ADR Scholarship Projects – August 2025

 

Thanks once again to Peter Reilly (Texas A&M) for compiling this edition of ADR Scholarship Projects, highlighting the many wonderful works our community is producing!

Hal Abramson (Touro Law)

 I am pleased to report that my article entitled Time-Pressured Negotiations should be published this summer in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review. I also finished a short article on Mediation as Improvisation that considers a recent commercial mediation that I mediated where I had to use techniques contrary to my preferred practices. That also should be published shortly.

I also completed this summer a short article on the counter-intuitive benefits of seeking a No in a negotiation in an article tentatively entitled The Benefits of a No for Getting to Yes.

However, my primary summer project has been doing a deep dive into AI after being bombarded by John’s postings and some helpful tutoring by Dwight.  After spending much of the summer fully integrating AI into my negotiation syllabus by “building” more than a dozen bots, I am working on a short article tentatively entitled The Bots are Coming: How to welcome them into the classroom while staying one step ahead?  The article will consider the choices I made along with the rationales for using AI.

And next, back to teaching Contracts in the Fall!

Gilat Juli Bachar (Temple Law)

  • Just Tort Settlements, 56 St. L. J. 1201 (2025):
    • Most U.S. civil disputes settle, often confidentially, but recent public scrutiny and legislation challenge secret settlements—especially those involving public interest. This Article explores how plaintiffs perceive confidentiality demands in tort settlements, a perspective largely missing from existing literature. Using a survey experiment with 500 Americans, it finds that plaintiffs prefer public over confidential settlements and are more likely to settle with first-time rather than repeat wrongdoers. Settlement choices vary by context: monetary offers remain influential, but non-monetary goals—such as punishment and expression—also matter. These findings have important implications for how tort settlements are negotiated and regulated across different legal regimes.
  • Coercive Settlements, 93 Wash. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2025):
    • Can civil settlements be coercive? This Article argues that some “high-risk civil settlements,” especially confidential ones, can be. While courts and media often view settlements as voluntary, this overlooks power imbalances, limited legal access, and subtle coercive tactics. Drawing on psychological research, the Article shows how factors like authority, information asymmetry, and time pressure can undermine plaintiffs’ voluntariness. It analogizes civil settlements to criminal plea bargains, where coercion is more widely acknowledged, and calls for legal reforms to ensure that settlements are genuinely consensual. Ultimately, it challenges assumptions about choice in private law and advocates stronger safeguards in civil dispute resolution.
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyers’ Disclosure Duties, 59 UC Davis L. Rev. _ (forthcoming 2026):
    • Plaintiffs’ lawyers often help negotiate settlements that conceal public health and safety risks, inadvertently enabling future harm. This Article challenges the view that lawyers owe no duty to third parties in such cases. Using examples like Harvey Weinstein and GM, it critiques nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) that shield misconduct. Arguing from a legal ethics perspective, it proposes that plaintiffs’ lawyers act as moral agents by refusing to negotiate NDAs that hide dangers. A practical reform is offered: lawyers should disclose this stance to clients at the outset of the representation. This approach upholds ethical duties while promoting justice and public accountability in civil litigation.

Rick Bales (Ohio Northern Law)

Richard Bales, Wenwen Ding, & Xiaochen Sun, Using AI in Arbitrating Labor & Employment Disputes in China and the United States, __ California Western International L.J. __ (forthcoming 2025 or early 2026).

  • Here’s the take-away: The two systems diverge across multiple dimensions, including institutional positioning, normative values, procedural design, and rule-making. This divergence shapes not only the routes through which AI enters the arbitration process but also its boundaries. At the national level, China has set a clear goal of building an integrated, large-scale, end-to-end intelligent arbitration platform—enabling deep AI involvement in decision-making. In contrast, the U.S. emphasizes decentralized, opt-in auxiliary tools that support parties, representatives, and arbitrators in tasks such as document drafting, evidence retrieval, and administrative management across a range of discrete functions.

Debra Berman (South Texas College of Law Houston)

Two projects:

  • Mediation Practice Points: A Compilation of Attorney Quotes. I have posted a free electronic resource on the Mitchell Hamline DRI Skills Lab called “Mediation Practice Points: A Compilation of Attorney Quotes.” This compilation includes direct quotes or a summary of the quote from thirty-five lawyers (predominantly from Texas) whose name and any other identifying information has been removed. The mediations discussed primarily involve personal injury, business, construction, family law, employment, and probate. The purpose of this compilation is to shine a light on the practical aspects of mediation theory being taught in class. Professors can use this free compilation as supplemental reading or may simply incorporate some of the quotes into their own lectures and/or power point slides. The compilation can be found here:  https://mitchellhamline.edu/dri-skills-lab/mediation-practice-points-a-compilation-of-attorney-quotes/
  • Study of Communication Preferences in Settlement Negotiations. For the last five years, I have been collecting data from my Inter-School Negotiation Practicum (at this point totaling 4,500 students from 56 law schools). At the end of the monthlong settlement negotiation, each student is required to complete a post negotiation questionnaire to reflect on their experience. Students’ communication preferences are a component of the questionnaire since email, phone, and video conferencing are all required as part of the exercise. I have analyzed the data from the 4,226 students that completed the questionnaire and am using this as the basis for my next article regarding preferred communication modes and when/why/how to use each.

Dan Berstein, MHS (MH Mediate)

Dan is focusing his upcoming work on showcasing the desperation, from a party’s perspective, in the face of stigmatizing barriers to seeking support, receiving disability accommodations, and overcoming rejection – particularly when mental illness stigmas are involved.  His Mindquity platform (www.mindquity.com) provides free empowerment tools for parties – tools which were developed with funding from the NY State Office of Mental Health and NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  Mindquity is also creating a directory of mediators and conflict coaches to provide mental health empowerment-focused conflict coaching related to support, accommodations, and rejection.  Dan’s Bipolar Terror! Project (www.bipolarterror.com) is also collecting stories of times people get rejected as scary or offputting due to their known or suspected mental health problems, with Dan sharing his own stories of demonization within the ADR field as well as collecting stories from others.

