bill Hartgering, who was the pioneer in bringing ADR to Chicago. Bill was running the JAMS/Endispute ADR office here in Chicago. Bill hired me as the part-time Director of Professional Services. Fancy title. It meant go out there, knock on law firm doors to drum up business, and build my own mediation practice. This experience helped me to be selected as a Magistrate Judge in 1996 because the court was looking for people with both federal litigation experience and settlement skills.

My Years as a Judge

I spent 17 wonderful years as a Magistrate Judge before joining JAMS in 2012. As a Magistrate Judge, I came to appreciate the importance of mediation and access to the courts. We were conducting settlement conferences in 100 to 125 cases a year. When I successfully mediated a case, I felt I experienced an important Jewish value: “Tikun Olam” — repairing the world. I felt I was repairing the world one relationship at a time.

I had wonderful colleagues who shared their wisdom with me, a fun staff and bright and eager law clerks who I tried to mentor. While I was on the bench I joined the RSI Board because of the important work they were doing in court ADR.

Two of my most proud accomplishments as a Magistrate Judge were the development of a settlement database and the establishment of the Pro Se Settlement Assistance Program. I developed the Settlement Database with the input of data from my colleagues and the assistance of RSI’s Research Director, Jennifer Shack, for use by Magistrate Judges as a resource when we conducted settlement conferences in civil rights and employment discrimination cases.

We established the pro se settlement assistance program in the District Court in 2006 when I was the Presiding Magistrate Judge and Jim Holderman was the Chief Judge. The program relied upon volunteer lawyers to represent pro se litigants for settlement conferences in employment, civil rights and prisoner cases. The program provided access to justice for the pro se plaintiffs and was a win-win for them, the young lawyers who were able to be first chair at the settlement conferences, and the court, in having these cases settled. The program is still going strong after almost 20 years.

RSI and the Agnew Award

I have been on the RSI Board for over 20 years because I believe in its mission of strengthening access to justice in our courts for those who cannot afford counsel. I was proud to be the Board Chair at the time we changed our name to RSI and established our own 501(c)(3) in order to go national. During the years, I have felt great pride in knowing that RSI’s foreclosure and eviction mediation programs have helped numerous homeowners stay in their homes; and that RSI has helped design, research and evaluate court ADR programs around the country and establish the best court ADR resources in the country.

This award means a great deal to me. The late Judge Harris Agnew led our Board from 1999 to 2011. He brought court-annexed ADR to Illinois. He was passionate about it because he saw its benefits in helping to reinforce the message that stands on the Supreme Court building in D.C.: “Equal Justice Under Law.” RSI has worked hard for the past 30 years to help make that message a reality throughout the country.

I just finished a recent autobiography by Judge David S. Tatel, entitled Vision. He is a retired D.C. Circuit Court Judge who served on the bench for almost 30 years. His message resonated with me, and I want to share it with you:

“As officers of the court, lawyers have a broader responsibility to ensure that courts work for everyone … As gatekeeper to the legal system, the profession itself has an obligation to ensure those gates are open to everyone entitled to the law’s protection.”

RSI’s mission is and has been for the past 30 years to open the gates of justice and bring access to justice through court ADR systems in Illinois and throughout the country. I am extremely proud to accept the Judge Harris Agnew Award in his memory.

Thank you.

Hon. Morton Denlow (Ret.) is Presented Agnew Award for Service to Community

Just Court ADR, May 5th, 2025

RSI had the privilege of awarding its 2025 Harris H. Agnew Service to Community Award to the Hon. Morton Denlow (Ret.) on April 25 at JAMS’ offices in downtown Chicago. The Hon. Geraldine Soat Brown (Ret.) presented the award.

Hon. Geraldine Soat Brown (Ret.) presented the Harris H. Agnew Service to Community Award to Hon. Morton Denlow (Ret.) on behalf of RSI.

