Thank you to FOI Peter Reilly (Texas A&M) for compiling this list.

Hal Abramson (Touro Law)

Article: “AI Bots as Teachers: What is left for human law professors to offer in the classroom?”

This article considers what bots can do as AI law teachers, how students are already using bots for learning, how to integrate the use of AI into law courses, and what faculty can do to stay ahead of the bots in their classrooms. During this discussion, the article confronts the existential question of what is left for human law professors to do in an AI world. It concludes that there is a future for humans for now, and one that might make us better teachers.

Although this article is written for an audience broader than us ADR professors, the article includes illustrations of how to incorporate the use of bots for teaching negotiations (and also for contracts).

Gilat Juli Bachar (Temple Law)

Coercive Settlements, 93 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 733 (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.

Rishi Batra (McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific)

Article: “Detecting and Challenging AI Drafted Arbitration Awards” (forthcoming 2026)

Abstract: The recent motion to vacate an arbitral award in LaPaglia v. Valve Corporation marks the first known challenge to an arbitration decision allegedly drafted using artificial intelligence, raising fundamental questions about the intersection of AI technology and alternative dispute resolution.

While emerging scholarship has begun addressing AI in judicial decision making, the unique characteristics of arbitration—particularly the severely limited grounds for judicial review under the Federal Arbitration Act—present distinct challenges when arbitrators employ AI tools in crafting awards.

This Article addresses three critical questions for arbitration law. First, it establishes a spectrum of AI uses in award-drafting, ranging from simple editing assistance to substantive decision-making, and evaluates the appropriateness of each application. Second, it identifies evidentiary markers that can help counsel detect AI usage and distinguish between different types of AI assistance. Third, it explores how traditional grounds for vacating arbitral awards—including exceeding authority, arbitrator misconduct, and manifest disregard of the law—may be adapted to address AI-generated content.

By examining these issues through the lens of the LaPaglia case, this Article provides practical guidance for litigators seeking to challenge AI-drafted awards while navigating arbitration’s “thick protective cocoon” against judicial review. It concludes by discussing implications for arbitration practice as AI tools become increasingly prevalent in dispute resolution.

Dan Berstein, MHS (MH Mediate)

A. Mental Health and Conflicts
DRI Press published the 2026 edition of Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment.  Access free copies and teaching tools at www.mhsafe.org/teaching

B. DisabilityRadar.com
Practitioners are sometimes taught inappropriate “radar” approaches to screen out people with mental illnesses, or treat them disparately.  Go to www.DisabilityRadar.comfor resources to recognize and report radar, and to help professionals replace it with sound practices.

C. ADR Complaints
The Rights, Ethics, and Voices in Dispute Resolution (REV-DR) project brings together ADR leaders who want to empower parties through “Mediator’s-Bill-of-Rights”-style documents.  It launched at the AALS DR Section’s 2025 WIP Conference.  A forthcoming Alternativesarticle called “Supporting Party Rights By Coming Together to Address Mediator Misconduct” details how many community dispute resolution centers in NY have already shared their complaint policies, and it presents a new anonymous way people can report problems.  Learn more at www.mhsafe.org/cdrc

D. Estrangements Children’s Book
StrainedMiddle.com helps families have better experiences while estrangements are impacting the whole family.  “The Ant Who Can’t Come Over” is a new children’s book that helps kids know they’re loved even when someone is estranged.  Find more at https://strainedmiddle.com/books/

E. Adversarial Distress
Eggshells in Action (EIA) helps people cope with distress caused by adversarial parties in negotiations, ADR, and litigation. We’re surveying attorneys to learn what kinds of adversarial distress they’re encountering, and how they cope.  Complete the survey at https://forms.gle/q1xpVQUju2oBVUer6

F. Mental Health Conflict Coaching
Mindquity has launched to connect parties with mental health problems with conflict coaches who can help them seek support, navigate rejection, and pursue accommodations.  Resources are available at www.mindquity.com, including programs funded by the NYC and NY State Offices of Mental Health.

G. Embracing Bipolar

September marked the 20th anniversary of Dan’s first hospitalization and diagnosis with bipolar disorder.  He launched a resource site (www.danberstein.com/20years) including a “20 Lessons From 20 Years” document.  He has been thanking people in ADR and beyond who have been supportive during his disability journey.  Thanks Peter and all blurb-readers for being a supportive community!

