According to Responsive Law, the U.S. spectacularly underperforms in providing affordable and accessible civil justice. In that category, it ranked 65th out of 99 globally in the World Justice Project's annual Rule of Law Index. For reference, that puts us in a four-way tie with Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uganda.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
Theabstract: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.
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.
"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."
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."