With thanks for Peter Reilly (Texas A&M) for compiling this twice a year, listed below are our colleagues’ current scholarship projects:

Gilat Juli Bachar (Temple Law)

Against Overbroad Nondisclosures, 100 S. Cal. L. Rev. _ (forthcoming 2026/7):

• This paper addresses the overlooked problem of overbroad settlement non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). Although confidentiality is regarded as a cornerstone of dispute resolution, sweeping NDAs can undermine one of settlement’s central objectives—helping parties achieve meaningful closure—by preventing individuals from discussing emotionally-taxing disputes even with therapists, clergy, or immediate family members. Drawing on doctrinal analysis and research in psychology, the paper demonstrates how such clauses may impede recovery while remaining largely insulated from judicial scrutiny. It proposes a pragmatic framework of implied carve-outs that would preserve the benefits of settlement confidentiality while better accommodating parties’ legitimate needs for emotional healing.

Tort Law Goes to War: Theory and Institutional Design in Abraham’s Tort Liability in Warfare, _ J. Rev. Legal Stud. _ (forthcoming 2026)

• This book review argues that while Haim Abraham’s Tort Liability in Warfare makes a compelling normative case for applying tort law to civilian harm during armed conflict, the success of any compensation regime ultimately depends on institutional design rather than legal theory alone. Drawing on insights from alternative dispute resolution and procedural justice, the Review highlights the importance of settlement, process legitimacy, and context-sensitive remedial design, and argues that hybrid compensation mechanisms may in some circumstances better advance accountability and meaningful redress than ordinary fault-based tort litigation.

Plaintiff’s Lawyers’ Disclosure Duties, 59 UC Davis L. Rev. 1123 (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 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. The article won the 2025 Warren E. Burger Prize awarded by the American Inns of Court.

Richard Bales (Ohio Northern Law)

Articles

• Intra-EU Investment Awards in U.S. Courts: The ICSID/New York Convention Divide, 34 U. Miami Int’l & Comparative L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming fall 2026) (co-authored with Edoardo Corbelli).
• Between Decision and Dialogue: Ethical Limits and Practical Judgment in Labor Arbitration, 2026 Labor Law Journal 75 (summer 2026).

Essay:

• Last Chance Agreements: Drafting, Negotiating, and Enforcing (or Opposing) Them Effectively, VitalLaw, Labor and Employment Articles, NAA Corner (June 16, 2026).

Presentations:

• Using AI to Enhance Teaching in a Rapidly Changing Environment, presentation to faculty at China University of Political Science & Law (Beijing), July 6, 2026.
• AI in Commercial Arbitration: Efficient Use, Ethical Boundaries, and Practical Guardrails, College of Commercial Arbitrators – Texas & Louisiana Region, April 15, 2026.

Rishi Batra (McGeorge School of Law)

“Detecting and Challenging AI Drafted Arbitration Awards”, Forthcoming 2026

This article uses the recent LaPaglia case, to consider challenges to an arbitrator using AI to draft an arbitration award. It lays out potential grounds for vacatur of such an award, and also by examining what types of AI use could be challenged at all, and importantly, how a litigator would detect and prove that AI had been used in the drafting of an award. These new skills, not in AI usage, but in AI detection, will be important skills for lawyers in the future, and judges, litigators, and attorneys will need to examine the ethical uses of AI in drafting of arbitration awards

“The Limits of Disclosure: Artificial Intelligence, Arbitration, and the Illusion of Informed Consent”, Journal of Dispute Resolution (2026)

This Article argues that mandatory disclosure of AI use in arbitration is necessary but insufficient, since comprehension failures and structural choice failures undermine the notice-and-choice model disclosure relies on. Surveying fragmented institutional guidelines and emerging state legislation, it proposes pairing disclosure with a non-delegation floor and institutional transparency requirements. It concludes that disclosure is a necessary minimum, not a solution, and urges the field to confront whether AI-driven decision-making is compatible with arbitration’s consent-based legitimacy.

“The Eye of the Perceiver: Why Rubin and Sander’s Work Remains Essential to Dispute Resolution”, Forthcoming 2026

This short book chapter reviews ““Culture, Negotiation, and the Eye of the Beholder” (1991)” by Rubin and Sander and discusses its ongoing significance to dispute resolution by its reframing the study of diversity in negotiation.

Dan Berstein, MHS (MH Mediate)

Dan’s 20 Years Embracing Bipolar project (www.danberstein.com/20years) left him with a new philosophy driving his work going forward: “After two decades proving I’m strong despite bipolar, now I share my vulnerability.”