 Kristen M. Blankley (Nebraska Law)

Kristen M. Blankley is working on the following projects:

 

• Her article, Tradeoffs in Ombuds Office Design will be published in early 2026 in the Cardozo Journal of Dispute Resolution. This paper considers ethical issues surrounding traditional ombuds, collateral-duty ombuds, and outsourced ombuds.
• Her article, Can I Ask That: Helping Well-Meaning Mediators Prevent Common Capacity Assessment Pitfalls, with Dan Berstein, will be published in early 2026 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.
• Her article House Rules: Arbitrating NIL in College Athletics, has been accepted for publication in the Marquette Sports Law Journal for publication in Spring 2026. This paper considers the arbitration aspects of the landmark House v. NCAA settlement. Ultimately, the article suggests limited public disclosures of arbitration outcomes for the purpose of predictability for student-athletes and the legitimacy of the system.
• Her symposium article What CAN Court-Appointed Neutrals Learn from Dispute Resolution Ethics? will be published in the New York Law School Law Review as part of a symposium on court-appointed neutrals (formerly known as “special masters”). This article considers how ADR ethics might apply to court-appointed neutrals when they work roles performing the duties of mediators and arbitrators.

Alyson Carrel (Northwestern Law)

Alyson Carrel has co-authored “Beyond Private or Public: A Framework for Understanding Settlement Options, published in the Journal of Dispute Resolution,

https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2025/iss2/7/

This article develops a framework for understanding settlement choices beyond the entrenched binary of private versus public resolution. Rather than treating confidentiality and transparency as mutually exclusive, the piece maps a broader range of settlement options and clarifies the values and tradeoffs embedded in different settlement schemas, particularly in disputes implicating public interests.

The article builds on two earlier publications. Reimagining Settlement with Multi-Party Computation, published in the Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, introduced the use of cryptographic protocols to enable verified information sharing without full disclosure. Murmurs of the Silenced: Secure Reporting of Misconduct Settlements, which received the Best Paper Award at the 2025 ACM Symposium on Computer Science and Law, proposed a statutory–technological framework for cryptographically secure reporting registries for misconduct settlements.

Amy Cohen (Temple Law)

I have three new papers that take tools and sensibilities often parked in ADR (consensus, facilitation, relationality, plural normativities) and that redeploy them as political-economic infrastructures.

• “Diverse Legalities: Towards a Legal Theory for a Postcapitalist Political Economy,” 88  Law & Contemporary Problems 79 (2025) is coauthored with geographer Stephen Healy. It flips ongoing debates among law and political economy (LPE) scholars towards actually existing experiments in cooperation and solidarity.
• “Supply Chain Commons: Organic Waste, Climate Change and Regenerative Farming in Peri-Urban Sydney” in Governing Corporate Knowledge Commons  (eds. David Gindis Cambridge University Press forthcoming 2026) is coauthored with geographer Stephen Healy and design scholar Abby Mellick Lopes. It recasts a particular supply chain for organic waste as a commons via a description of shared social, intellectual, and regulatory resources and decision making practices.
• “Living Under Contract: An LPE Analysis of American Democracy,” University of Chicago Law Review (forthcoming 2026) is coauthored with anthropologist Ilana Gershon and broadly explores why so many Americans cast a vote for authoritarianism. Along with my other papers, it suggests that democratic coordination lives (or dies) in the everyday governance practices people inhabit.

Sarah Cole (The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law)

In addition to the Discussions in Dispute Resolution with Andrea Schneider and Art Hinshaw, I am working on an article that stems from my work as Scholar-in-Residence for the International Academy of Mediators. The article focuses on Commercial Mediator use of AI in their practice.

Carli N. Conklin (University of Missouri, Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution)

I continue to research the development of arbitration in early America, most recently through an exploration of early Illinois arbitration law. As Tom Stipanowich (Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law) has uncovered through his extensive and original research into newly-available primary sources, Abraham Lincoln utilized that legal backdrop to create a substantial, and often surprising, arbitration practice. We presented our co-authored piece on the topic at the AALS-ADR Works-in-Progress Conference in October 2025 and at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law in January 2026.

