RSI News - Just Court ADR Just Court ADR

Archive for the ‘RSI News’ Category

Illinois JusticeCorps Volunteer Helps People Seek Rental Support, Navigate Court

Just Court ADR, January 26th, 2026

Since spring of 2025, RSI’s Kane County Eviction Mediation Program has benefited from the support of Illinois JusticeCorps to help it run smoothly: Illinois JusticeCorps fellow Sophie Rexrode has worked alongside RSI in the courthouse, providing parties information about the eviction court process, mediation and rental assistance. Sophie was kind enough to sit down recently and answer a few questions for us about her work. We’re so grateful to Sophie for all she does to help the program serve the Kane County community! Please note that the views expressed below do not represent those of Illinois JusticeCorps, AmeriCorps or the Kane County Law Library.

Can you tell us a bit about the Illinois JusticeCorps program? When did you join?

Sophie Rexrode

I joined Illinois JusticeCorps in the fall of 2024, because I knew I was interested in (and frustrated with!) the legal system and wanted to devote time to serving people impacted by it.

Illinois JusticeCorps is an AmeriCorps program that places volunteers in courthouses across the state to help people who don’t have lawyers navigate the legal system. We field all kinds of questions, from “Where is the courtroom?” to “How do I file an employment discrimination complaint?” to “I was just served with divorce papers, and I don’t know what that means or how to proceed.”

JusticeCorps members aren’t lawyers, and we can’t give legal advice, but we can provide legal information like forms and guides, and explain how court processes work. The court system is incredibly stressful and confusing, so we’re here to listen, share resources and hopefully make people’s experiences a little bit easier.

What led you to join Illinois JusticeCorps, and how did you get connected with RSI?

I’d always been interested in law, but I didn’t have any background in it before joining Illinois JusticeCorps — I studied cognitive science and theater in college. But in my time as a JusticeCorps member I expressed a strong interest in housing and eviction issues, so when my supervisor, Hallē Eichert (the Director of the Law Library), heard that there was a need for help with Court-Based Rental Assistance Program (CBRAP) applications, she put me in contact with (RSI Eviction Mediation Program Manager) Christina Wright and RSI.

What does your JusticeCorps work at eviction court entail?

I’ve been assisting with CBRAP applications and tabling with RSI outside eviction court since spring 2025. I table with (RSI Eviction Mediation Program Assistant) Cathy McCoy each week to provide information on the court process, mediation and rental assistance.

Much of my work is helping tenants fill out the rental assistance application. You can only apply for CBRAP on a website, so if people want to apply but don’t have access to/aren’t comfortable with computers, I’ll help them through the process of scanning and uploading documents. Because transportation poses a hardship for many tenants in eviction proceedings, I travel all over the county to meet people at public libraries near where they live and help them in person.

Outside of evictions, most of my work is at the Kane County Law Library & Self Help Legal Center in St. Charles, where I work alongside the fantastic staff there to provide legal navigation. I also assist with the Lawyer in the Library programs (bringing free legal advice to local public libraries) and help to redesign signage and resources to make court processes easier to understand.

How many hours a week do you generally spend on JusticeCorps work?

It really depends on how many people I’m working with! I’d estimate I spend anywhere from 2–8 hours per week, including time at eviction court and helping people with applications. I know I’ve volunteered over 95 hours in the time I’ve been doing this.

Do you live in Kane County?

I do! I’m originally from the East Coast but moved here to work with Illinois JusticeCorps. I’ve really enjoyed getting to know the community here and exploring up and down the river and through all the parks!

What is your favorite part about your Illinois JusticeCorps work?

My favorite part about tabling and assisting with CBRAP is the people. The meetings I have with tenants can be stressful and difficult, but they are also full of real connection and (surprisingly) laughter. Even while navigating one of the hardest things in life, the tenants are kind, generous, and funny. It’s a privilege to get to work with them.

What do you find challenging about your work with the eviction mediation program?

I find the limitations on resources available and the services we can provide to be frustrating at times. It’s wonderful that mediation exists as an opportunity, but it can still be an inequitable arena for tenants going up against their landlord’s attorney without any representation, especially for those who aren’t comfortable with computers or have other accessibility or access needs. Similarly, while the CBRAP program is fantastic, far too many people still fall through eligibility gaps and are blocked by procedural obstacles.

Do you have future career plans/goals that relate to this work?

Yes! I’m currently starting the law school application process, with the hopes of pursuing legal aid work specifically around housing and evictions.

Do you do other volunteer work?