Some of Dan’s 2025 publications include:

  • Preventing Inadvertent Mental Illness Discrimination in Employment Contexts (Employee Relations Law Journal) 
  • Overcome Stigma with Resources for Support, Rejection, and Accommodations (Behavioral Health News)
  • Can I Ask That? Helping Well-Meaning Mediators Prevent Common Capacity Assessment Pitfalls (Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, with Kristen Blankley)
  • The Uses and Abuses of Psychodiagnostic Terms in Family Court Cases (Family Court Review, with Don Saposnek)
  • Tools Arbitrators Can Use to Overcome Bias and Be Inclusive (Dispute Resolution Journal)
  • When Policies Afford Legal Professionals Discretion, They Should Choose to Be Trauma Informed (ABA Journal)
  • Accessibility in Dispute Resolution (Conflict Resolution Quarterly)
  • Collaborating Instead of Canceling (Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation)
  • Sometimes You Need to Be Seen to Be Heard (Mediate.com, with Robert Bergman)
  • Writing Off “Difficult” Parties? Five Ways to Set Boundaries While Being Inclusive (ADR Research Network, with Oz Susler)

Dan’s book, Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment (originally published by the American Bar Association in 2022) is also being republished by DRI Press.  Related to this transition, Dan’s Mental Health Safe Project has launched the Trauma-Informed Response Initiative (TRI – pronounced “try”) accessible at www.mhsafe.org/tri, featuring resources to help organizations respond to bullying and challenging behaviors without writing people off.

Kristen M. Blankley (Nebraska Law)

Kristen M. Blankley, Henry M. Grether, Jr. Professor of Law, is working on the following projects:

  • Her article, Tradeoffs in Ombuds Office Design has been accepted for publication in the Cardozo Journal of Dispute Resolution. This paper compares and contrasts the ethical issues surrounding traditional ombuds, collateral-duty ombuds, and outsourced ombuds. The paper notes that each of these designs serves legitimate purposes, but different ethical considerations may be present depending on the type of ombuds utilized.
  • Her article, Can I Ask That: Helping Well-Meaning Mediators Prevent Common Capacity Assessment Pitfalls, with Dan Berstein, has been accepted for publication in the Washington University Journal of Law and Policy. This article discusses ethical challenges in assessing capacity to mediate and provides practical tips for conducting better capacity assessments.
  • She is working on a draft of Arbitrating under House v. NCAA: How a Little Transparency Can Increase Credibility. This paper considers the arbitration aspect of the landmark House v. NCAA The paper considers how arbitration in other sports – both professional and Olympic – can provide a useful lessons for assessing the arbitration mechanism in the House settlement. The article considers aspects of dispute resolution design to critique this new system. Ultimately, the article suggests limited public disclosures of arbitration outcomes for the purpose of predictability for student-athletes and the legitimacy of the system.

Bob Bordone (Cambridge Negotiation Institute)

In March of this year, I released a new book, Conflict Resilience: Negotiating Disagreement Without Giving Up or Giving In (HarperBusiness 2025), co-written with Dr. Joel Salinas of NYU Grossman School of Medicine. It made the USA Today Bestseller’s List and there are several foreign translations in process for publication within the next 18 months.

Here is a link to the book and related podcasts and media: https://www.conflictresiliencebook.com/

Carli N. Conklin (Missouri Law, and Missouri Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy)

Carli Conklin continues researching and writing at the intersection of legal history and dispute resolution in early America.  Her essay ADR in the Ongoing Experiment of American Law, 30:3 DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE 12 (Sept 2024), discusses the role of legal experimentation–and the prominent role of dispute resolution in that role–in American legal history.

Carli contributed invited commentary for the second volume in the Discussions in Dispute Resolution series, Discussions in Dispute Resolution Volume II: The Coming of Age (2000-2009) (forthcoming Oxford University Press, 2025).

Currently, Carli is finishing up a co-authored article with Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law Professor Tom Stipanowich, which is the first-ever publication on the substantial and often surprising arbitration practice of Abraham Lincoln.

Finally, Carli continues work on the sequel to her award-winning book, The Pursuit of Happiness in the Founding Era: An Intellectual History (University of Missouri Press, Studies in Constitutional Democracy Series, 2019). Her new volume, tentatively titled The Pursuit of Happiness Beyond the Founding, explores the “the pursuit of happiness” as a term of legal philosophy and legal advocacy in state constitutions and US Supreme Court cases from the founding era to the present (forthcoming, University of Missouri Press, Studies in Constitutional Democracy Series, 2026).

Maria Cudowska (Syracuse Law)

Following is a summary of Maria’s article, “Wellness Disputes,” forthcoming in UMCK L. Rev.

Testing diagnostic platforms like Function Health purport to give patients unique information to help them better understand their health and, consequently, to empower them to make better decisions about the same. However, the avalanche of newly available information and test results provided by such companies may also unnecessarily harm patients. Consider the impact of a false-positive cancer marker test, for instance, which could lead to unnecessary mental and physical distress and cause a patient to pursue endless and costly medical interventions. This Article describes the legal disputes that arise out of these potential harms—including misdiagnoses, lack of informed consent, and emotional distress caused by test results—and terms them “wellness disputes.” The Article also explores likely avenues for resolving wellness disputes. The companies that provide the diagnostic services in question generally require consumers to resolve disputes through arbitration. Alternative dispute resolution scholarship has long documented how arbitration agreements shield important matters from public scrutiny. In the context of wellness disputes, out-of-court resolution is just as problematic as it keeps information about burgeoning industries, and the new harms they may be causing, private. The consequences of out-of-court resolution of legal disputes involving new technology is further complicated by the concurrent deregulation of all aspects of U.S. public and private health.

Becca Donaldson (Marquette Law)

Law review article in development:  For decades, crime victims in every jurisdiction of the United States have possessed rights within and throughout the criminal legal process. Yet courts repeatedly found that victims lacked standing to assert or enforce these rights in criminal trial courts or courts of appeal, often reasoning that victims are not criminal parties and laws did not otherwise authorize.

Laws have started to authorize otherwise. A proliferation of statutory and state constitutional amendments now expressly afford such standing to victims.  Courts, consequently, have begun to hold that crime victims have standing to assert their rights in criminal courts—prior to any conviction—thus disrupting the two-party adversarial model that has traditionally entailed only the prosecution and the defense.