My current work-in-progress, The Pursuit of Happiness Beyond the Founding (forthcoming, University of Missouri Press, Studies in Constitutional Democracy Series), follows up on my prior work by exploring how “the pursuit of happiness” has been used to assert and negotiate for rights through case law, constitutions, and the public square from the founding era forward. Upcoming presentations include The University of Austin at Texas School of Civic Leadership’s Symposium on the 250^th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (April 2026) and a panel presentation on the Declaration of Independence at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s Annual Bench & Bar Training (May 2026).

Michael Conklin (Texas A&M University—Central Texas)

Negotiating Inequality: A New Framework for Equity in Salary Negotiations, 31 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2026) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5362397

Negotiations in At-Risk Communities and Negotiating for Social Justice: A Review of Transformative Negotiation, 17 Negot. & Conflict Mgmt. Rsch. 349 (2025) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4854033

Cultivating the Trial Myth: The Harmful Absence of ADR in Movies, currently under expedite (forthcoming 2026) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6070326

To Infinity and Beyond All Reasonable Bounds of Arbitration Clauses: Disney’s Attempt to Compel Arbitration in a Restaurant Wrongful Death Claim from a Disney+ Arbitration Clause, 40 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 185 (2025).

The Arbitration Web Ensnaring Every Consumer: The Next Evolution in Corporate Strategy to Compel Arbitration, 78 Maine L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2026) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5112193

Dennis D. Crouch (University of Missouri, Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution)

I continue to write daily essays for Patently-O, putting an academic spin on developments impacting the US and global intellectual property systems. Recent dispute-resolution-related coverage includes the dramatic collapse of administrative challenges under President Trump’s administration, the Federal Circuit’s increasing willingness to overturn jury verdicts, and jurisdictional questions surrounding patent-related arbitration disputes.

Additional scholarship includes a collaborative patent law book project tracing core patent doctrines and issues from their nineteenth-century origins through contemporary application; an article on induced patent infringement in the context of generic pharmaceutical skinny labels; and a theoretical article applying Carl Jung’s concept of synchronicity to patent obviousness doctrine.

Ken Fox (Hamline University and Mitchell Hamline Law)

Book title: Perspectives on Conflict: Insights for Professional and Personal Practice (Bloomsbury Academic, January 2026)

Link to publisher’s book page: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/perspectives-on-conflict-9781538186886/

Perspectives on Conflict: Insights for Professional and Personal Practice is a broadly interdisciplinary examination of conflict insights and their implications for conflict practice across a broad range of practice areas (such as law, business, education, organizational leadership, public and nonprofit sectors, communities, etc.). The book is written both for conflict practitioners and for professional students in a conversational tone that blends both theoretical foundations and practical examples in application.  It is organized into three parts: Part 1 introduces several metaphors to help the reader envision conflict in different yet complementary ways and examines the importance of adopting multiple perspectives for broadening insights into conflict. It introduces technical language that helps clarify the implications of conflict intervention from multiple perspectives and it examines the nature and value of both reflective and reflexive practice.  Part 2 examines conflict from six broad and interconnected disciplinary perspectives: The body and Somatics; the non-conscious mind; the strategic mind; language and symbols; the co-creation of meaning; and social systems, structures and the conflict ecosystem. Together, these six perspectives help provide a more holistic sense of conflicts that we (or parties) experience.  Part 3 shifts focus to the practical application of the insights previously examined, including a discussion of the various perspectives’ impact on the work of a practitioner as well as different practice roles and settings. It then addresses three themes that cut across the six perspectives: A deeper examination of impartiality; implications for party representation; and a reflection on practitioner emotional capacity.  Early drafts of the book chapters and the complete pre-publication galleys of the book have been used multiple times as the primary text both in business/leadership (MBA, MPA, PhD) and law school (DR) classes that are designed to engage students in a deeper and broader examination and reflection on the nature and experience of conflict and how multiple perspectives can inform conflict response and intervention practices. For anyone interested in using this book in such courses, Ken is happy to work individually to provide sample syllabi, activities and assignments for classroom use. Click here for a link to the publisher’s page.

