By Stephen Ware, a law professor at KU, in Lawrence, Kansas.

Principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution, in its second edition, is a Concise Hornbook, published by Thomson-West. More information is available by clicking on the photo.

Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, October 13, 2014

Wikipedia Alternative Dispute Resolution

Your Day in 'Wiki-Court': ADR, Fairness, and Justice in Wikipedia's Global Community by
York University - Osgoode Hall Law Professor Sara Ross.

The abstract:

Wikipedia has quickly become the largest volume of collected knowledge on the planet, but it is also one of the busiest centers for dispute resolution in the world. From small groups of individuals negotiating article changes on “talk pages”, to the involvement of hundreds of people in the formation of the community consensuses needed to implement new policies, to the use of binding arbitration to create final conflict resolutions, the Wikipedia community has developed a complex network of norms and rules that funnel all disagreements and intractable differences through a series of progressively more involved dispute resolution processes. I provide an overview and analysis of the dispute resolution processes used by the community and will look to the successes and limitation of these processes. A number of flaws will be identified including the ability for vocal minorities to dominate the Wikipedia community consensus. A systemic bias will be identified in the behavioural landscape of the community and, finally, it will become apparent that there is room for growth in the website’s inclusiveness, primarily through addressing the logistical realities of a potential user’s access to the time, materials, and knowledge needed to become a contributing member of the Wikipedia community.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Lack of Confidentiality in Settlement Negotiation

The Dirty Little Secret of Legal Negotiation: Confidentiality Under Federal Rule 408 and Related State Laws by Missouri Law Professor Richard C. Reuben.

The abstract:

There is a widely held belief that legal negotiations are confidential in that communications made during those discussions may not be introduced in subsequent legal proceedings. However, this first major analysis of the primary vehicle responsible for providing this protection – Federal Rule 408 and related state laws – demonstrates how this is no longer true. Rather, relatively few legal negotiations today are covered by the rules, and the federal and state courts have carved out significant exceptions that render the rule a virtual nullity. This is especially problematic modern legal negotiation emphasizes significant disclosure of sensitive information. This article explains how we got to this point, and offers a theoretical framework for regulating alternative dispute resolution processes like legal negotiation that ultimately resolves the problem by shifting the Rule 408 categorical analysis to a simple two-part test: whether the settlement discussion evidence is necessary to prevent undue hardship, and whether it is otherwise unavailable. While current Rule 408 analysis generally leads to the admission of legal negotiation evidence, the proposed analysis provides a principled and pragmatic approach for balancing the fundamental tension between the confidentiality needs of legal negotiation the information needs of public adjudication.

Monday, August 25, 2014

Online Dispute Resolution

The Dilemma of Private Justice Systems: Big Data Sources, the Cloud and Predictive Analytics by Indiana University business professor Anjanette Raymond.  The abstract:

In the age of big data, demanding customer expectations, and increasingly limited access to justice for small claims arising from online sales, business organizations are moving to enhanced online customer complaint platforms and insisting upon increased online justice resolution systems. At the same time, online businesses, even websites you fail to think of as a business, are moving from traditional analytics that provide a snapshot of the past, to solutions that provide an accurate picture of the present and a prediction of future trends. For many, predictive analytics is the wave of the future.

In many ways, the use of predictive analytics is a wonderful occurrence, as our packages will arrive in a more timely manner, our advertising will be more personal and our online and physical lives will be tailored, monitored and adjusted to our interests, life styles and immediate needs without so much as a hiccup. However, what will happen when the current push for private online dispute resolution systems meets the current big data gathering of a private market? Will the private online dispute resolution providers use the information gathered for good, or as a means to quickly resolve disputes without notice of the law, personal rights and/or ethical outcomes? Worse yet, what will happen when the private market of online dispute resolution faces the demands of a business environment that would prefer analytic outcomes to be skewed to favor the business? Bear in mind, these issues do not arise in a prediction, these private online dispute resolution mechanisms already exist and are growing in support and use on a daily basis.

This paper will explore the emerging issue that occurs when private online dispute resolution providers are allowed, without transparency, oversight, or regulation, to create a justice system that knows a lot of personal information about you but is required to follow no legal standard or regulation to resolve your dispute with a merchant.

Handshaking Promotes Cooperative Dealmaking

Handshaking Promotes Cooperative Dealmaking, according to a paper, by University of Chicago and Harvard business school professors.  The abstract:

Humans use subtle sources of information — like nonverbal behavior — to determine whether to act cooperatively or antagonistically when they negotiate. Handshakes are particularly consequential nonverbal gestures in negotiations because people feel comfortable initiating negotiations with them and believe they signal cooperation (Study 1). We show that handshakes increase cooperative behaviors, affecting outcomes for integrative and distributive negotiations. In two studies with MBA students, pairs who shook hands before integrative negotiations obtained higher joint outcomes (Studies 2a and 2b). Pairs randomly assigned to shake hands were more likely to openly reveal their preferences on trade-off issues, which improved joint outcomes (Study 3). In a fourth study using a distributive negotiation, pairs of executives assigned to shake hands were less likely to lie about their preferences and crafted agreements that split the bargaining zone more equally. Together, these studies show that handshaking promotes the adoption of cooperative strategies and influences negotiation outcomes.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Deceptive Negotiation Tactics

From the Harvard Program on Negotiation Blog and Professor G. Richard Shell:

1. Lies about bottom lines and alternatives.

2. “Too good to be true” offers.

3. Escalation of commitment.

4. Lack of reciprocity.

5. Last-minute nibbling.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Negotiating With Someone From Another Country or Culture

Good post from Harvard Negotiation Blog summarizing an article in the May issue of the journal Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, “Starting Out on the Right Foot: Negotiation Schemas When Cultures Collide,” by professors Wendi L. Adair of the University of Waterloo, Canada; Masako S. Taylor of Osaka Gakuin University in Japan; and Catherine H. Tinsley of Georgetown University.