I volunteer lots of places! Some of my volunteering relates directly to housing: I take shifts at the Aurora Overnight Warming Shelter and help build houses with Habitat for Humanity. I’ve also done volunteering with local forest preserves, local food pantries/banks and community fridges, and as a “snow angel” (shoveling driveways for neighbors).

Working in an environment where eviction is on the table can be stressful. What do you like to do for fun/to relieve stress?

I love trail running, and try to get outside whenever possible. I doodle in the margins of notebooks and like to write letters to friends and family.

How do you think the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program is important to the community it serves?

I think building out parallel and alternative ways of resolving issues is tremendously important if we are interested in having a justice system that works for everyone, and the eviction mediation program is a significant step in that direction. I also think that opening doors for dialogue in the community is critical, and the benefits from that ripple outward even if an individual case doesn’t get resolved.

Is there anything else you’d like to talk about that might be interesting/relevant to RSI’s readers?

I just want to emphasize how serious evictions are, and the gap that exists in legal services for low-income people. 96% of tenants don’t have lawyers but are stuck navigating a process that was built by and for attorneys. Almost all landlords are represented by attorneys, many of whom specialize in evicting tenants. Court processes are challenging at the best of times, but they become impossibly confusing in the chaos that ensues when someone is threatened with being removed from their home. Evictions are catastrophically destabilizing events, jeopardizing tenants’ jobs, families, communities, and health, yet there are few support systems for people thrown into this process. Against this backdrop, I am grateful to be able to provide the small assistance I can to tenants, but there is such a tremendous need.

Tags: access to justice
Posted in Eviction Mediation, People & Events, RSI News | No Comments »

Grant Helps RSI’s Eviction Mediation Program Better Serve Domestic Violence Victims

Jasmine Henry, July 30th, 2025

Housing insecurity and domestic violence are deeply intertwined. In fact, according to research cited by the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, 38% of domestic violence victims experience homelessness, and over 90% of homeless women have experienced severe physical or sexual abuse at some point in their lives. Recognizing this correlation, RSI sought to improve our eviction mediation program and better serve participants who have been affected by domestic violence.

Late last year, RSI applied for funding from the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation (IEJF) to support training our mediators on how domestic violence can affect victims and enable us to develop a more robust screening process to better identify any potential mediation cases involving domestic violence. Since receiving funding in January, we screened approximately 500 eviction mediation cases for instances of domestic violence. Of those cases, 13 were identified as involving domestic violence or intimate partner violence, and victims were referred to a variety of resources. Nine of those cases had mediation process adjustments as a result of domestic violence, such as only using separate Zoom breakout rooms or being assigned the specific gender of mediator requested.

What We Needed

Since the inception of the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program in 2021, RSI’s staff has been committed to creating safe mediation spaces for all parties involved. Designing respectful and responsive spaces for our program participants helps us effect our mission of strengthening access to justice by enhancing court alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems.

Over the last few years, our program routinely noted instances of domestic violence affecting the parties in our eviction cases. While our staff and mediators tried to remain sensitive to our participants’ emotions and how their experiences might affect the mediation, none of our mediators had domestic violence training, so they were not as well prepared to adjust the mediations to ensure the safety of parties with a history of domestic violence. Additionally, it was difficult for our program and mediators to understand the scope of the issue without a proper screening process. Thus, in November 2024 when an opportunity became available, RSI’s Kane County Eviction Mediation Program applied for grant funding from IEJF to assist survivors of domestic and intimate partner violence through civil legal services and legal information.

What We Developed

With funding secured, we designed a system to screen for domestic violence prior to eviction mediations and to modify mediations when domestic violence has been present to promote the safety of the parties involved. To screen for domestic violence, we added three questions to our intake process for all parties. These questions asked if anyone who currently lived with them, anyone they were in a relationship with, or the other party in their case had made them afraid, controlled them, hit them or contacted them in unwanted ways. We also asked if they had a current order of protection.


While it can be difficult to understand the human impact of our program modifications purely based on the number of cases, referrals and process adjustments, the specific instances of domestic violence that participants shared with our staff left a lasting effect.

If warranted based on a party’s response to those questions, a staff member then went through the MASIC-S questionnaire with the party to determine what types of modifications were needed. (The MASIC-S is a research-validated screening tool to help mediators identify the types and severity of domestic violence involved. Depending on the party’s responses, it recommends modifications to the mediation process to maintain participant safety.)