Ulla Glaesser (Gläßer) (European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) Germany, Department of Law)

A big part of my current work is normative as well as empirical research on transnational, non-judicial grievance mechanisms in the field of Business, Human Rights and die Environment (BHRE). My research team and I are currently working on two 3-year research projects: “Beyond Access – Effective Remedy for Particularly Vulnerable Groups” (funded by the German Research Fund) and “Non-Judicial Grievance Mechanisms in Transnational Supply Chains as Learning Systems” (funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation); for more information see https://www.rewi.europa-uni.de/de/professuren/mediation-konfliktmanagement-verfahrenslehre/forschung/index.html

Our 60-page evaluation study of the “Mecanismo de Reclamación de Derechos Humanos (MRDH)”, the cross-company pilot grievance mechanism of the German Automotive Sector in Mexico, has just been published on the CSR website of the German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs: https://www.csr-in-deutschland.de/EN/Services/News/cross-company-grievance-mechanism-in-practice

Another field of my research is ADR and Digitization: I added a chapter on “Online Dispute Resolution” to my own commentary of the German Mediation Act (eds.: Klowait/Gläßer, 2025), published an article on “Artificial Intelligence in the Context of Mediation” (ZKM 4/2025) and updated my chapter on “Mediation and Digitization” for the 2^nd edition of the handbook “Digitization and Civil Procedure” (eds: Riehm/Doerr, 2026, in print).

Last but not least I continue to write about the developments of ADR/mediation in different areas of society: I have finished a book chapter on “Mediation in the Public Sector” for the prestigious German “Handbook of Administrative Law” (Vol. VIII) (eds: Kahl/Ludwigs, 2026, in print) together with J.M. von Bargen and I have submitted an article on “Mediative Interventions in Planning Conflicts regarding Renewable Energy Projects” to the CRQ special edition on “Synergizing Alternative Dispute Resolution, Sustainability and Infrastructure Development” together with Tina Baer.

Most recently, I have started to work on an empirical study on concepts of fairness and justice in court-connected mediation.

If anyone is interested in a conversation on this work in progress or in joint research on any of the mentioned topics, please get in touch: glaesser@europa-uni.de

David A. 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” was published by ABA Books in November 2025.  It’s a toolbox containing pretty much everything I have tried during 34 years of being a mediator and teaching mediation.  A video presentation of some of the ideas in this book can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/Hoffman-Impasse-Breaking-Video.  I am starting to compile materials for a second edition, and so I welcome suggestions.
2. “The Self-Led Lawyer and Mediator” is the title of a course that I taught this past 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 was published as an article this past 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://blc.law/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/What-Makes-People-Tick-A-Mediators-Introduction-to-Internal-Family-Systems-final-November-2025.pdf
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.

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

I wrote a lot of pieces with and about AI and RPS Coach.  Pieces listed without citations were posted on SSRN.

Artificial Intelligence and Real Practice Systems Negotiation and Mediation Coach

Promoting Better Dispute Decision-Making with an AI Tool Built on RPS Theory, 79 Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 135 (2026).

How AI Can Help Mediators Say What They Really Mean, 2026 Journal of Dispute Resolution.

Why AI May Be Your Best Negotiation and Mediation Coach, 44 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation 1 (2026).

The Art of AI Prompting in Law and Dispute Resolution Practice, 43 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation 172 (2025).

How Mediators and Lawyers Can Use AI: A Practical Video Guide

RPS Coach Project:  A Growing Library About a Valuable AI Tool.  This is an annotated bibliography.

Legal Education

Solving Professors’ Dilemmas about Prohibiting or Promoting Student AI Use.

Faculty Use of Artificial Intelligence in Teaching.

De-Skilling or Re-Skilling?  The Case for Smarter Assignments.

Did Your Student or a Bot Write This Paper?: Teaching and Grading in the Age of AI.

Turning Risks of Cheating with AI into Opportunities for Better Teaching.

A Video Guide for Teaching Law Students to Use AI Wisely.

Other

The Art of Mediation Representation: Helping Clients Make Good Decisions, 43 Alternatives to the Hight Cost of Litigation 71 (2025).

How Can You Turn Adversarial Attorneys into Quasi-Mediators?, 43 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation 3 (2025).

What’s the Matter With BATNA? It’s Misleading and Doesn’t Help Advance Parties’ Important Interests, 43 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation 39 (2025).