1. Sharing Uncomfortable Details – this forthcoming article presents frameworks helping people decide which vulnerable details to share given others may find them overwhelming.  It includes charts showing Dan’s vulnerabilities, decision-making hierarchies for choosing details to share, and connections to dispute resolution advocacy projects.
2. Walk n’ Talk– a new self-care project inviting colleagues to be part of Dan’s social support system via phone calls while he exercises on a walking pad.  Please sign up to support Dan at www.danberstein.com/talk.  This will also inform a case study as Dan expands the 2025 resources he developed for the NY and NYC mental health departments, teaching people with mental illnesses conflict resolution strategies for seeking support.
3. RPS Coach– an AI that helps Dan stay engaged even if someone rejects him as emotionally draining (www.mhsafe.org/rps-coach-case-study/).  It recently pitched a “Disability Real Practice System (DRPS)” for Dan, and a forthcoming DRPS article.
4. ABAReject.com– rejection resources launched with help from RPS Coach.  The one-pager RPS Coach wrote is at https://abareject.com/RPSCoachFlyer/
5. Counter-Design– a process Andrew Mamo has researched, where people who do not fit into a dispute system engage in unveiling, tagging, and assembling to address problems.  Dan’s advocacy work demonstrates counter-design in action, so he will co-present with Andrew at UCLawSF in September.  Some newer examples of Dan’s counter-design projects include new ways for dispute resolution service users to complain about misconduct in New York, Michigan, Virginia, and Australia (this work was featured in a July Alternatives article and will be highlighted at the upcoming VMN conference).  Dan is also launching a Trauma-Informed Addendum to the Model Standards.  16 leading practitioners have signed on to be part of drafting this new addendum.  You are invited to participate via the form at www.mhsafe.org/model-standards-addendum/ (the addendum will focus on accessibility, mediator needs, and welcoming feedback – a draft will be presented at the upcoming WIP conference).

Kristen M. Blankley (Nebraska Law)

• NEW DR CASEBOOK. You love teaching Dispute Resolution. We all do. But we are all going to need to recognize that some of the materials we provide to students should align with the NextGen Bar – – both for the sake of our students and for the sake of ADR’s place within law schools. Along with co-authors Andrea Schneider and Michael Moffit, I’m working on creating a brand-new-from-scratch ADR casebook with Aspen. These aren’t just tinkering edits to familiar court opinions and law review articles. These materials are designed to maximize our students’ interest in and success with dispute resolution concepts across the curriculum. Our new casebook will stand alone as a substitute for existing casebooks, and of course you can supplement it with your old favorites. Interested? Ask us about draft chapters! (Forthcoming Aspen sometime soon-ish).
• Her article House Rules: Arbitrating NIL in College Athletics, was published in the Spring edition of the Marquette Sports Law Journal. 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.
• She is working on a follow-up article, Athletes Arbitrating with and Against Their School, considers the broader dispute resolution landscape for collegiate athletes in the House era. This article will highlight the interests of student-athletes and institutions, focusing on when they are competing and when they are complementary, and its effects on dispute resolution.

Kelly Browe Olson (UA Littlerock Bowen School of Law)

• Informed Neutrality and Participation in Special Education Mediation (to be published in the Family Court Review, Spring 2027)
• A Quieter Inequality: Embedded Assumptions, Power Imbalance, and the Unfulfilled Promise of Special Education Mediation for Volume III of the DISCUSSIONS IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION book series (submitted for editing 6/2026)
• Work in Progress:  ACEs and Evictions: Concerns and Correlations

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

Carlin Conklin is continuing her explorations into the intellectual and legal history of “the pursuit of happiness” in American law and legal philosophy. She is currently under an advance contract with the University of Missouri Press Studies in Constitutional Democracy Series for The Pursuit of Happiness Beyond the Founding, a follow up to her book, The Pursuit of Happiness in the Founding Era, which won a national Outstanding Academic Title award from Choice, the publishing division of the Association of College and Research Libraries. Carli is particularly excited about the tie-ins between her current research on happiness and ongoing themes in the field of dispute resolution, including an emphasis on experimentation in law and adaptation of legal and extralegal norms in changing circumstances.

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

Michael Conklin & Abbey Stemler, Negotiating Inequality: A New Framework for Equity in Salary Negotiations, 31 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2026) (prepublication copy available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5362397).

Becca Donaldson (Marquette Law)

I am in the early contemplation stages about a piece on the role that restorative justice plays under the big tent of ADR.  As a junior person in the space, it seems to me like we discuss negotiation, mediation, and arbitration as the “Big 3” ADR processes.  Restorative justice is one of my primary research/practice interests, so I may be biased, but it seems that a growing number of ADR scholars write on RJ.  Is this development far enough along to make the case that RJ is becoming, or has become, one of the major ADR processes alongside the negotiation, mediation, and arbitration?  How do we make those determinations as a field?  Are we there yet with RJ?  Ideally, the final form of this piece would take the shape of a law review article, but format TBD depending on how it develops.  I’d of course want to cite as many ADR scholars as possible who have written on RJ, in part to track the subject’s growth over time, but also to gather the opinions and perspectives of scholars in the field overall.  I would appreciate any first impressions, virtually or in conversation with anyone who will be at the WIP, whether you agree, disagree, or otherwise.  Hot takes welcome.  Thanks in advance.