While updating our intake process, we also worked to better train our staff and mediators on how to handle domestic violence issues. We held three separate trainings — hosted by the Community Crisis Center in Elgin, Illinois; RSI; and the Center for Conflict Resolution in Chicago. These domestic violence trainings focused on awareness of victim impacts and needs, how to have compassionate discussions about abuse disclosures and trauma-informed practices. Sixteen mediators on our program roster attended all three trainings and became eligible to mediate eviction cases that included a party who had experienced domestic violence.

In June, we decided to eliminate the more intensive MASIC-S step because the full screening took over an hour to complete and the advice provided after the party responded was essentially the same as what our program would have done without using the MASIC-S. There was also a sense among staff that the MASIC-S step may have been retraumatizing for the involved party, and we could not always provide immediate supportive resources to address these reopened wounds.

Who We Helped

Of the 500 defendants screened for domestic violence, 13 defendants were flagged and referred to outside services. All 13 were referred to legal advocacy, rent assistance and housing counseling services. We also gave 29 additional support service referrals to these tenants, including referrals to disability support services, immigration support services, victim support services, food assistance, utilities assistance and homelessness prevention services. Three of the defendants we referred to legal services ended up being represented by a pro bono attorney.

We held mediations for 11 of the 13 cases involving domestic violence. One was dismissed, and another has yet to take place. Based on our screening, we made safety- and security-related process adjustments for nine of the mediations. The process adjustments included keeping the parties in separate Zoom rooms in six of the mediations, holding an early caucus for one case, allowing a support person to attend with the involved party in one case, and providing a female mediator in one case. Eight mediations ended with an agreement. Seven of these agreements were for the tenant to move out; another was an agreed dismissal order, since the tenant had already moved out. These agreements gave tenants the opportunity to avoid the financial and emotional impacts of eviction while also affording them more time to move out.

While it can be difficult to understand the human impact of our program modifications purely based on the number of cases, referrals and process adjustments, the specific instances of domestic violence that participants shared with our staff left a lasting effect.

In a particularly disheartening case, a female tenant reported being sexually assaulted, verbally abused and intimidated by her male landlord over the course of about five months. As a result of her background, she was wary of the police, and she disclosed to our staff that her landlord actively worked to reinforce those fears. She was terrified that divulging his exploitations would hurt her family. Yet as a result of the abuse, she told us, she was forced to go to the hospital for prescription treatment. Shortly after getting medical care, she reported the abuse to the police but did not find their response helpful. Upon returning home, she found that her abuser had locked her out of her unit.

Soon after, the landlord filed an eviction case; he also continued to threaten and intimidate her throughout the court process, she said. When the eviction case was referred to our mediation program, RSI staff referred her to pro bono legal, immigration and victim advocacy assistance. Throughout the mediation process, our program worked with the tenant to get her into a safe living space. In the end, the woman was able to move out prior to mediation. Her landlord dismissed the eviction case without seeking money and without entering a formal eviction onto the tenant’s record.

In another case, a tenant’s past violent relationship was impacting her current livelihood. Several years ago, this tenant was locked out of her partner’s house during a domestic violence incident. This forced the tenant to get an apartment by herself for the first time. She enrolled in a housing assistance program at a nearby domestic violence support organization. After this assistance ran out, the tenant became distressed and ultimately depressed; she could not maintain employment and, by the time she came into contact with our eviction program, she was several months behind on rent. Additionally, as a result of a previous domestic violence incident with her abuser, she could not obtain free legal aid to help with her eviction case.

Our program adapted to the tenant’s unique needs and pivoted from our traditional referrals. We provided services to a different local domestic violence resource, as well as resources for a local hospital that treats depression. We also referred her to rental assistance and a homeless shelter with additional resources.

The mediation resulted in a moveout order and a payment plan. The tenant avoided eviction, had a plan to pay off her debt, and was given support in finding affordable housing. In this way, we were able to help the tenant stem the damage from her past domestic violence experiences. Moreover, the landlord was made whole financially, and the unit was ultimately returned to their possession.

In yet another instance, the program helped a defendant who was living with her abusive boyfriend during an eviction case. During the intake process, the tenant disclosed her physically and emotionally abusive living circumstances. First, our program staff worked with the tenant to create a safety plan while she was still living with her abuser. Then, we supported moving her and her ten children out of their current living situation. Additionally, our program connected the tenant to a variety of resources, including an agency that could help with both domestic violence and housing counseling, a rental assistance program and our legal aid partner.