Choosing to Use Good Language in the “ADR” Field.

Possibilities for Early Dispute Resolution, in Discussions in Dispute Resolution, Volume II:  The Coming of Age (2000-2009) (Art Hinshaw, Andrea Kupfer Schneider, and Sarah Rudolph Cole eds., 2025).

The Phenomenon Known as the Vanishing Trial, in Discussions in Dispute Resolution (Volume II: The Coming of Age (2000-2009) (Art Hinshaw, Andrea Schneider, and Sarah Cole eds., 2025).

Ariana Levinson (University of Louisville)

Ariana Levinson has two papers in edits.  Rightsizing Arbitration forthcoming in The Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution considers the future of employment and labor arbitration in the U.S.  Are Union Co-op Labor Negotiations a Win-Win and for Whom? forthcoming in DLM.int, (https://www.ddllmm.eu/dlm-int/) an online, open access, peer-reviewed journal, discusses the use of integrative bargaining in union co-ops and examines the resultant collective bargaining agreements.

View my papers on SSRN: https://ssrn.com/author=866378

Carrie Menkel-Meadow (UC Irvine Law)

1. Completion for Summer 2026 publication, book:   Advanced Introduction to Alternative Dispute Resolution.  (Elgar Publishing)
2. Book, Teaching Negotiation  (with Kondi Kleinman), Elgar Publishing, 2027-8 publication.

Michael Moffitt (Oregon Law)

The Six Policy Objectives of the Law of Mediation. A 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 four legitimate (but competing) underlying policy objectives.

Boozing and Schmoozing: Do They Improve Negotiations? (co-authored by Andrea Schneider). Reporting on experimental research examining whether setting (comfortable fire-side chairs versus sterile lab tables) and/or beverages (unlimited coffee, unlimited wine, or no beverages) have demonstrable effects on negotiators’ individual outcomes, collective outcomes, subjective value, and other perceptions.

Posthumous Restorative Justice. This article begins with a detailed examination of one complex example of historical injustice(s). It then asks what, if any, adaptations of restorative justice processes may be appropriate in contexts in which some or all of the people listed above cannot participate, because they are now dead. Forthcoming in the Nebraska Law Review.

Lauren Newell (Campbell Law)

1. Shhhhh. . . AI Is Listening:

This project is about the ethics for legal negotiators of using wearable AI recording devices during their negotiations. These devices record everything the wearer (and those around the wearer) say. The AI then makes “useful” suggestions like putting together to-do lists and reminders. The fact that these devices can be worn without others’ knowledge raises ethical quandaries. This project will look at state laws and relevant ethics opinions about necessary consent to record others and will discuss the implications for lawyers who might wear these devices while they’re in the midst of their legal work and negotiations.

2. AI and Empathy [Insert snappy title here]

AI can generate seemingly empathic responses to its human users’ inputs.  Is AI “empathy” really empathy?  Is it safe?  Is it as good as human empathy, and if not, does that matter?  If we come to rely on AI tools to help us craft empathic responses, will our own empathy muscles weaken?  Again, does that matter?  What does AI-generated empathy mean for us as humans?  I plan to wrestle with these questions and hope to find some answers.

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

My paper A Road Not Taken in Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mary Parker Follett and The Emergence of Proto-ADR, 40 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. (2025), is now published (link). 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.

A sequel to this paper, Getting to Getting to Yes: Roger Fisher and the Emergence of Interest-based Negotiation Theory, will be published in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review (forthcoming 2026). In this article, I trace the making of one of the most popular and transformative books on negotiation in the 20th century: Roger Fisher and William Ury’s Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In (1981). Specifically, I explore the contributions of lead author Roger Fisher’s life, ideas, and collaborations with colleagues, as well as his intellectual influences.

I am currently working on three long projects: 1. Negotiation as Self-Crafting: The Turn to the Self in Negotiation Theory; 2. Lon Fuller and the Institutional Turn in Dispute Resolution, 3. The Politics of Active Listening (co-authored with Thibault Mechler).

I published a small blog post, “Reimaging Innovation in Law,” which summarizes a quantitative study co-led with Pilar Galeote and Antonio Aloisi (IE University). Based on a survey of 460 lawyers, the study shows that innovation in law goes beyond technology to include core interpersonal skills such as empathy, negotiation, and communication.