Noam Ebner (Negotiation & Conflict Resolution trainer, practitioner, and speaker)

I’m so grateful for Peter inviting us to reflect back on our own activity periodically! TLDR: This period was busier than I had planned.

I’ve written a chapter for the next volume of (Cole, Hinshaw, Schneider, eds.) Discussions in Dispute Resolution on Jeffery Rubin and Frank Sander’s 1991 article Culture, Negotiation, and the Eye of the Beholder. My essay, Poking the eye of the beholder: The double-edged sword of cultural awareness in negotiation, highlights the Rubin & Sander’s articulation of how cultural awareness is simultaneously one of the most important protections against error in negotiation and one of the most potent sources of error in negotiation, and explains why that paradox persists more strongly than ever today.

After attending Mizzou’s annual symposium in April, I wrote the third installment in my Negotiation is Changing series, this one titled A decade of change: Technology’s impact on negotiation deepens in the Age of AI. The article is forthcoming in Mizou’s Journal of Dispute Resolution; I’m happy to share a draft with anyone interested, write me at noam@noamebner.com .

Next up, Hurricane is a prisoner’s dilemma simulation for teaching collaborative governance, conflict, and negotiation, in the context of crisis management. In a nutshell, multiple counties in Florida face the devastating impacts of a hurricane and must choose, iteratively, whether to cooperate with each other or compete for resources in conducting emergency evacuation operations.

Other than that, I served on the advisory committee supporting TEDLaw, a project by the good folks at TED.org taking on the modest task of reshaping the future of the legal profession (I mean, someone’s got to, am I right?), helped Mitchell-Hamline’s DRI and Cardozo’s Kukin Program put on the NYC Shindig (aka, the Legal Educators Symposium) in April, attended the International Forum on ODR in June (where I mainly drove the party bus), and showed up to SEALS in July (active verb chosen intentionally, connoting attendance judiciously balancing beach lounging and conference-sessions participation).

Michael Z. Green (Texas A&M Law)

I have had the great pleasure of having three law review articles all published within the last few months including:

“Black Labor Matters” 75 American University Law Review 1219 (2026) (suggesting synergies between organized labor and Black Workers movements to merge common interests to negotiate workplace conditions)

“The Racial Implications for Black Claimants at the Federal Arbitration Act’s Centennial “

41 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 215 (2026) (reflecting on the impact of the Federal Arbitration Act at its centennial and opining on its impact for Black claimants in arbitration then, now, and for the future and developed after serving as the Annual Schwartz Lecturer in March 2025)

“”Arbitration In Name Only”: A Race Claims Mismatch” by Michael Z. Green 27 Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 235 (2025) (discussing National Football League’s failed attempt to continue seeking arbitration of Coach Brian Flores case pursuant to a provision allowing the Defendant’s CEO Commissioner to serve as arbitrator)

I presented scholarly projects this last several months at symposia held at UCLA Law School, Georgetown Law School, Cardozo Law School, American University Law School, and the St. Louis University School of Law Wefel Center for Employment Law Review Symposium held on March 6, 2026, where I was the keynote presenter of a progress paper,” Life Without Worker Protection Laws.”

My prior article, Arbitrarily Selecting Black Arbitrators, 88 Fordham Law Review 2255 (2020) is to be reviewed for its impact in the next Discussions in Dispute Resolution book edited by Sarah Cole, Art Hinshaw, and Andrea Schneider.

I also presented at the 79^th Annual National Academy of Arbitrators Conference in Chicago, Illinois on May 22, 2026 on “Recent Legal Developments.”  I also presented at the National Academy of Arbitrators Southwest Rockies Regional Conference in Houston, Texas on February 20, 2026 on a panel discussing Fire and Police Arbitration updates.

I thank Texas A&M Law School Aggie Dispute Resolution Program faculty for their inspirational collegiality and encouragement during such a challenging and productive performance window.

Kaori Kenmotsu (Mitchell Hamline Law)

Reading the Room: Observing Nonverbal Cues in the Dance of Mediation

Reflecting on my experience as a participant in my own divorce mediation, I observed subtle behaviors from the mediator that left me with unsettling questions about how we train mediators in neutrality and impartiality. How many times do mediators shift or reinforce power dynamics because of unconscious beliefs?