While this shift is underway, the effects on crime victims’ substantive rights and interests appear to remain limited.  Why is this the case?  The article will explore multiple theories, including continued restrictions on review and remedies (Beloof 2005), as well as the difficult reconciling the role of crime victims in criminal courts with the objectives and traditional theories of punishment underlying criminal law.  The article will likely conclude that victim standing presents a crossroads for American criminal courts to decide whether and to what extent criminal law should account for a victim’s healing and well-being.  Should victim restoration serve as an additional theory of punishment in criminal law, or if this outcome remains outside the scope of criminal law, how does our system of laws and justice address this need?

The article will likely conclude that victims’ healing and well-being remain outside the scope of criminal law and thus require alternative dispute resolution processes in order to achieve their therapeutic aims, including through restorative justice.  We are left with the question of whether and how to systemically offer an alternative path for crime victims’ healing and well-being.

Hossein Fazilatfar (Creighton Law)

“Arbitral (In)effective Vindication”

In recent years, various federal district and circuit courts have considered the enforceability of language in employer-sponsored retirement and welfare plans (ERISA) requiring that participants arbitrate all of their claims (whether collective or individual) individually—and not through class actions. While a Ninth Circuit’s 2019 unpublished decision finds such clauses enforceable, the Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh and Tenth circuits have more recently ruled that the arbitration/class action waiver clauses violate the effective vindication doctrine. This judge-made exception to arbitration holds unenforceable arbitration agreements that include a prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies. This paper (in its infancy) aims to address the case law on effective vindication and its recent revival in Vikings River.

“Arbitration Clause Expansion”

The Article addresses a recent phenomenon in arbitration regarding enforceability of arbitration clauses with ultra-expansive language. A draft is available on SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5218463. Comments are welcome.

Ken Fox (Hamline University and Mitchell Hamline Law)

Title: Perspectives on Conflict: Insights for Professional and Personal Practice

Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic. Here is the link to publisher’s book page

Release date: January 8, 2026

Description: Perspectives on Conflict provides a broadly interdisciplinary examination of conflict and how these broad insights inform more reflective and comprehensive conflict practice across a range of professional and personal settings. Rather than focusing on specific intervention processes and techniques, the book focuses on the front end of conflict work – conflict insights – which form the foundation on which intervention processes are built. The book is grounded in theory, but it is written in plain language to be practical and accessible to students and practitioners alike. Drafts of the book chapters have been used in courses for law, business, education, public and nonprofit leadership students as well as piloted with individuals and consultation groups of trained mediators, facilitators, ombuds, elected officials, organizational leaders, and other conflict professionals.

The book is organized into 3 parts. Part 1 introduces three complementary metaphors that help the reader envision conflict in a more holistic way and examines the importance of adopting multiple perspectives for broadening and deepening insights into conflict. It also introduces a technical vocabulary that helps clarify the range of potential outcomes and implications of conflict intervention and provides a multi-dimensional “prism” framework through which practitioners can further cultivate their own reflective and reflexive conflict practice.

Part 2 examines six broad disciplinary perspectives on conflict: the body (e.g. genetics, physiology, biology, somatics etc); the non-conscious mind; the strategic mind; language and symbols; the co-creation of meaning; and social systems, structures, and the conflict ecosystem. Through a discussion of sample theories and illustrative examples within each perspective, these 6 perspectives help provide a holistic sense of how to better understand the conflicts parties experience.

Part 3 shifts focus to discuss practical application of the insights examined. It discusses how the various perspectives relate to one another and how they can impact the work of a conflict practitioner. It also addresses several practice questions that cross all six perspectives.

The book will be published by Bloomsbury Academic and is scheduled for release on January 8, 2026.

Clark Freshman (UC Law San Francisco)

I’m looking for speakers—virtual or live—for our UC Law SF ADR Speaker Series. Talks are held at lunchtime Pacific, with a one-hour session with students beforehand. This year’s themes are:

  1. Psychology and negotiation/ADR, especially emotion, mood, and wellness.
  2. ADR diversity and inclusion, especially overlooked areas like neurodiversity and age (both youth and older adults).

To honor diversity in speaker selection, please send proposals to freshman@uclawsf.edu that include:

  1. A current draft of your talk.
  2. A video (ideally 15–20 minutes) of you delivering the talk.
  3. Confirmation that UC Law SF may hold a nonexclusive copyright to edit and distribute parts of the talk. This helps students and teachers access ideas increasingly censored elsewhere.

I’m also launching a Negotiation-ish Book Club—monthly, virtual, and candid (not your typical law school vibe). If interested, email me at freshman@uclawsf.edu. First book: Fight Fair by the Gottmans.

I’m thrilled about what may be my most meaningful project: How to Teach Mindful Self-Compassion in Law Schools.

Other current projects include:

  • Revising my empirical study on how subtle emotional shifts affect negotiation.
  • Piloting guided meditations on mindful self-compassion, soon to be available on my soon-to-launch YouTube channel.
  • Drafting an article on How Should We Grade Vulnerability in Our Students, Colleagues, and Administrators? I’ve graded class participation and written work based in part on appropriate vulnerability for five years.
  • Writing an article on using SoundPrint to teach negotiation through sound level complaints, integrating diversity, legal standards like OSHA, leverage theory, and ethics.
  • Conducting a pilot study on lie detection in negotiation using public lawsuit records.
  • Piloting a study on bias and its effects on lawyer negotiation behavior

Michael Green (Texas A&M Law)

I am working on the Schwartz Lecture paper, The Racial Implications for Black Participants Under the Federal Arbitration Act at its Centennial,” to be published in the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution.

Timothy Hedeen (Kennesaw State)

Tim Hedeen — Kennesaw State (Georgia), visiting faculty at Mitchell Hamline (Minnesota) — will continue to research organizational ombuds across sectors. Through the International Ombuds Association, he’ll reprise an online survey of ombuds practitioners around world with longtime collaborator Jennifer Schneider of USF; these annual surveys alternate in emphasis between ombuds practices and ombuds compensation. With his research partner Mary Rowe of MIT, he’ll present at IOA’s September Symposium on assessing ombuds offices’ impact on host organizations with the benefit of self-collected data, organization-wide engagement or climate survey data, and field-wide data.

September Symposium: “Advocating for Your Office and the Ombuds Role” https://www.ombudsassociation.org/september-symposium

David Hoffman (Boston Law Collaborative, LLC)

My research and writing are currently focused primarily on three topics: (a) impasse-breaking in mediation; (b) the Internal Family Systems model and its utility in conflict resolution; (c) unconscious bias and techniques for reducing it.

