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 third edition, is a Concise Hornbook, published by West Academic. More information is available by clicking on the photo.

Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Consumer Dispute Resolution Online


The New Handshake: Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Consumer Protection is a new book by Missouri Law Professor Amy J. Schmitz and Modria.com Co-Founder Colin Rule. The book "uses Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) to provide fast and fair resolutions for low-dollar claims, such as those in most B2C (Business-to-Consumer) contexts."

Monday, April 3, 2017

Securities Dispute Resolution Triathlon

The Securities Dispute Resolution Triathlon is jointly run by St. John's University Law School Center for Dispute Resolution and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). For two days, student teams from law schools around the country meet to test their advocacy skills in the negotiation, mediation and arbitration of a securities dispute.

The Securities Dispute Resolution Triathlon is now accepting teams.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (“BATNA”)

The Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (“BATNA”) is an important concept in negotiation. BATNAs in Negotiation: Common Errors and Three Kinds of ‘No’ by Harvard Business Professor James K. Sebenius elaborates. The abstract:

The best alternative to a negotiated agreement (“BATNA”) concept in negotiation has proven to be immensely useful. In tandem with its value in practice, BATNA has become a wildly successful acronym (with more than14 million Google results). But the initial characterization of this concept in Getting to Yes (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1991) as well as many later interpretations can be problematic, limiting, and even misleading in several ways, which this article analyzes and illustrates. First, early characterizations could be easily read to imply that one’s BATNA could not itself be a negotiated agreement. Second, and more seriously, common descriptions of one’s BATNA as the “best outside option, independent of the other side” needlessly limit its applicability, especially in the many bargaining relationships in which BATNAs are inherently interdependent. Third, BATNAs are often mistakenly described mainly as “last resorts” relevant only in case of impasse or “if the other side is more powerful.” Other uses of the term “BATNA” such as the common question, “How do I negotiate if I have no BATNA?” reflect misconceptions. Although savvy negotiators and analysts generally avoid these pitfalls, the less sophisticated can go astray. This article offers robust correctives to these misimpressions and relates these to three different kinds of “no” in negotiation: a “tactical no,” a “re-set no” that permits away-from-the-table moves to favorably alter the underlying setup, and a “final no.”

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Mediation in Ireland

A bill in Ireland would obligate lawyers (barristers and solicitors) to advise their clients to consider using mediation to resolve disputes. "In addition, when court proceedings are launched, it will also oblige the parties to confirm to the court they have been advised about the mediation option, and have considered it." The Irish Times goes on to say "The Bill will be received as a significant move to place the mediation option at the centre of the legal process."

Monday, January 16, 2017

Sunday, December 4, 2016

$5000 Prize in Open Competition for ADR Research

St. John's University School of Law's Hugh L. Carey Center for Dispute Resolution awards $5000 each year to scholars "whose published empirical research has furthered the advancement and understanding of the values and skills of dispute resolution."

The Mangano Dispute Resolution Advancement Award Nomination Form

Friday, October 7, 2016

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Ethics of Mediators Appointed by Courts and Bankruptcy Trustees

Saint John's University law professor Elayne Greenberg writes "we have all wondered at times why certain mediators seem to be favored over others and to what degree 'cronyism' and 'patronage' influence mediator selection." This is part of her Ethical Compass article, The Smith Case: Is the Glass Half Full? 

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Ohio State Law's ADR Program's "Divided Community" Project

Today, the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law formally announces the Divided Community Project. The Project aims to strengthen community efforts to transform division into action and focuses on how communities can respond constructively to civil unrest as well as on how they can identify and meaningfully address the reasons underlying community division.  Earlier this year the Project published its first publications:

·         Key Considerations for Community Leaders Facing Civil Unrest: Effective Problem-Solving Strategies That Have Been Used in Other Communities, provides background information and expertise for local community leaders to assist and strengthen their effectiveness in responding through collaborative approaches to civil unrest. Key Considerations proposes six suggestions for dealing with the immediate aftermath of a divisive incident and makes two suggestions for longer-term strategies for addressing the causes of conflict.
·         Planning in Advance of Civil Unrest, offers leaders a stepped process to plan in ways that will avert or deal constructively with these divisive community events. Such a plan can help a community deal effectively with community division. Planning in Advance suggests eight strategies whereby communities can tackle division.
Both documents are licensed using the Creative Commons so that (with attribution) they may be copied, shared, adapted and tailored to fit the needs of a community or interest group. 
The Project is pleased to announce that Grande Lum, Gould Research Fellow and Lecturer at Stanford Law and former Director of the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service, has joined Ohio State’s Divided Community Project as the Director. 

Friday, March 4, 2016

Monday, November 16, 2015

Private Caucuses with Mediators

What happens in a mediation caucus? Answers from one mediator's caucuses in a study by Daniel Klerman and Lisa Klerman.

One paragraph from Inside the Caucus: An Empirical Analysis of Mediation from Within:

Parties in Lisa Klerman's mediations were always represented by lawyers. At least a day before the mediation, the lawyers ordinarily gave Ms Klerman “mediation briefs” summarizing the facts and legal issues. Lisa Klerman would typically begin the mediation by discussing the facts and underlying legal issues of the asserted claims in separate private caucuses (meetings) with each side. These communications were confidential in order to encourage the parties to be candid with the mediator. Ms Klerman would explore the strengths and weaknesses of the case with each side in order to set the stage for the parties to adjust their settlement expectations. In some cases, Ms Klerman would recommend an attorney caucus (a meeting between the mediator and the attorneys representing both sides, without their clients) to discuss disputed facts or novel legal arguments. It might be several hours before settlement numbers were discussed. Toward the end of the day, the parties may have stalled in their negotiations. If so, Ms Klerman would frequently make a “mediator's proposal” to settle the case. A mediator's proposal is a settlement proposal that comes from the mediator—not from either side—and is the number that the mediator believes both sides are most likely to accept. Although mediations are sometimes classified as facilitative or evaluative, Ms Klerman uses both approaches, as she thinks is most appropriate for each dispute. Because of her experience as an employment litigator, her evaluation of a case had substantial credibility with lawyers and their clients.