The awareness of somatic experiences playing out in our bodies can shine light on our unconscious biases. A process such as dance, which cultivates our physical awareness of the link between our internal and external worlds hones the skills we need to be effective as mediators. Imagine the following situation: A woman is walking slowly. She is leaning slightly forward, eyes scanning. Her pathway is meandering, pausing occasionally. Her arms are held quietly by her side. Her face is tense. This woman is:

1. Lost
2. Looking for her pet
3. Grieving the death of a loved one
4. Memorizing a speech she must give later that day
5. Any of the above
6. None of the above

This example shows there are many different interpretations, all believable and plausible. Trying to make meaning out of movement can prove to be an act of futility. And yet, it is the most ubiquitous and least understood means of communication. In any given moment, there is a constant shift of different body parts, from the subtlest gestures like a slight shift of the eyes to big sweeping hand gestures; intricate movements that overlap body parts and change spatial relationships, dynamics, sequencing and timing. All these movement choices, conscious and unconscious, reveal something about the inner life of the mover.

My article introduces Laban Movement Analysis (LMA), a movement-based practice that can deepen nonverbal skills and foster a deeper sense of presence. It will:

• Introduce LMA as a structured framework for observing and interpreting nonverbal communication.
• Recognize how a mediator’s own nonverbal communication affects party dynamics and the mediation environment.
• Apply a structured observational framework to improve real-time awareness and responsiveness in dispute resolution practice.

Paul Kirgis (Montana Law)

My recent scholarship, building on research conducted by students in the University of Montana’s Mediation Clinic, has focused on court-connected mediation in Montana. The first piece, Brock Flynn & Paul Kirgis, The Efficacy of Mandatory Mediation in Courts of Limited Jurisdiction: A Case Study from the Missoula Justice Court, 17 Am. J. Mediation 1 (2024), reports the findings of an original study of 358 mediated cases in the Missoula County Justice Court from 2019 through 2023. We found that, although a majority of cases settled at mediation (roughly 55% in aggregate), many of those initial settlements unraveled: fewer than half stayed settled, with only about 40% avoiding further judicial intervention. We also found that when tenants were represented by counsel in possession cases, the settlement rates plummeted, falling from 59% when only the landlord had counsel to just 12% when both sides had counsel, raising fairness concerns for unrepresented tenants. Finally, we found that remote (Zoom) mediations produced ultimate settlement rates ten points below the aggregate rate.

The second piece, Paul Kirgis et al., Court-Connected Mediation in Montana: Law, Practice, and Recommendations for Reform, 87 Mont. L. Rev. 281 (2026), addresses the legal framework governing court-connected mediation in Montana. It analyzes Montana’s mediation statutes, Supreme Court cases, the local rules of all 22 districts, and surveys of trial judges. It documents a number of gaps and inconsistencies in Montana’s mediation law. The Montana Mediation Act combines an extremely broad definition of mediation with a rigid privilege that can create traps for the unwary. The Montana Supreme Court has held that the privilege is absolute, to the extent that parties cannot introduce evidence of mediation statements even to challenge a mediated agreement on misrepresentation grounds. Local rules and judicial practice frequently contradict that precedent, leading to inconsistent application. And family-case screening for domestic violence, which is required by both statute and Supreme Court precedent, varies widely, with some courts conducting essentially no screening before ordering mediation. The article recommends adopting the Uniform Mediation Act and amending the family mediation statute to require standardized screening and qualified mediators.

Candice L. Kline (Toledo Law)

I am still interested in a focused law review project on the efficacy of mediation in mass tort bankruptcies. This is a background issue in my scholarship, and I sometimes suggest means to improve efficiency while tempering judicial pressure to mediate. The more immediate work product though is the chapter on mass tort mediation for the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Mediation Manual (first draft due Fall 2026). Feedback and input are welcome!

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

My free AI tool, the Real Practice Systems Negotiation and Mediation Coach (RPS Coach), is now hosted on mediate.com, which collects many related resources.

What Happened? A Mediation Story Featuring RPS Coach is a short story you can read in about an hour.  It tells the story of a promising business relationship that gradually unravels into a serious commercial dispute.  As the implementation of a software system goes seriously awry, two companies, their executives, their lawyers, and a mediator must navigate legal uncertainty, business realities, organizational pressures, and strained relationships.  Rather than focusing only on the mediation session, the story follows the participants from the origins of the conflict through preparation, the mediation session, settlement, implementation, and reflection.  It illustrates how thoughtful professionals can make decisions throughout the life of a dispute.

It can be a valuable assignment for mediation, ADR survey, or related courses.  It includes optional scenes and documents providing additional depth.  A teacher’s manual provides summaries, suggestions for dealing with challenging issues, discussion questions, and classroom exercises.

Using AI Centaur Systems to Strengthen Professional Judgment, 2026 Journal of Dispute Resolution (forthcoming).