What We Learned

In six short months, RSI’s eviction mediation team was able to improve its screening techniques and better assist domestic violence victims involved with our program. Whereas previously we only learned of domestic violence if a party happened to bring it up, we now have a clear system in place to sort the cases and help prepare mediators and parties to make appropriate adjustments. Because we are screening every case, we have the opportunity to provide parties access to support resources prior to their mediation if they seek it; in some cases, this resulted in a faster and smoother resolution for both the landlord and the tenant.

Tags: Kane County Eviction Mediation
Posted in Court Mediation Program, Eviction Mediation, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), RSI News | No Comments »

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.

Posted in People & Events, RSI Board of Directors, RSI News | No Comments »

Tools Help Courts Explain ODR to the Public

Stephen Sullivan, May 12th, 2025

RSI has completed the second phase of the ODR Party Engagement (OPEN) Project! We are thrilled to share that our new communication tools to help courts educate self-represented litigants (SRLs) about ODR more effectively are now available. The tools can be accessed on our OPEN Project website.

The tools include RSI’s Model Notice to Defendant of Mandatory ODR, our Model ODR Explainer Video, and desktop and mobile website prototypes that contain our ODR Home Page, our Model ODR Self-Help Guide for Defendants, and our Model Account Registration Webpages.

Our Toolkit for Making ODR Make Sense to the Public provides step-by-step instructions for adapting our models or designing each model type based on our focus group and usability testing research.

OPEN Launch Party Recording
Learn all about RSI’s newest tools for improving court communications in this recording of our OPEN Launch Party webinar.

Designing New Court Communication Models

We partnered with an inclusive designer and an accessibility evaluator to ensure the models were easy to use and understand and accessible to individuals with disabilities. We structured the models around a simple workflow that provides a clear path for parties to follow to learn about and prepare for ODR. Importantly, we also scaffolded information about ODR across the models — we designed them to gradually introduce details about how ODR works, so parties do not feel overwhelmed.

To obtain feedback on the models from individuals similar to those most likely to use them, we conducted usability tests across the U.S. with a diverse set of participants whose backgrounds resembled those of SRLs with low literacy and low digital literacy. The final models reflect this collaborative approach among RSI, our design partner, an accessibility expert and 20 real users.

Usability Testing our Models

Overall, usability test participants found RSI’s OPEN Communication Models to be visually engaging, intuitive to navigate and, importantly, easy to read and understand. We asked participants to rate each of the models for how easy they were to understand; the final versions of the models received an average 4.8/5 rating.

Below are key findings from usability testing:

A mobile-first design is essential
Overwhelmingly, our usability testers shared that they primarily access the internet using their smartphones. It is critical to create materials that are not just mobile-friendly but mobile-first in their design. This finding was further supported by participants’ enthusiasm for mobile-first features, such as the inclusion of a QR code on the Notice to simplify navigation to the website.

Testers’ confidence grew
We found that as participants successfully navigated each model, their expressed confidence, understanding of ODR and sense of ease grew. Participants also demonstrated an interest in learning more about ODR, suggesting that our approach to scaffold information was effective at boosting participants’ engagement with the process.

Data privacy and security are top of mind
Usability test participants responded very positively to our dedicated data privacy and confidentiality section on the model ODR Home Page. Providing concise and specific information about how ODR platforms address data privacy concerns can help alleviate users’ anxieties over these issues, even for those who are most hesitant about using the internet.

Simple materials enhance excitement for ODR
Most of our usability test participants did not have any prior knowledge about ODR and were learning about it for the first time. After going through our materials, testers were not only able to accurately answer our questions about how ODR works, but also expressed their excitement for the prospect of ODR being available in their communities.

Recommendations to Courts

Feedback from our usability testers demonstrates that simple, easy-to-understand communication materials can positively impact parties’ understanding of and interest in ODR. Based on what we learned from usability testers and our work with an inclusive designer and an accessibility evaluator to design effective models, we developed a set of recommendations for courts to ensure that their communication materials can effectively be understood by SRLs. Check out our report, Designing a New Way to Communicate about ODR: Usability Testing Insights, to learn more about these recommendations and our usability test findings.

Next Up: Support for Using Our Models

RSI is pleased to share that we have begun offering a technical assistance service to help courts and ADR organizations to enhance their communication materials about ADR programs. Contact us to learn more about the different ways we can help you communicate more effectively.

We are extremely grateful for the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution Foundation’s support for the OPEN Project and the dissemination of its findings.

Posted in ADR Resources, Online Dispute Resolution, OPEN Project, Research, RSI News | No Comments »

Just Court ADR