  1. “The Art of Impasse-Breaking in Mediation: A Handbook for Mediators, Lawyers, and Other Dispute Resolvers” will be published by ABA Books this Fall.  It’s a toolbox containing pretty much everything I have tried during 34 years of being a mediator and teaching mediation.  It also includes material about preventing impasses.  A video presentation of some of the ideas in this book can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/Hoffman-Impasse-Breaking-Video
  2. “The Self-Led Lawyer and Mediator” is the title of a course that I will be teaching this Fall for the Internal Family Systems Institute.  In connection with the development of that course, I have begun work on a book with the same title.  A short version of a portion of the book will be published as an article this Fall by the ABA’s Dispute Resolution Magazine.  Here’s a link to the article, for people who might want to know more about IFS: https://tinyurl.com/ABA-article-on-IFS
  3. “Follow the Science: Proven Strategies for Reducing Unconscious Bias” (https://tinyurl.com/Follow-the-Science) – fellow mediator Helen Winter (who now teaches at Pepperdine) and I published this article in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review three years ago.  It compiles and analyzes social psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuropsychology research about the effectiveness of various bias-reduction techniques, with the goal of making these research findings accessible for lawyers, mediators, arbitrators, judges, and others who want to be less biased.  Helen and I continue to follow the scientific research on this subject, and we are thinking about the possibility of a Part-2 of this article, which seems especially needed in the current political climate.

Candice Kline (Univ. of Toledo Law)

Exploring the Efficacy of Bankruptcy Mediation 

Several high-profile mass tort bankruptcy cases have featured protracted and expensive mediation efforts that take years. Inviting scrutiny is the belabored mediation process and its costs charged to unsecured creditors (mostly tort victims) reliant on the estate and the mediation outcome for any hope of recovery. Examples include Purdue Pharma, Boy Scouts, and several diocese bankruptcy cases. The use of mediation, especially if protracted with “hard fought” negotiations, will later support court approval of any settlements and plan confirmation. It also shields tortfeasors and their interested parties from public scrutiny and accountability that would typically occur through a non-bankruptcy trial process. For a public policy-oriented case mechanism, the mediation process seems removed from the policy goals. Bankruptcy professionals are expensive and recover from the estate before creditors and materially benefit from a slow and “complex” mediation process. As demonstrated in the mass tort context, bankruptcy mediation neither incentives time savings nor cost containment to preserve the estate in the best interests of creditors. The incentives instead suggest a process to get as must as possible, even if quasi-legal, to achieve global peace for nondebtors, with few guardrails and protections for affected individual creditors. This article is a continuation of my exploration of mediation and related injunctive relief in bankruptcy cases. A recent ABI Journal article (link below) argues for a more restrained approach. I am interested in designing rules and guidelines to improve mediation outcomes while preserving estate resources and improving accountability.

John Lande (University of Missouri Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution)

I developed the Real Practice Systems Negotiation and Mediation Coach (RPS Coach) AI tool and wrote about it and AI generally.  RPS Coach Project: A Growing Library About a Valuable AI Tool provides brief descriptions of the following, mostly short pieces.

RPS Coach

Using AI Tools

Writing with the Coach

Using RPS Coach in Legal Education

Videos and Podcasts

David Larson (Mitchell Hamline Law)

On February 28th I was one of the presenters at The Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution Symposium celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Federal Arbitration Act. My presentation, and the article I am writing for publication in that Journal, addresses issues regarding arbitrators’ independent research. Additionally, I frequently am a guest on the ThinkTech Hawaii 30-45 minute podcasts discussing current controversial topics. These topics include, for instance, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision ending district courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions and significant concerns with President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” For example, see https://youtu.be/qy3hL5cLAms . As the Secretary for the Ray Corollary Initiative Board of Directors, I continue to make presentations to further the mission of our organization. I made one-hour panel presentations at the American Bar Association Dispute Resolution Section Annual Conference and at the Association of Conflict Resolution – Greater New York Chapter (ACR-GNY) Annual Conference – Cartographies of Conflict: Mapping New Pathways to Resolution. The presentation was titled “The Ray Corollary Initiative: Increasing Representation in the Selection of ADR Neutrals.” If anyone is interested in working with the Ray Corollary Initiative, then please contact me at david.larson@mitchellhamline.edu.

Ariana Levinson (University of Louisville)

If you are preparing to teach an arbitration skills course or team or are providing CLE to advocates in administrative hearings or arbitration, I hope you will review and consider using NITA’s Arbitration Advocacy Third Edition, which came out in January.  It is a comprehensive, practical guide to advocacy in arbitration. Covering the full arbitration lifecycle—from client intake through decision and award—the revised third edition offers updated content, restructured for clarity. It includes strategic advice on pre‑hearing preparation and persuasive techniques to use during hearings (openings, evidence presentation, direct/cross‑examinations, expert witness use, closings). Recognizing the growing prevalence of remote arbitration, it provides specialized technical and tactical guidance for virtual proceedings. This edition also introduces teaching exercises, video demonstrations, accessible checklists, a case‑evaluation matrix, sample exam excerpts, resource links, and updated lists of arbitration services. Designed for both students and practicing lawyers, it equips advocates with experiential tools.  https://aspenpublishing.com/products/nita-cooley-arbitrationadvocacy3

My current project is an article for The Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, Rightsizing Arbitration. In commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the FAA, it explores the evolving and divergent trajectories of employment and labor arbitration in the United States over the next 100 years. As to employment arbitration, legislators will continue to push to limit its scope, and courts will continue to develop the FAA jurisprudence in the employment area in ways that address the relatively unequal bargaining position of workers and the entities for which they labor.  As to labor arbitration, courts will continue to intermittently apply the FAA without clarity as to whether it applies or is merely persuasive authority.  I am currently researching the development by the courts of the precise test to determine when a labor arbitrator exceeds their authority.  My hypothesis is that the system of labor arbitration, and its protection of the right to strike, will be enhanced to the extent courts reconfirm that an arbitrator exceeds their authority only when they fail to interpret the collective bargaining agreement.

Andrew Mamo (Cincinnati Law)

Two projects:

A Tale of Two Civilities (forthcoming, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics):

The movement for civility in American law led by Chief Justice Warren Burger in the early 1970s was aimed at containing radical legal practice—not, initially, at taming excessively adversarial litigation or at facilitating mutual understanding, the typical concerns of legal civility initiatives today. The history of legal civility complicates contemporary calls for civil discourse to address political polarization and distrust of institutions, even as it reinforces the significance of the questions posed by competing ideals of civility.