RSI’s Harris H. Agnew Award recognizes individuals whose cumulative efforts have substantially and meaningfully enhanced court alternative dispute resolution systems in Illinois. Judge Denlow has provided visionary leadership over decades of service as an ADR practitioner, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, and attorney. He has profoundly shaped the dispute resolution field and community through work such as his groundbreaking conception of a legal settlement database and his efforts to shed light on the advantages of settlement vs. litigation.

Additionally, Judge Denlow has been a champion of RSI almost since Day 1 of our organization’s 30-year tenure. RSI has benefited greatly from his longtime dedication as an RSI Board member, including his time as Board President, when he provided pivotal support during RSI’s transition to independent nonprofit status. Judge Denlow’s strategic guidance, insightful wisdom and unwavering commitment continue to help and inspire ADR professionals far and wide, including those here at RSI.

Read more about Judge Denlow’s achievements on his RSI Board profile page, and learn more about the Harris H. Agnew Award and its recipients here.

New Board Member Nancy Welsh Discusses Fairness, Self-Determination in ADR

Just Court ADR, May 10th, 2024

In February, Resolution Systems Institute welcomed two new Board of Directors members to their first RSI board meeting. Recently we wrote a blog introducing you to one of them, University of Denver Law Professor Oladeji M. Tiamiyu. For this edition, we spoke with the other, Texas A&M Law Professor Nancy A. Welsh

Nancy Welsh is a member of the Board of Directors of Resolution Systems Institute

Nancy Welsh is the Frank W. Elliott, Jr. University Professor, Professor of Law and Director of the Dispute Resolution Program at Texas A&M University School of Law. She is a leading scholar and teacher of dispute resolution and procedural law. Prof. Welsh examines negotiation, mediation, arbitration, judicial settlement and dispute resolution in US and international contexts, focusing on self-determination, procedural justice, due process and institutionalization dynamics. Read more about Prof. Welsh’s background and find links to her work in her RSI bio.

When/where were you first introduced to alternative dispute resolution?

I first learned about alternative dispute resolution when I was in law school. Frank Sander — one of the founders of the ADR movement (including the contemporary mediation movement) — was one of my law professors. He taught a course that I believe was called Alternatives to Litigation. That was where I first learned about mediation. I’m sure we also covered arbitration, but negotiation principles and mediation are what I remember best. I actually enjoyed the exam in that course — an unusual experience! — because we needed to think about what the parties wanted and what their underlying interests likely were. We also needed to think practically when different alternatives existed that might be responsive to their underlying interests. I found the problem-solving aspect of the course to be really exciting.

I also had the opportunity to take a mediation training when I was in law school and then to mediate in a small claims court.

What are some of the big questions related to ADR that interest you or that you are currently focusing on?

I’ve always been interested in the intersection between negotiation, mediation, arbitration and the courts, which, of course, is where RSI largely is located. I have been a big advocate of negotiation, mediation and arbitration when the parties have actually selected these processes, and when the processes have been managed in a manner that helps to ensure that people really have the opportunity to think and share what they care about, to think about what options might exist for resolution, to be fully informed, and to freely make their choices.

One thing that really excited me about negotiation and mediation was that it seemed as though — especially once you started asking about and looking at underlying interests — a whole new path to resolution opened up. I had gotten to a point where it seemed to me that when we were talking about the law, there was no path; there were only positions and legal arguments.

So when people are choosing negotiation or mediation, when they really have the opportunity to be informed and to explore what other options exist that can be responsive to their needs, I am entirely in favor of these processes.

When the mediation process is one in which mediators or lawyers decide that the parties are never going to be in direct contact with each other — putting them in separate rooms and with the mediator just shuttling back and forth — and when the focus of mediation is primarily on getting the parties to be more realistic in the way that the mediators and lawyers want them to be, I am less enthusiastic about the processes. Some reality-testing is almost inevitable, but the mediation process also should provide the opportunity for the parties to express what is really important to them, to be heard in a dignified setting, and to explore options that meet their needs. I care a lot about procedural justice and self-determination and have written extensively on both.