The Life and Work of ODR Visionary and Architect Colin Rule (So Far), 2026 Journal of Dispute Resolution (forthcoming).

The Surprising Value of AI Hallucinations, 44 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation 129 (July-August 2026).

How Legal and Dispute Resolution Professionals Can Manage AI Risks, 44 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation 51 (March 2026).

The AI Productivity Paradox: Saving Time Takes Time, 44 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation (forthcoming 2026).

Using Real Practice Systems Theory to Understand Mediation Clearly, Mediation Magazine (March 30, 2026).

Using AI in Mediation: A Guide for Parties.

Using AI to Help Resolve Disputes: A Practical Introduction.

Using AI to Understand Your Scholarly Writing.

Using AI to Improve Your Scholarly Writing.

Bummed About AI?  What Are You Gonna Do About It?

Revisiting “Is ODR ADR?” – Understanding ODR Through a Real Practice Systems Lens.

Ten Things Law Students Can Do to Become Effective Lawyers.

Ariana Levinson (University of Louisville)

Ariana Levinson is happy to report that Rightsizing Arbitration, considering the future of employment and labor arbitration in the U.S., and Are Union Co-op Labor Negotiations a Win-Win and for Whom? discussing the use of integrative bargaining in union co-ops and examining the resultant collective bargaining agreements have now been published.  I’m working on a follow-on article to Rightsizing Arbitration that will review the various tests now used by the circuit courts to determine whether a labor arbitration award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. The paper will likely propose that the courts revert to a more easily applied, limited standard of review based only on the LMRA and not the FAA.

Mikhail Lyubansky (Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)

Teaching Restorative Justice will be part of an existing series of books published by Edward Elgar focusing on the teaching of different academic disciplines. In addition to providing guidance and ideas for less experienced instructors, the purpose of this volume is to continue to describe and develop a restorative pedagogy, which I have previously defined as a philosophical approach to teaching that a) integrates restorative principles into the teaching process, b) allows the learning environment to be more congruent with restorative values and principles, and c) creates opportunities for students to have first-hand experiences with those principles (Lyubansky et al., 2022). Importantly, what makes this a pedagogy rather than a content area (which it is also) is that rather than merely teaching about the restorative principles and how they operate in a restorative justice process, the principles guide how the class itself is structured and taught, much like they guide the structure and facilitation of restorative dialogue.

The book will be divided into two parts. Part 1 will be written by a single author (M. Lyubansky) and be more conceptual and philosophical in nature, with applied examples based on the author’s own teaching experience. Part 2 will consist of contributions from multiple authors, each invited to write about their own teaching in a particular context. I realize this is an ADR (rather than a restorative justice) forum, but if there are RJ faculty here interested in contributing to Part 2, please do contact me. Ideas for other chapters for this volume are also welcome: Lyubansk@illinois.edu

 

Part 1 A restorative pedagogy Building a learning community Developing a curriculum The games we play Assignments that align with RJ principles Teaching facilitation Conflict in the classroom   Part 2 Teaching RJ to teens (grades 7-12) Teaching RJ to college undergraduates Teaching RJ Masters and certificate programs Teaching restorative justice in law school Teaching RJ to professional communities Teaching RJ online Teaching RJ in politically conservative contexts Teaching RJ across the globe

 Andrew Mamo (Cincinnati Law)

Hot off the Press: A Tale of Two Civilities, 39 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 1 (2026)

This article revisits the historical roots of civility discourse in law during the 1970s and explains how Chief Justice Warren Burger promoted civility in legal practice 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 coexistence of the two forms of civility that emerged in the 1970s—Burger’s formulation of civility as a way to reinforce the legitimacy of legal institutions, and alternative formulations of civility as ways of fostering mutual understanding amidst skepticism of institutions—has left civility discourse conceptually unstable. The article concludes by offering a reimagined civility that offers a path forward for legal institutions protecting their legitimacy in a deeply polarized society.

Forthcoming: Advocates without Spirit, Counselors without Heart: Protecting Judgment in a Time of Calculation, FIU Law Review (2027)

The expansion of AI and the politicization of legal institutions both raise the fundamental question of what legal expertise is for. This article addresses that question by augmenting the familiar distinction between public and private processes with one between closure-oriented and generative modes of legal reasoning. The former resolves problems within pre-existing analytical frames; the latter exercises situated judgment when no frame fits. These two distinctions yield four domains of conflict engagement.

This framework makes legible a transformation in lawyers’ professional imaginations. AI-optimized dispute processing pushes closure into private forums; the politicization of the everyday makes generativity an increasingly public concern. What gets squeezed out are the domains that hold tension between these impulses: formal adjudication, which grounds the rule of law in principled and deliberate public closure; and relational governance, which enables genuine encounters across difference through private engagement. The result: a legal system populated by advocates without spirit and counselors without heart, capable of optimization and combat but not judgment.