Peter Reilly (Texas A&M Law)

I’ve co-authored an article with Paul Cassell (University of Utah College of Law) entitled “Dead but Not Forgotten: Defending Deceased Victims’ Rights in Criminal Justice.” The article springs from our continuing pro bono legal work on behalf of families who lost loved ones in the two Boeing MAX airline crashes that killed 346 people in 2018 and 2019. For a short news article detailing victim families’ recent appeal to the Fifth Circuit, click here.

Abstract:  In every state and in the federal criminal justice system, when a crime victim is killed, the law allows a family member or other representative to step into the victim’s shoes and assert the victim’s rights. That framework has become a routine and influential feature of modern criminal justice, embedded in statutes, constitutional provisions, and everyday courtroom practice. Yet despite its centrality, the justifications for this arrangement have received relatively little sustained scholarly attention. That gap has become more apparent following Professor Lee Kovarsky’s recent Article, “The Victims’ Rights Mismatch,” which offers a serious and thoughtful challenge to prevailing assumptions about deceased-victim representation and calls for sharply limiting victims’ rights in such cases.

This Article explains why a victim’s death does not extinguish the justification for victim participation when that participation is exercised through a representative. Drawing on history, doctrine, and experience in actual criminal litigation, the Article shows that representation of deceased victims is deeply rooted in Anglo-American law and consistent with related doctrines such as survival actions. It further demonstrates that the core justifications for victims’ rights—expressive, participatory, and institutional—do not disappear when asserted through a representative. Nor does representative participation reduce sentencing to judgments of “social worth.”

Finally, through a detailed examination of United States v. Boeing, arising from the Boeing 737 MAX crashes—the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history—the Article illustrates how deceased-victim representation operates in practice as an important check on prosecutorial discretion and as a safeguard for transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Amy J. Schmitz (The Ohio State Moritz College of Law)

Publications

• Book: Digital Dispute System Design: Using Technology in Preventing and Resolving Conflict (Aspen Publishing, 2025) – Co-authored with Janet Martinez, this book provides frameworks for designing technology-driven systems to prevent and resolve disputes, integrating principles of system design, ethics, and access to justice.
• Book Chapters:
  • AI and Dispute Resolution, in Edward Elgar Encyclopedia of Civil Procedure (forthcoming 2026).
  • Dispute Resolution, in Elgar Encyclopedia of AI and the Law (2025).
  • Designing to Expand Access to Justice in United States Court Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), in Digital Courts: Integrating Human and Artificial Intelligence (Oxford University Press, 2025).
• Column/Podcast: MedAItion – Monthly column and podcast on AI and mediation co-authored with Bill Froehlich published by AAA. Recent articles/podcasts include:
  • MedAItion Welcome & Feedback (Oct. 2025)
  • Susan Guthrie’s Top 3 AI Tools Revolutionizing Mediation (Nov. 2025)
  • Ethical Challenges: 4 Strategies from Tina Patterson (Dec. 2025)

Sampling of Presentations

• Brave New World: AI in Construction Law, ABA Construction Forum, Dana Point, CA (Feb. 5, 2026).
• The Future of Mandatory Arbitration, AALS Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA (Jan. 8, 2026).
• Digital Dispute System Design Book Talk, National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution Webinar (Jan. 14, 2026).
• AI Book Club, Mediate.com (Jan. 20, 2026).
• AI in Arbitration and the Future of Arbitration, Cardozo School of Law, NY (Nov. 8, 2025).
• JusticeTech and AI in Arbitration, two presentations as scholar in residence at University of Bergen, Norway (Oct. 10-16, 2025).
• Ethical Use of AI in Dispute Resolution, Ohio Supreme Court Advanced Mediation Ethics CLE (Sept. 15, 2025).
• Digital Dispute System Design, Aspen Leading Edge Podcast (Sept. 3, 2025) and Aspen Webinar Book Release (Sept. 22, 2025).