Importantly, we really don’t know what happens in most mediations. The courts don’t regularly collect or publish such data. Again, this is a world in which RSI operates; RSI has been involved in much more research and evaluation than a lot of organizations and encourages court-connected programs to evaluate and collect data. That is really important. How can you know what is going on if you don’t have any information?

Meanwhile, I know that a lot of the data we do have indicates that people are satisfied with the mediation process. So that’s important. I just think the process can be one that enables people to fully exercise self-determination consistent with the American ideal of democracy, that each of us is a thinking human being who can be educated and make good decisions. And then, of course, we also need data regarding the other dispute resolution processes.

What in your current academic work, if anything, relates to the work of RSI?

My academic work relates to RSI’s work because RSI does so much with data and evaluation, and a lot of my writing has been about mediation and court-connected processes, which are obviously core areas for RSI.

I wrote a series of articles (one of which is “But Is it Good: The Need to Measure, Assess, and Report on Court-Connected ADR”) that focus largely on the need for more data, for regular reporting by the courts regarding their use of dispute resolution processes. How many cases were eligible? How many cases actually went to these dispute resolution processes? Did they settle? On what terms? What were parties’ perceptions of the procedures and outcomes? And then I also have urged that courts have some responsibility to ensure substantive fairness in the aggregate, or at least some responsibility to ensure that there is not a systemic pattern of unfairness in outcomes.

What attracted you to/made you want to join the RSI board?

I have thought for a long time that RSI is a really wonderful organization and it’s doing important work. When I identify who is out there focusing on court-connected dispute resolution, helping to ensure that research is being done and that courts are getting the kind of assistance they need to provide good court-connected dispute resolution processes, RSI has been at the center of it. Jen Shack is a wonder. Susan Yates is a wonder.

What are you most looking forward to during your time on the RSI board?  

I think there are amazing people who are involved with RSI, so I’m looking forward to getting to know the staff and the board. I’m excited to be working with people on the board — some of whom I’ve known and respected for a long time, and others whom I’ve known by reputation but have never before met. It’s an honor to join them.

New Board Member Oladeji Tiamiyu Talks Tech, ADR and More

Just Court ADR, March 19th, 2024

Resolution Systems Institute (RSI) recently welcomed two new members to its Board of Directors! Texas A&M Law Professor Nancy A. Welsh and University of Denver Law Professor Oladeji M. Tiamiyu attended their first Board meeting in February, and RSI is so grateful for their service. We’d like to help you get to know them, beginning this month with a Q&A with Prof. Tiamiyu.  

Professor Oladeji Tiamiyu is an RSI board member

Oladeji Tiamiyu is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Denver (DU) and an Expert Adviser to early-stage ventures at Harvard’s Innovation Lab. Before joining DU, he was a clinician at Harvard Law School’s Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program. His research interests focus on the intersection of technology and dispute resolution. Read more about his background and find links to his work in his RSI bio.

When/where were you first introduced to alternative dispute resolution?

Before I went to law school, I had some degree of concern that the courts were not always the best place to resolve conflict. And I fondly remember being in my criminal law class, one of my favorite classes in law school with Professor Jeannie Suk Gersen, and thinking about alternatives to the carceral state. Shortly after then, I took a law school negotiations class that served as a gateway drug to this field. Now when I think about ADR, it is no longer about being an “alternative” in the strict sense of the word, but instead being a complement to litigation, so there’s been some personal evolution in how I think about the field.

I understand that you have a particular interest in the intersection of technology and dispute resolution. What drew you to this combination of topics?

Yes, well, I don’t know the extent my interest would have developed without Colin Rule. I had my first conversation with him in 2019, and I left essentially salivating for more ideas. From an intellectual and practical level, Colin has shaped me and hundreds of thousands of others in thinking about technology’s role with ADR.

And a few months after this conversation, there was dramatic upheaval in the legal profession. The legal tectonic plates were shifting dramatically. With the pandemic, courts were closed. Mediators and arbitrators were staying at home. It probably was the first time some of my highly social mediator friends didn’t want to meet anyone in person. And it was during this time that technology’s role became more than an esoteric idea, but instead necessary to keeping the courthouse open, albeit virtually.