Carrie Menkel-Meadow (UC Irvine Law)

1. Just published:   Very Short Introduction to Alternative Dispute Resolution (book)    order here:  https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/advanced-introduction-to-alternative-dispute-resolution-9781035328796.html

*also on Amazon, which can be found here: https://a.co/d/0cnxLbxY

5. Working on next book:  Teaching Negotiation (with Kondi Kleinman)- Elgar Publishing-2027
6. Comment: What Difference Does Difference Make? Does Gender Still Matter in Discussions in Dispute resolution, 3rd. ed.  Cole, Hinshaw & Schneider
7. Entry:  ADR, Mediation and Negotiation— Encyclopedia of Sociology of Law—due out shortly-Elgar
8. Alternative Dispute resolution: empirics, chapter in Oxford  Handbook of Empirical Legal Studies, 2^nded.

Michael Moffitt (Oregon Law)

NEW DR CASEBOOK. You love teaching Dispute Resolution. We all do. But we are all going to need to recognize that some of the materials we provide to students should align with the NextGen Bar – – both for the sake of our students and for the sake of ADR’s place within law schools. Along with co-authors Andrea Schneider and Kristen Blankley, I’m working on creating a brand-new-from-scratch ADR casebook with Aspen. These aren’t just tinkering edits to familiar court opinions and law review articles. These materials are designed to maximize our students’ interest in and success with dispute resolution concepts across the curriculum. Our new casebook will stand alone as a substitute for existing casebooks, and of course you can supplement it with your old favorites. Interested? Ask us about draft chapters! (Forthcoming Aspen sometime soon-ish).

THE FOUR POLICY OBJECTIVES OF THE LAW OF MEDIATION. I’m completing an article that was the basis of my recent Schwartz Lecture at Ohio State. As the title suggests, based on extensive legislative history research, the article outlines the competing policy objectives underlying the various laws surrounding mediation. Spoiler alert: I argue that there are four of them. (Forthcoming Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 2027.)

POSTHUMOUS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. Restorative justice processes typically envision the prospect of voluntary participation by those who suffered harm, by those who caused the harms, and often by the community or communities of people who surround them. When one or more of these potential participants opts not to participate, restorative justice processes often adapt to provide as many of the restorative benefits as possible to those who do choose to participate. This Article 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 Nebraska L. Rev. 2026.)

Nicolas Parra-Herrera (Utah Law)

My paper Rethinking legal innovation: why skills matter more than digital tools, 7 European Journal of Legal Education (2026) (coauthored with Antonio Aloisi and Pilar Galeote) is now published. This paper reconceptualizes legal innovation by moving beyond the dominant focus on technology. Although the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping legal practice, the study demonstrates that innovation also depends on work reorganization, interpersonal skills, and ethical judgment. Drawing on a survey of 460 legal professionals in Spain, the research uncovers a striking disconnect: whereas law firms tend to equate innovation with efficiency gains and market expansion, most individual lawyers associate it with the cultivation of relational capacities such as communication, negotiation, and leadership.

My book review of Remigiusz Smolinski (ed.), Negotiators Who Changed the World: Timeless Lessons on Leadership and Negotiation. A paper by Springer (2025) will be published soon in the Scandinavian Journal of Management. Negotiators Who Changed the World is grounded in both the Follettian and Salacusean premise that to lead is to negotiate. Particularly, the book explores a two-way inquiry: What can we learn about negotiation by examining the lived experiences of those who exercised leadership? And conversely, what can we learn about leadership by tracing the biographical trajectories of individuals who navigated complex negotiation challenges and implemented a wide array of strategies to overcome them?

A sequel to this paper, Getting to Getting to Yes: Roger Fisher and the Emergence of Interest-based Negotiation Theory, will be published very soon 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 still working on four 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 (work-in-progress), 3. The Politics of Active Listening (co-authored with Thibault Mechler), 4. A translation into Spanish of some law review articles on negotiation and mediation for a book with an introduction that contextualizes the articles for a Latin American audience.

Kara Parry (Quinnipiac Law)

1. “Beyond Doctrine: Spiritual Intelligence, Values Alignment, and the Embodied Practice of Upholding the Rule of Law” by Kara McCarthy Perry (forthcoming)

Selected for inclusion in the Faith, Values, and the Rule of Law: An Interdisciplinary Conference volume to be published by Wipf Stock (after presenting an earlier version of the article at Seton Hall University School of Law’s inaugural academic conference in February 2026).

The article examines how relational and reflective tools, drawn from the Integrative Law Approach to Negotiation course at Quinnipiac Law School and the Law Student Wellness and Mindfulness course at Seton Hall Law School, cultivate inner steadiness grounded in values alignment and purposeful action. These capacities prepare students to navigate the complexities of legal practice and institutional pressure while embodying rule of law principles through relational and human-centered lawyering.