This article revisits the historical roots of legal civility discourse during the 1970s and explains how Burger promoted civility to strengthen the legitimacy of legal institutions against critique. This formulation of civility advanced an ethos of restraint to preserve social order. Critics of Burger’s initiatives offered alternative formulations of legal civility that were committed to mutual understanding and to building connection across fundamental differences.

The article argues that the coexistence of the two forms of civility that emerged in the 1970s—Burger’s formulation of civility as way to use decorum to reinforce the legitimacy of legal institutions, and alternative formulations of civility as ways of fostering mutual understanding amidst skepticism of institutions—has generated incoherence. Neither Burger’s model of civility nor its relational alternatives can mend our social and political fractures. The article concludes by offering a reimagined civility—that not only balances care with critique but also offers a path forward for legal institutions protecting their legitimacy in a deeply polarized society.

Advocates without Spirit, Counselors without Heart: Protecting Judgment in the Time of Calculation (in progress):

AI is now part of legal practice, its value often narrowly defined in terms of efficiency. This project develops a taxonomy of dispute resolution along two axes: settled versus unsettled governing principles, and analytical versus phronetic reasoning. The framework provides a language for valuing situated judgment on its own terms, even in resolving “routine” matters. It thus avoids relegating such matters to automation and avoids denying AI’s (limited) power to address novel questions.

Carrie Menkel-Meadow (UC Irvine Law)

Carrie Menkel-Meadow is completing work on her latest book:

Advanced Introduction to Dispute Resolution for the Edwrd Elgar series on Advanced Introductions to various fields in law.

Later this year she will publish several book chapters in such publications as:

  1. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation (Renn, ed. Springer, Nature) on mediation in environmental disputes.

2.“Disputes System Design” commentary in Discussions in Dispute Resolution II  (Hinshaw, Cole and Schneider, Oxford U. Press)

3.“Mediation, Negotiation and ADR” in Encyclopedia of Sociology of Law  (Schultz et. al. eds. Elgar)

  1. Henry Kissinger: Metternich, Messenger, Mediator or Meddler/”  in Negotiators Who Changed the World Remigiusz Smolinksi, ed., Springer, 2025)
  2. “Conflict Resolution” entry in Encyclopedia of Law and Peace,(Louise Mallender, Rachel Killeanand Lauren Dempster, eds.), Edward Elgar Publishing (forthcoming)
  3. “Dispute Resolution as Civil Justice: The Evolution of Process Pluralism,” in Research Handbook in Civil Justice(Richard Jolly, Anne Bloom and David Engel eds.) Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025)
  4. “Gender and Lawyering Differently,” in Research Handbook on Gender and the Legal Profession,(Judith Bourne, ed.), Edward Elgar Publishing (forthcoming)
  5. “Difference Feminism and the Ethics of Care” in Encyclopedia of  Gender Sexuality and Law(Laura Graham and Chris Ashford eds)  Elgar Publishing (forthcoming)

Michael Moffitt (Oregon Law)

Posthumous Restorative Justice. An early-stage work-in-progress, to be delivered as a keynote address for the Nebraska Law Review in Fall 2025. As the title suggests, I’m asking lots of questions about the applicability of restorative justice principles in contexts where some (or all) of the people directly involved in a particular incident that might otherwise be appropriate for a restorative process are no longer alive.

The Six Policy Objectives of the Law of Mediation. An early-stage work-in-progress, to be delivered as the 2026 Schwartz Lecture at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. As the title suggests, I am going to be suggesting (perhaps more sweepingly than is justified) that all mediation policies represent a tradeoff among six legitimate (but competing) underlying policy objectives.

Each of these is still at a stage when I would sincerely welcome any feedback. Even if the feedback you offer is, “Whatever you do, don’t forget to include citations to the following things I wrote…” Even if the feedback you offer is, “This is old news. Professor Whatsherbucket already asked and answered all of these questions in the attached article…”. Even if the feedback you offer is, “This entire project is poorly conceived and should never see the light of day for the following four reasons…” I’d welcome it all. Or, you know, nice things, too. Thanks.

Jacqueline Nolan-Haley (Fordham Law)

My immediate project is working on the 6th edition of ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN A NUTSHELL.

Brian Pappas (Indiana University South Bend)

Three Projects:

An Ode to North Dakota:  The Role of Legal Education in Modern Society

Invited work in progress, University of Toledo Law Review, Volume 57, biannual Deans’ issue

Mindfulness and Law School Leadership

Accepted for publication in The Mindful Law School: Integrating Mindfulness into the Law School Experience, edited by Scott Rogers (Edward Alger Publishing)

  • Being an academic leader can be a lonely endeavor- often people treat you differently, closely evaluate your communication and reactions, and thus it can be hard to establish and maintain relationships. Through a mindful approach, it is possible for academic leaders to navigate multiple inherent tensions to find greater peace, support others to be more present, and craft an organizational culture that supports collective and impactful mindful decision-making.

The Organization Agent Narrative:  Street-Level Bureaucracy & Campus Sexual Misconduct  Accepted for publication in The Future of Ombuds Research: Empirical and Critical Perspectives, edited by Julia Dahlvik and Axel Pohn-Weidinger (Onati Series in International Law & Society)

  • S. university administrators face intense pressure to effectively handle campus sexual misconduct. We lack an understanding of the motives and decisional frames of the frontline workers who investigate cases and interface with survivors and alleged perpetrators. Applying Street-Level Bureaucracy Theory, this chapter investigates the state-agent and citizen-agent narratives as formal (Title IX Coordinators) and informal (Ombuds) actors navigate an uncertain policy environment and the tension between legal requirements and organizational values. Ombuds and Title IX Coordinators are Street-Level Bureaucrats who use an organization-agent narrative to use their discretion in ways that maximize their organizational influence and manage a hectic work life.

