All posts by mmoffitt@uoregon.edu

lettersblogatory & the Case of the Day

I just learned about the letterblogatory blog, and it’s great. From Ted Folkman of the law firm of Murphy & King (also incidentally a former judicial clerk to Ann Aldrich), it contains high-quality analysis of some really interesting international arbitration cases, among other things. The most recent case-of-the-day reads like a caricature of an arbitration-meets-civil-procedure … Continue reading lettersblogatory & the Case of the Day

Not “Talking Settlement” & Not Engaging in Misconduct

Article from this morning’s National Law Journal Daily posted below.  Potentially helpful case to illustrate the distinctions between requirements to participate, requirements to make an offer, requirements to participate in good faith, requirements to settle, etc? MM Refusal to talk settlement doesn’t merit sanctions Sheri Qualters The National Law JournalMarch 17, 2011 A defendant’s failure … Continue reading Not “Talking Settlement” & Not Engaging in Misconduct

“Transforming Conflict with a New Framework”

From Kelly Lynn Anders: Creighton Law School’s 2011 TePoel Lecture and Law Review Symposium will be held on Friday, March 25. The topic of this year’s Law Review Symposium is “Moral and Ethical Perspectives in War, Terrorism, and Military Law.” The 2011 TePoel Lecturer, Dr. Cynthia G. Irmer, will discuss “Transforming Conflict with a New … Continue reading “Transforming Conflict with a New Framework”

National Mediation Conference – Australia

The National Mediation Conference in Australia has made the proceedings of its biennial gathering available online at http://www.mediationconference.com.au/.  Included in the materials online are podcasts of more than fifty presentations by prominent mediation figures from across Australia.  You’ll also find Alain Lempereur’s keynote address there, discussing his “track 1-and-a-half” efforts at mediation-meets-diplomacy in Burundi.  Kudos … Continue reading National Mediation Conference – Australia

Settlements and Fees for Prevailing Parties

From the National Law Journal earlier today (available here): “1st Circuit deems plaintiffs who achieved settlement ‘prevailing parties’ entitled to fees” by Sheri Qualters Parties who achieve litigation goals through settlement, as opposed to a verdict or a formal consent decree, are nonetheless “prevailing parties” eligible for attorney fees, the U.S. Court of Appeals for … Continue reading Settlements and Fees for Prevailing Parties