2. TEDLaw –  I serve on the Faculty Advisory Board and Advisory Council.

Peter Reilly (Texas A&M Law)

Dead but Not Forgotten: Defending Deceased Victims’ Rights in Criminal Justice (U.C. Irvine Law Review, forthcoming)

The paper is available by clicking 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, —the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history, arising from two Boeing 737 MAX crashes—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.

Jennifer Robbenolt (Illinois Law)

Jennifer Robbenolt, Jessie Bregant, and Verity Winship have created a website for The Settlement Project, a project that explores how people understand and think about settlement: https://www.settlementproject.com/. There you will find links to papers from the project, along with blog posts and other materials.

Jennifer Robbennolt has published Psychology and Dispute Resolution: Looking Forward, 2025 J. Disp. Resol. 78 (2025) (Symposium: Dispute Resolution at Forty: Looking Back, Looking Forward); Apologies, Remorse, and Amends: Civil Justice Implications, in Research Handbook on Civil Justice 133 (Anne Bloom, David Engel, & Richard Jolly eds., 2025); and Public Remorse After High-Stakes Failure, April/May 2026, at 33 (with Akshat Donti & Verity Winship). Reprinted in Psychol. Today (April 10, 2026), https://www.psychologytoday.com/ us/ blog/sound-science-sound-policy/ 202604/the-psychology-of-apology-in-high-stakes-failure.

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

Since spring 2026, Professor Amy J. Schmitz has worked at the intersection of artificial intelligence, dispute resolution, and access to justice. Most notably, she recently published (with 2 co-editors) The Cambridge Handbook of AI in Civil Dispute Resolution (Cambridge University Press, 2026), a landmark volume and the first comprehensive global handbook examining how AI is transforming civil justice systems, online dispute resolution, mediation, arbitration, and court processes. The handbook brings together leading international scholars and practitioners to address both the promise and the challenges of AI-enhanced dispute resolution, with Schmitz also authoring 3 chapters, including a chapter 1 on the responsible use of AI in the field.

She has 3 law review articles that came out or will be out soon: Amy J. Schmitz and Mindy Yocum, JusticeTech@Ohio State: Technology and Access to Justice in Action, Detroit Mercy Law Review __ (forthcoming 2026); Amy J. Schmitz, Remote Arbitration Hearings: Access to Justice, Due Process, and SMEs, 92.2 Arbitration: The Journal of International Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, 247-270 (2026) (peer reviewed international journal); Amy J. Schmitz, Promise and Pitfalls of AI in Mass Arbitration, 27 Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 291-325 (2026).

Schmitz’s scholarly engagement has also included international and local speaking. Beginning in May 2025, she delivered a keynote locally at the Ohio Supreme Court and presented in Subtech in Argentina, an invite only conference held every 2 years. Schmitz presented on AI to expand access to justice. In May, Schmitz also did several presentations related to a recent book with Jan Martinez, Digital Dispute System Design: Using Technology in Preventing and Resolving Conflict.  This included a lecture for the 25^th anniversary of the Gould Center at Stanford University, as well as a webinar for the American Association of Law Schools.

At Ohio State, Schmitz continues to lead the innovative JusticeTech initiative, integrating legal education, technology, and public service to create practical tools that expand access to justice. JusticeTech was selected for the Engaged Scholarship award and a ceremony this summer at Ohio State. Schmitz is currently the PI on 4 grants.

Andrea Schneider (Cardozo Law)

NEW DR CASEBOOK. You love teaching Dispute Resolution. We all do. But we are all going to need to recognize that some of the materials we provide to students should align with the NextGen Bar – – both for the sake of our students and for the sake of ADR’s place within law schools. Along with co-authors Michael Moffitt and Kristen Blankley, we are working on creating a brand-new-from-scratch ADR casebook with Aspen. These aren’t just tinkering edits to familiar court opinions and law review articles. These materials are designed to maximize our students’ interest in and success with dispute resolution concepts across the curriculum. Our new casebook will stand alone as a substitute for existing casebooks, and of course you can supplement it with your old favorites. Interested? Ask us about draft chapters! (Forthcoming Aspen sometime soon-ish).

DISCUSSIONS in DISPUTE RESOLUTION: DIVERSITY and DIFFERENCES:  With Art Hinshaw and Sarah Cole, we are in the midst of editing comments 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.

LAW STUDENT ETHICS 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 turning that into a law review article this upcoming year.