Nicolás Parra-Herrera (S.J. Quinney College of Law, Univ. of Utah)

Four projects:

  • Nicolás Parra-Herrera, A Road Not Taken in Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mary Parker Follett and The Emergence of Proto-ADR, 40 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. (forthcoming 2025).  The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) field could have looked different from the way it does today. This article explores a road not taken in ADR—one influenced by the ideas of Mary Parker Follett, a Progressive Era thinker who advocated for an approach to conflict resolution based on interdependence, group dynamics, non-expertism, and political anti-pacifism. The reception of Follett’s ideas in negotiation theory and ADR transformed her interdependent and social “proto-ADR” approach into an individualistic agenda misaligned with her political and economic views and her beliefs about human behavior.
  • Nicolás Parra-Herrera, Getting to Getting to Yes (and the Self): The Emergence of Interest-based Negotiation Theory and the Shift to Negotiation as Self-Crafting(work in progress). Initially focused on developing new institutions and procedures for resolving disputes, interest-based negotiation gradually shifted toward shaping the self through habits and practices that guide individuals in how to relate to themselves and others. Through a close reading of Roger Fisher’s work—drawing on his published writings, archival materials, and interviews with colleagues and mentees—this article explores how negotiation emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a conflict resolution tool and, by the early 2000s, evolved into a method of self-crafting, aimed at transforming perceptions, emotions, and communication.
  • Nicolás Parra-Herrera, Lon Fuller and the Institutional Turn in Dispute Resolution(work-in-progress) This article asks: What does it mean to call Fuller a jurisprude—perhaps even the jurisprude—of ADR? What was his role in the emergence and development of ADR as a field of legal study? And what conception of ADR underlies his work? The article draws on an extensive review of Fuller’s writings, archival materials including correspondence, unpublished manuscripts, and legal education reform proposals. Based on these materials, I demonstrate how Fuller played a pivotal role in the institutionalization of ADR within the legal academy.
  • Nicolás Parra-Herrera coauthored with Antonio Aloisi and Pilar Galeote, Innovation Beyond Technology: The Crucial Role of Skills in Driving Change in the Legal Profession, Law Ahead Center for the Legal Profession, IE University, Spain(link)

Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett (Washington and Lee Law)

“The New Arbitration Rules” (the full article is available on SSRN by clicking here).

Abstract: Commentators largely agree that arbitration today is a far cry from what Congress envisioned when it enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) a century ago. The contrast has become particularly stark in the past decade, with consumers and employees bringing coordinated “mass arbitration” claims and defendant-companies responding with elaborate, oftentimes inscrutable, new rules for “batching” these claims in a way that stalls and divides individual plaintiffs.

To understand the current state of arbitration and how to respond, this Article offers a new historical account of arbitration as both a tool of, and defense against, employees and consumers acting collectively against companies. The phenomenon predates the FAA and has only intensified since the advent of mass arbitration.

Against this historical backdrop, the Article documents the way defendant-companies have drafted their new batched-arbitration rules to reserve for themselves the primary benefits of consolidated litigation—reduced costs and resolution of all claims in a single proceeding—while providing few of the procedural safeguards that exist for plaintiffs in court. As private arbitration rules increasingly take on the characteristics and complexity of aggregate civil litigation, I argue that comparable procedures are needed. To that end, the Article provides a template for courts and legislators to adopt new arbitration rules that promote uniformity and adequate process while continuing to honor the underlying goals of private dispute resolution.

Peter Reilly (Texas A&M Law)

For the past several years, I’ve been part of a legal team representing (pro bono) families who lost loved ones in the Boeing 737 MAX crashes of 2018 and 2019. Litigating this criminal case informs my recent scholarship, including Plea Bargain Skepticism When Companies Kill People, 86 Ohio State Law Journal ___ (forthcoming 2025). The paper (abstract below) can be found on SSRN by clicking here.

Abstract: In 2018 and 2019, two Boeing 737 MAX airplanes fell from the sky, killing 346 people—one of the deadliest corporate crimes in U.S. history. Instead of taking the case to trial, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) addressed the matter by using two different alternative dispute resolution vehicles. First, Boeing was given a three-year deferred prosecution agreement. That deal was canceled when DOJ determined the company had breached it. Next, Boeing was given a plea bargain. This Article argues that federal courts, which are empowered to approve or reject plea deals, should be skeptical when the government turns to that tool in disposing of cases in which corporate misconduct has resulted in people dying. The Article examines the particular type of agreement—a “C” plea—that DOJ selected to resolve the Boeing matter. The “C” plea is uniquely ill-suited for achieving justice in the context of corporate crime, and the Article explains how the agreement works to derail transparency and accountability, specifically by impeding judicial discretion, hindering crime victims’ rights, and hobbling the search for truth. The Article is important because it spotlights a prosecutorial tool that has not received the full measure of scrutiny and criticism it deserves. The Article concludes by discussing possible court responses when the government proposes a “C” plea in addressing deadly corporate crime, and how courts can help ensure that justice, including procedural justice, can ultimately be achieved in such cases.

Jennifer K. Robbennolt (Illinois Law)

Settlementality by Jessie Bregant, Jen Robbennolt, and Verity Winship is forthcoming in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. The piece reports results from a nationally representative survey of over 1,000 U.S. adults about what respondents think settlement should look like.

Jen Robbennolt and Lesley Wexler have posted Apologies in the Trump Era: Authoritarian Transition Rather than Transitional Justice on Justia. The post analyzes the Trump administration’s approach to apologies and contrasts it to the traditional role of state apologies.

Amy J. Schmitz (The Ohio State—Moritz Law)

Professor Amy J. Schmitz is working on research related to the responsible integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into civil dispute systems, with an emphasis on ethical design, and safe and trustworthy AI. One of her major forthcoming works is Digital Dispute System Design (Aspen, 2025), co-authored with Janet Martinez. This book offers a comprehensive framework for designing digital dispute resolution systems that are user-centric, transparent, and adaptable to evolving technologies. Professor Schmitz is also co-editing The Cambridge Handbook on AI and Civil Dispute Resolution (Cambridge University Press, 2025/2026) and writing two chapters in the book. This volume brings together leading scholars to examine how AI is reshaping civil justice systems globally. Her contributions to the handbook include chapters on the responsible use of AI in dispute resolution and the broader implications of AI for procedural justice.

In addition, her chapter in the Edward Elgar Encyclopedia of AI and the Law (2025) explores the evolving role of AI in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), highlighting both the opportunities and risks of automation in legal processes. She also contributes to Digital Courts: Integrating Human and Artificial Intelligence (Oxford University Press, 2025), where she examines how U.S. courts can design ODR systems to expand access to justice, particularly for self-represented litigants.