Maybe we’ll talk about this later, but I found a way to work at RSI during this moment of change. So if Colin was the first to spark my interest, I am indebted to RSI, Susan Yates and Erik Slepak-Cherney for giving me space to explore technology’s role on a practical level.

What are some of the big questions related to tech and dispute resolution that interest you?

There are many. One lingering question from COVID is whether the pandemic led to a permanent change in how dispute resolution is practiced. Are mediators and arbitrators comfortable in incorporating online processes? Is there a critical mass of parties and disputes seeking out online processes? There’s some amount of data to suggest the answer to both is yes, but as we have greater psychological and temporal separation from the pandemic, there will be greater clarity.

I also share a sentiment with many other ODR scholars about whether online process increases access to justice. I’ll go a step further in inquiring whether the relationship between parties fundamentally changes when engaging in online process. That is, do parties communicate differently, problem-solve differently, trust differently and build consensus differently when in an online space?

There’s also the question of the role of artificial intelligence in these systems. Nvidia, ChatGPT, and Brazil’s VICTOR have all expanded our horizons for what could be possible with AI. I’m excited to see who will be the Jen-Hsun Huang of the dispute resolution field that develops an application with AI to fundamentally change what is possible in ADR. 

The exciting part is that RSI is at a unique position to bring clarity to these questions.

What attracted you to/made you want to join the RSI Board?

RSI as an organization. We have done such important research over the years. We have collaborated with innovative courts. I’ve also been on the other side as an employee, and I personally know the integrity of the employees.

I am particularly honored to be joining RSI at this specific time of change. Susan Yates is one of the foremost thought leaders in our field. Judges know it. Academics know it. The American Bar Association knows it. As she leaves RSI, I was intrigued at being a steward for this great organization to ensure that we continue to do the important work our organization has historically championed.

What are your ADR-related courses or other activities at the University of Denver law school?

From my lens, everything I teach has an ADR bend to it. So much of the modern-day legal profession depends on ADR skillsets. As Arthur Miller described many years ago, settlement and negotiations cannot be separated from being a lawyer. So I teach Contract Law, Family Law, and a survey of ADR course. Yet with Contract Law, my students get an introduction to simulations for negotiating contracts that advance their client’s interests, or simulations that prepare them to negotiate out-of-court settlements when there is a breach of contract.

In Family Law, my students do simulations in mediating and negotiating agreements for child custody and alimony. Much of what I try to impart in all of my classes is that ADR skillsets will help my students be better client-centered lawyers.

You were a Public Interest Law Initiative Fellow with RSI in the past. Is there something you learned or experienced in that role that will help you in your work on the RSI Board?

Yes, I have tremendous admiration for the PILI fellowship and gratitude for Sidley Austin LLP for their active engagement in public interest work in both Illinois and nationally. I hope more law graduates practicing in Illinois recognize how special of a state Illinois is for building the infrastructure for PILI. Overall, my PILI fellowship informed some of my hopes and aspirations for the ADR field. It was through PILI that I met some of the nation’s leading dispute resolution practitioners based in Chicago.

But the most valuable lesson I learned from being a PILI Fellow has less to do with ADR. Because RSI is such a collegial and accessible non-profit, my time as a PILI Fellow helped me to appreciate the impact that non-profits can have. Fulfilling lawyering can be in a non-profit office as much as in a law firm or in a courtroom.

What in your current academic work, if anything, relates to the work of RSI?

Much of my research touches on topics that are highly germane to RSI. My research shares a fundamental commitment to exploring how best to leverage dispute resolution to promote access to justice.

What are you most looking forward to during your time on the RSI Board?  

Chicago is fortunate to have RSI, but RSI can and historically has had an impact in different corners of the country. So I am excited to see how our organization grows, especially in a time when there is a fundamental change in the legal profession. There are few other organizations with as sizeable of a network with the judiciary, legal profession and dispute resolution field. I’m excited to see how we can use all of these assets to introduce greater innovation for dispute resolution.

Verified by ExactMetrics