Andrea Schneider (Cardozo Law)

First, with Michael Moffitt, Boozing and Schmoozing: Do They Improve Negotiations? Reporting on experimental research examining whether setting (comfortable fire-side chairs versus sterile lab tables) and/or beverages (unlimited coffee, unlimited wine, or no beverages) have demonstrable effects on negotiators’ individual outcomes, collective outcomes, subjective value, and other perceptions.

Second, with Art Hinshaw and Sarah Cole, we are working on the book proposal 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.

Finally, with Art Hinshaw and Taya Cohen, we are analyzing 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!) and will be presenting the data this spring.

S.I. Strong (Emory Law)

Strong wrote Artificial Intelligence and Civil Justice: U.S. Practice, Policy, and Principles, to be published in 74 Am. J Comp. L. __ (forthcoming 2026).  The article is available on SSRN at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6069286.  The paper addresses a number of topics relating to U.S. practice, policy, and principles concerning artificial intelligence (AI) in civil justice systems, which includes both mediation and arbitration. Items discussed include (1) a general overview of AI in the United States, including both definitions and strategic initiatives; (2) the legal and regulatory framework for AI in U.S. civil justice systems; (3) key issues in civil justice, including case law relating to the use of AI; the role, benefits, and risks of AI; the possibility of fully automated decision-making; and transparency and accountability of AI; (4) current or planned models of AI in civil justice; (5) economic and access to justice concerns involving AI; and (6) future developments and challenges concerning AI.

Stephen Ware (Kansas Law)

Steve gladly announces the imminent publication of his two new books:

• Concise Hornbook Principles of Negotiation and Mediation (West 2026), which complements his CHBs on ADR (4^th 2023) and Arbitration (with Ariana Levinson) (2d ed. 2023).
• Arbitration casebook (Foundation 5^th 2026) with David Horton, Tamar Meshel & Alan Rau.

And two new international pieces co-authored with professors in Poland and China:

• Enforcement of Mediated Settlements in the EU and in the Anglosphere: A Comparative Approach (with Piotr Slawicki) Studia Iuridica (2026)
• The Legal Nature of Chinese Arbitration Institutions and Reform Trends: From Government-Affiliated to Independent Organisations in Arbitration in China: Building Global Influence in Dispute Resolution (Bales & Xie, eds. Cambridge University Press forthcoming 2026) (with Dan Xie).

Steve is also writing on the Singapore Convention and two articles (one international and the other domestic) on arbitration agreements in bankruptcy and other insolvency cases. He presented on arbitration at the AALS annual meeting for the Section on ADR and, on cross-border aspects, in seven cities across Europe in recent months.

Nancy Welsh (Texas A&M Law)

Article: “Mixed Mode Procedures’ Potential Hijacking of the Singapore Convention on Mediation”

Abstract:   Mediation—commonly understood as a consensual process in which a neutral third party facilitates negotiation—has become a dominant dispute resolution mechanism. The U.N. Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (“Singapore Convention”), which entered into force five years ago, reinforces this trend by providing expedited enforcement of international commercial settlement agreements reached through mediation. To support that goal, the Convention adopts a deliberately minimal definition of mediation, requiring only some form of third party “assistance” rather than specifying any particular structure. This Article focuses on the real-world downstream consequences of this choice as third-party neutrals combine facilitative, evaluative, adjudicative, and ministerial functions in hybrid or “mixed mode” procedures. Using comparative case studies of mixed mode dispute resolution procedures in Japan, Israel, Singapore, and the United States, the Article introduces the “Continuum of Third-Party Assistance.” a finely grained analytical tool that maps the range of interventions that third-party neutrals employ rather than relying on procedures’ labels. Applying this approach across the four jurisdictions, the Article shows that the Convention’s thin definition of mediation brings within its enforcement framework dispositions reached through procedures that many domestic systems would not treat as mediation, thus potentially hijacking the Convention’s enforcement power and undermining countries’ domestic regulation of mediators and mediation. By grounding its analysis in concrete dispute resolution settings and employing the Continuum as a structured analytical tool, this Article clarifies how the Singapore Convention is likely to operate in real cases and why that matters for courts, policymakers, and parties in both the international and domestic contexts.

Co-authors are:  Nancy Welsh, Omer Shapira (Ono Academic College, Israel), Shusuke Kakiuchi (University of Tokyo, Japan), and Dorcas Quek Anderson (Singapore Management University, Singapore).