Further, in her article “Bringing Section 7 Into the Next Century” (14 Am. U. Bus. L. Rev. 659, 2025), co-authored with David Brodsky, Schmitz addresses the modernization of arbitration law, advocating for reforms that align with contemporary dispute resolution practices.

She also continues to pursue her JusticeTech projects, and work under three different grants related to technology to assist individuals in areas where they lack access to information, attorneys, and low-cost resources to obtain remedies.

Andrea Schneider (Cardozo Law)

I’m working on several projects this upcoming year.  First, with Cynthia Alkon, we are writing an article for the Washington University Journal of Law and Policy about the importance (and pedagogy) of teaching hybrid warfare to lawyers.  The article will discuss our growing understanding of this field, how lawyers are involved as risk managers and dispute resolvers, and then the lessons from teaching this class last spring.

Second, with Art Hinshaw and Sarah Cole, we have started outlining the parameters and articles to be included in what will be our 3rd book with Oxford University Press on Discussions in Dispute Resolution.  This volume will focus on the most significant articles regarding diversity and differences.  (Our second volume is coming out as I write this– Discussions in Dispute Resolution: The Coming of Age 2000-2009 is available here!)

Finally, with Art Hinshaw and Taya Cohen, we will start to analyze the data that we have collected for the past three years regarding law students’ views of negotiation and ethical dilemmas (with many thanks to those schools that helped us get the survey out!)

Katherine Simpson (Simpson Dispute Resolution)

I am editor for and contributor to the Kluwer Arbitration Templates & Examples series.  This online-first publication gives arbitration practitioners (whether counsel, arbitrator, or in house) the kind of insights that one would seek from a close colleague when doing an arbitration under an institution’s newest set of rules.  Print volumes are in planning.

The volumes for the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the Swiss Arbitration Centre (SAC) have been published and their updates will be going live soon.  The volume on the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) is also ready to go live any day.

Other featured international commercial arbitration rules include those from CIETAC, DIAC, DIS, HKIAC, ICDR, JAMS, LCIA, LMAA, SCC, SCCA, SIAC, UNCITRAL, and VIAC.  The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will also be featured.

Each “guidance” section of each volume is accompanied by “Examples” of excellent arbitration practice for that phase (PDF files, shared with the permission of counsel and parties, that demonstrate high quality practice under the featured rules) and Templates (formatted WORD files, created to comply with the featured rules requirements) that arbitration practitioners can use in their cases under those rules.

There is also a crowd-sourcing element to this publication.  Once a volume goes “live” online, practitioners can submit their own templates and examples, as well as proposals for additions to the “Guidance”, which I review with the volume’s co-authors before putting online.

I’m always looking for reviewers and people who would like to contribute their practice tips.  The publication requires a subscription, and is available here:  https://www.kluwerarbitration.com/templates-and-examples

Thank you.  It is a newer style of publication (online first, online usability, print later) and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thomas J. Stipanowich (Pepperdine Caruso Law)

Pepperdine law professor/ William Webster Chair holder Tom Stipanowich has continued to focus on examining life and career of Abraham Lincoln through the lens of our modern studies in dispute resolution and leadership. Last fall he published the short article, Malice Toward None; Charity for All: Lincoln’s Vision of Reconciliation for All Americans, 30 No. 3 Disp. Resol. Mag. (Fall 2024). This past spring semester he taught his new course “Lincoln, Lawyering, and Leadership” for the second time and gave a number of presentations on Lincoln around the country. Along with co-author Carli Conklin, Associate Professor of Law and newly-announced Director of the Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution at the University of Missouri School of Law, he is close to completing a law review article with the working title “Discourage Litigation”: Arbitration and Creative Pragmatism in the Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln.  

Last fall, Tom was admitted by the California Lawyers Association to the California ADR Hall of Fame.

S.I. Strong (Emory Law)

  • S.I. Strong, “Responsible Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession Through A Split Bar: Implications for Legal Educators,” 79 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy __ (forthcoming 2026)
  • S.I. Strong, “Artificial Intelligence in Civil Justice Systems:  An Empirical and Interdisciplinary Analysis and Proposal for Moving Forward,” 41 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution __ (forthcoming 2026) (invited)
  • S.I. Strong, “Pro Bono Publico Versus Pro Bono Presidential,” 94 George Washington Law Review Arguendo 1 (2025)
  • Excerpted in Professional Responsibility:  A Contemporary Approach, West Academic Publishing (6th ed., forthcoming)
  • S.I. Strong, “Facilitating Trust Arbitration by Amending the Federal Arbitration Act,” 75 American University Business Law Review 669 (2025) (invited)
  • S.I. Strong, “Judging Judiciaries:  How Sticky Defaults, Status Quo Bias, and the Sovereign Prerogative Influence the Perceived Legitimacy of the New International Commercial Courts,” 74 American University Law Review 691 (2025)

Karen Tokarz (WashU Law)

The first fall volume of this year’s Washington University Journal of Law & Policy focuses on “New Directions in Dispute Resolution and Clinical Education.”  The lineup for this volume includes the following:

  • Karen Tokarz, “Introduction: New Directions in Dispute Resolution and Clinical Education”
  • Cynthia Alkon & Andrea Schneider, “Teaching Conflict Management in the Age of Hybrid Warfare”
  • Dan Bernstein & Kristen Blankley, “Can I Ask That? Helping Well-Meaning Mediators Prevent Common Capacity Assessment Pitfall”
  • Christopher Gibson, “ODR Systems to Settle Divorces: How Clinical Education Can Play a Role Using Online Technologies”
  • Dwight Golann, “Can We Train Bots to Negotiate Like Lawyers and What Do We Learn As We Do?”
  • Conrad Johnson, “Robin Hood Meets Generative AI at The Legal Aid Society”
  • John Lande, “Intentional Bias in Dispute Resolution Artificial Intelligence: Learning from the RPS Coach Case Study”
  • S.I. Strong, “Legal Education in a Post-AI World: Splitting Competencies”
  • J. Kim Wright and Kara McCarthy Perry, “Embodied Negotiation: Reimagining Dispute Resolution and Legal Education Through Integrative Law”

This is the eighth volume focused on ADR over the past 15 years, during which I have served as the faculty advisor for the Journal. The Journal has published over 100 ADR academics and practitioners in these volumes.