The basic lesson: don't overdo trying to negotiate the way you think is customary in your counterpart's culture.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Settlement Negotiation

Settlement and Trial: Selected Analyses of the Bargaining Environment 
by Vanderbilt Professors Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum.

The abstract:This Handbook chapter provides a brief review of selected settlement bargaining models in some areas where new work is developing and where additional work is likely to yield yet further important results. This work has focused on what might be thought of as the environment of the settlement negotiation process, where bargaining failure generally results in trial, and our survey will use that perspective to organize the work discussed.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Online Mediation and Online Arbitration

Teaching online dispute resolution through a simulation exercise by Noam Ebner of Creighton University School of Law's Werner Institute for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution. His abstract:

BeatleMania! is a simulation for studying and experiencing online dispute resolution. Two parties to an eBay transaction gone awry, regarding the sale of Beatles memorabilia, set out to resolve their differences with the assistance of a third party mediator.
This simulation is structured to allow communication to be conducted though any online medium selected jointly by the parties and mediators. In other words, the storyline supports this mediation being conducted via email, videoconferencing or other media. teachers can instruct students regarding use of specific media, if they prefer to focus on a particular medium.


Also, I recently learned about equibbly which advertises:

Avoid the Nightmare of Going to Court 

Have a former Court Judge decide your case online in under two weeks 

Save time and money. Using eQuibbly is quicker, cheaper and more convenient than going to small claims court to settle your dispute.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

"Mediation" and other ADR on Reality TV

A tv show on Bravo, Untying the Knot,  as reported by Art Hinshaw on ADR Prof Blog:

"Obviously having the mediator “determine a fair division of assets” doesn’t sound like mediation; Ms. Ziegler is engaging in early neutral evaluation (ENE).  But ENE has gone the way of Betamax and is so confused with mediation that it’s not worth the time to fight it.  In fact, I’ve seen and heard of many well respected mediators engage in such behavior.  So, let’s hope that this practice does not become what the public expects from divorce mediation, as this clearly limits the good that mediation can do in divorce.  Nevertheless, clips of the show are going to be great for class this fall when we discuss facilitative and evaluative mediation styles."

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Candor in Negotiation, Mediation, and Arbitration

Michael Dallaire's article begins: "Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is here to stay.  The Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) must acknowledge that fact.  Several scholars have posited the lofty goal of creating an entirely separate code of ethics for ADR or at least individual processes.  But the process of ADR-specific rules must begin within the framework of the existing Model Rules.  One of the first steps in that direction should be to clearly define the level of candor required of an attorney-advocate in each major ADR forum.  An attorney’s duty to tell the truth, or his ability to deceive, should not be governed by a static standard when operating across a range of informal, nonbinding, participant-controlled settings like unassisted negotiation and mediation.  The Model Rules of Professional Conduct should include separate and distinct duties of candor for each major ADR forum, formulating each based on the unique characteristics of an individual forum.  The reformulated rules should focus on two primary factors in setting the requisite level of candor for a particular forum: (1) the stage in the dispute resolution process in which the particular forum is normally used, and (2) the degree to which a third-party neutral affects settlement."

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Informed Consent in Mediation

McGeorge Law Professor Michael Colatrella has an interesting article entitled Informed Consent in Mediation: Promoting Pro Se Parties’ Informed Settlement Choice While Honoring the Mediator's Ethical Duties.

His abstract:

This article explores the question of how mediators can promote informed settlement choices by pro se litigants while still abiding by a mediator’s ethical duties of impartiality and party self-determination. “Informed consent” is the legal term that describes the circumstances under which a person knowingly and voluntarily agrees to a course of action recommended by a professional, like a physician or lawyer. The mediation scholarship distinguishes between two kinds of informed consent: “participation” consent and “outcome” consent. A party’s decision to take part in mediation is participation consent. “Outcome consent” addresses the degree to which a party understands the consequences of the settlement agreement reached during the mediation process. Mediator ethical codes provide minimal guidance on the issue, leaving unacceptable ambiguity as to the role the mediator plays in a participant’s informed participation and outcome consent. Moreover, some mediation scholars imprudently argue that when a pro se participant is ordered by the court to attend mediation, the mediator must obtain informed outcome consent — even if this means acting impartiality, as that duty is presently defined. This article concludes that the law should impose a duty on mediators of informed participation consent, but not informed outcome consent. Requiring informed participation consent is consistent with the mediator’s established role of educating parties about the mediation process and empowering them to fully and knowingly engage in that process. Imposing the duty of informed outcome consent on the mediator, however, would create a significant conflict with the mediator’s ethical obligation of impartiality and undermine the efficacy of mediation.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Zero-sum Negotiation vs. "Value Can be Created"

Victorian Pynchon well states fundamental points when she writes "The key is not technique but general negotiation principles (such as, ‘value can be created,’ or ‘it is important to understand how parties’ interests interrelate’)....The first step to a successful mutual-benefit negotiation style is to stop thinking about give and take as a zero-sum game. "

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Private Information in Settlement Bargaining Models

Revelation and Suppression of Private Information in Settlement Bargaining Models, by Vanderbilt Professors Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum.

The abstract:
"We discuss the implications of various models of settlement negotiations for the revelation or suppression of private information held by the parties. This information may be relevant to multiple audiences, including those involved in the instant lawsuit; other potential litigants that may subsequently make use of the information in their own suits against one of the parties; and more distant observers and users of the legal process. We also examine how rules of evidence and rules of civil procedure can sometimes result in different degrees of purposeful or (arguably) unintended information suppression."