S.I. Strong (Emory Law)

I am working frequently in the artificial intelligence (AI) space these days, particularly as AI overlaps with public and private forms of dispute resolution.  I am currently completing a new article, Deepfakes in Domestic and International Litigation, which adopts an empirical and interdisciplinary approach to the problem of digital replicas in litigation and proposes a new response framework inspired, in part, by the UNCITRAL Model Law on the Use and Recognition of Identity Management and Trust Services and the Hague Evidence Convention.  The article builds off ideas first developed in a book chapter, Green Arbitration and Artificial Intelligence:  Mutually Supportive or Mutually Exclusive?  The Question of Deepfakes, which will come out next year in Unveiling Arbitration’s (New) Identity in a Changing World.  Once this piece is done, I will be starting on a new article on conflict of laws and AI.

My recently published or in-production work in AI includes Artificial Intelligence and Civil Justice:  U.S. Practice, Policy, and Principles, 74 American Journal of Comparative Law __ (forthcoming 2026), Artificial Intelligence in Civil Justice Systems:  An Empirical and Interdisciplinary Analysis and Proposal for Moving Forward, 41 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 109 (2026), and Responsible Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession Through A Split Bar: Implications for Legal Educators, 79 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 167 (2026).

I have also written a number of articles involving a newly emerging line of inquiry known as narcissism theory, focusing on how that theory affects conflict resolution in the international arena.  Two articles on this topic include Narcissism, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and the War with Iran, 44 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation 108 (2026), and Trump’s Narcissistic Tendencies Raise Alarm About War in Iran, Atlanta Journal Constitution (April 14, 2026).

My work can be found on SSRN at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=862300.

Rachel Wechsler (Univ. of Missouri, Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution)

ISO Truth  (work-in-progress)

Gender-based violence survivors’ pursuit of truth is often complicated by systemic discounts to their credibility, institutional resistance, and, particularly in recent years, a post-truth epistemic environment. Despite these challenges, survivors consistently exercise individual and collective agency in pursuit of truth in the aftermath of their victimization. I draw on transitional justice and relational agency theory to explore the contours and significance of truth-seeking in relation to gender-based violence, both for survivors and for wider society.

Tribal Non-Punishment and Restorative Justice (with Melina Healey) (work-in-progress)

This project employs both doctrinal and empirical methods to examine Tribal non-punishment statutes against a backdrop of historical trauma and jurisdictional complexities. These statutes instantiate the non-punishment principle, which is a legal norm that opposes the punishment of human trafficking victims for unlawful conduct they commit in connection with their trafficking victimization. The paper 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.

No Alternative to the Mediation Alternative: The Gendered Consequences of Misguided State Paternalism, in DISCUSSIONS IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION: DIVERSITY AND DIFFERENCES (forthcoming).

Book Review of DISCUSSIONS IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION: THE COMING OF AGE (2000-2009), OHIO ST. J. DISP. RESOL. (forthcoming 2027).

J Kim Wright (The Integrative Law Center)

New Articles:

1. Beyond the Box: Reimagining Legal Agreements for Resilience, Alignment, and Emotional Intelligence in Social Enterprise.

NYU Journal of Law and Business has just published our article online and the print version is forthcoming.

Kara McCarthy Perry & J. Kim Wright, Beyond the Box: Reimagining Legal Agreements for Resilience, Alignment, and Emotional Intelligence in Social Enterprise, 22 N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus. Online 433 (2026).

In the context of relational contracts, we argue that contracts should build in a structured process for handling disagreement from the very start. Rather than defaulting to litigation when things go wrong, parties define their shared values up front and then commit to a step-by-step conflict engagement framework they design together, so that disputes become moments to reaffirm alignment rather than adversarial breakdowns. We apply this model to social enterprises and impact investors in particular, where financial and mission-driven goals must coexist and where misalignment can quietly pull an organization away from its original purpose.

2. Playbook for Reflective Practices: After presenting at the International Symposium Series on Reflective Practice for Legal Professionals with colleagues Kara McCarthy Perry and Susanne van der Meer, we are working on evidence-based exercises for law students to encourage reflection.

3. Embodied Negotiation: Preparing Future Lawyers Through Integrative Practice
   Malin Stearns Johnson, Carolyn Wilkes Kaas, Kara Perry, and J. Kim Wright contributed an article to the Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, in a special issue titled New Directions in Dispute Resolution, Clinical Education and Legal Practice: AI, Legal Tech, and Beyond(Volume 79, Issue 1, 2026, p. 183).

TEDLaw

TEDLaw is TED’s initiative bringing its learning model to the legal profession, pairing curated talks with facilitated dialogue and real world practice around five pillars: legal identity and values, critical thinking, cultural competence, collaboration, and practicing law in the AI age. I serve on the Core Advisory Team, where my work, including my book Lawyers as Changemakers, has helped shape some of the curriculum’s content and framing. The book, originally published by the ABA in 2016, is in the process of being updated and released later this year.