Steve Ware (Kansas Law)

Steve Ware recently published:

  1. The Supreme Court’s Defensible Interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act in The Federal Arbitration Act: Successes, Failures, and a Roadmap for Reform (Bales & Gross, eds. Cambridge University Press 2024).
  2. Contracting Away Constitutional Rights in the United States: Adhesive Consent (Blanket Assent) to Arbitration and other Agreements, 26 German Law Journal (2025).
  3. Repeal the Federal Arbitration Act’s “Arising out of” Requirement, 14 American University Business Law Review 535 (2025).

Steve is completing two books and an article:

  1. Principles of Negotiation and Mediation (West Concise Hornbook Series 2025)
  2. Arbitration (Foundation Press University Casebook Series, 5th 2025) (with David Horton, Tamar Meshel & Alan Rau).
  3. Enforcement of Mediated Settlements in the EU and in the Anglosphere: A Comparative Approach (with Piotr Slawicki)

Steve is also writing two articles (one international and the other domestic) on arbitration agreements in bankruptcy and other insolvency cases.

Rachel J. Wechsler (Missouri Law)  

The Non-Punishment Principle and Restorative Justice, 174 U. Pa. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2026)

Abstract: The non-punishment principle is a legal norm that has increasingly gained legitimacy over the past quarter-century within international, regional, and domestic law on human trafficking. At its core, this principle opposes the punishment of human trafficking victims for criminal conduct they engage in as a consequence of their trafficking victimization. Little is known about the presence and operation of the non-punishment principle within U.S. law. This Article fills this gap as the first to comprehensively map and analyze the principle’s instantiation across state and federal law.

From this new map, three key themes emerge. First, the non-punishment principle has a distinct presence within U.S. law. This manifests predominantly through statutory immunity and affirmative defenses specifically based upon trafficking victimization, diversion to human trafficking courts, treatment programs, and social services for defendants identified as trafficking victims, and vacatur, expungement, and sealing laws providing criminal records relief for trafficking victims. Second, states often restrict non-punishment statutes and judicial initiatives to apply to only a subset of trafficking victims. Such limitations include excluding more serious offenses from eligibility, imposing age limitations, and requiring proof of a definitive nexus between the crime and trafficking victimization. Consequently, many victims are excluded from the non-punishment principle’s reach and are subjected to criminal liability and punishment. Third, current approaches to the non-punishment principle largely reflect the oversimplified binary embedded within the criminal legal system that treats individuals solely as victims deserving of protection or solely as offenders deserving of punishment. This paradigm fails to appreciate the victim-offender overlap that often exists within human trafficking situations and its implications for addressing the complex harms involved.

Given the limits of current approaches, this Article advances the novel argument that restorative justice holds great promise as a non-punitive mechanism to address harm caused by trafficking victims who victimize others while avoiding violation of the non-punishment principle. Restorative justice’s flexibility, focus on repair and reintegration, and appreciation of the dynamics surrounding the harm make it a valuable mechanism for addressing the complexities of the victim-offender overlap within the human trafficking context. On a broader level, this proposal supports decarceration efforts by advocating for the use of restorative justice instead of incarceration to respond to serious and violent crime committed by human trafficking victim-defendants.

I am currently collaborating with Melina Healey (Touro Law) on a related project examining the non-punishment principle within the Tribal context, titled Tribal Non-Punishment and Restorative Justice.  This project employs both doctrinal and empirical methods to examine Tribal non-punishment statutes against a backdrop of historical trauma and jurisdictional complexities.  It argues that U.S. obligations to realize the non-punishment-principle provide an opportunity to re-empower Tribal courts and expand the use of non-punitive restorative justice processes rooted in traditional Tribal customs and values.

Maureen Weston (Pepperdine Caruso Law)

Professor Weston was recently appointed to the NCAA Committee on Infractions, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.  She is a member of the Sports Lawyer Association and actively involved in trying to keep abreast of the many developments in college sports and arbitration.  Her recent works include:

  • College Sports as Work: College Athletes as Employees The Answer or An Existential Threat?, St. Thomas L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
  • Olympic Dreams Dashed: Arbitrating Seconds, Grams, Identity and Time at the Olympic Games Paris 2024,25  Nevada Las Vegas L. Rev.  (2025)
  • Strategic Shifts:  The Corporate Playbook on Arbitration, Class Actions, Mass Arbitration, and Privatized Justice), Discussions in Dispute Resolution (Volume II): The Coming of Age (2000-2009)(Hinshaw, Schneider, and Cole eds.) (Oxford University Press, 2025)
  • Kim Wright (Quinnipiac Law Center on Dispute Resolution)

Forthcoming Articles

  • “New Challenges in Dispute Resolution and Clinical Education in a Changing World”
    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, Volume 79 (with Kara Perry, Malin Johnson, and Carolyn Kaas). Expected 2025.
  • “A New Paradigm of Law Focuses on Healing”
    Law Review of the Puerto Rican Academy of Jurisprudence and Legislation, Volume XXVI. Expected 2025.
  • Article on Collaborative Law, Conscious Contracts®, and Integrative Law
    Revista Brasileira de Direito e Inovação (Brazilian Journal of Law and Innovation). Expected 2025.

 Forthcoming Books and Book Chapters

  • Second Edition, Lawyers as Peacemakers: Practicing Holistic, Problem-Solving Law
    Integrative Law Press. First edition published by the American Bar Association (2010). Second edition expected 2025.
  • Contributor & Original Author, Portatori di cambiamento
    Italian edition of Lawyers as Changemakers (ABA, 2016). Adapted through a collaborative process with Italian legal professionals, each of whom translated and reflected on a chapter. Expected publication in Italy, 2025.
  • Contributor, “The Larger Movement That Includes Collaborative Practice”
    In Derecho colaborativo, un nuevo paradigma para la abogacía, edited by the Catalan Association of Collaborative Law. Published by Marcial Pons. Expected 2025 or early 2026.
  • Editor & Contributor, Integrative Law (Brazil)
    Co-editors: Anthony Novaes and Ana Luiza Etchalus. Includes contributed article: “Becoming Trauma-Aware and Resilient.” Expected 2026.
  • Contributor, “Teaching Integrative Law”
    In Integrative Law: A Paradigm Shift in Legal Education and Beyond, edited by Professors Wesahl Domingo and Michele van Eck, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Expected 2026.