All posts by mmoffitt@uoregon.edu

The New York Times: “Study Finds Settling is Better than Going to Trial”

Of course, headline writers invariably overstate what the subsequent article actually says.  The NYT Business Section ran an article by this title last week, and the headline-to-content mismatch is no more egregious than is probably typical for such articles. The newspaper article describes a soon-to-be published empirical study of settlement behavior, the conclusion of which, … Continue reading The New York Times: “Study Finds Settling is Better than Going to Trial” →

ADR in Insurance Claims – Possible Lesson from the UK?

Daniel Schwarcz of the University of Minnesota recently posted an article to SSRN entitled, “Toward a New Approach to Resolving Consumer Insurance Disputes.”  Schwarcz’s background is entirely in Insurance Law, and he is a self-confessed newcomer to ADR.  He asked that I post a link to his article, with the hopes that he’ll receive feedback … Continue reading ADR in Insurance Claims – Possible Lesson from the UK? →

Fairness in court-affiliated mediation

3 Comments

Christopher Annunnziata, who blogs at ckamediation.com recently wrote a post entitled, “Is Court-Referred Mediation Fair?” My first instinct on reading any articles on fairness in court-connected mediation is to place them in this context of Nancy Welsh’s work and about Carrie Menkel-Meadow’s work. Nancy and Carrie have, to my mind, provided awfully thorough treatment of … Continue reading Fairness in court-affiliated mediation →

Mediation, Probate, and Estate Planning

2 Comments

Lela Love and Stawart Sterk recently published an article, Leaving More than Money: Mediation Clauses in Estate Planning Documents, 65 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 539 (2008). The abstract of their article reads: When probate disputes arise, an increasing number of courts have been referring those disputes to mediation. Estate planners, however, have been less … Continue reading Mediation, Probate, and Estate Planning →

Alternatives to Alternatives: The EEOC’s Next Experiments

I read recently that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has voted to permit pilot projects aimed at developing alternative ways of processing EEO complaints.  I have not read the details of the draft regulation.  As I understand it, the principal motivation for the regulation is to encourage creativity and flexibility in the handling of these … Continue reading Alternatives to Alternatives: The EEOC’s Next Experiments →

What’s the Problem? (with the problems mediation tries to solve)

Len Riskin and Nancy Welsh recently posted a version of their article, “Is that All There is?  The ‘Problem’ in Court-Oriented Mediation.”  I gather from the taglines that it will be published in the George Mason Law Review later this year, and I look forward to seeing the final version. The question Len and Nancy … Continue reading What’s the Problem? (with the problems mediation tries to solve) →

The Hall Street Decision – Professor Rau’s Rant

1 Comment

Alan Scott Rau recently posted his critique of the Supreme Court’s Hall Street Associates v. Mattel decision.  Perhaps, though, to call the article, entitled “Fear of Freedom,” a “critique” is to understate the fervency of Rau’s views.  It’s more like a well-organized, carefully-crafted rant.  Using words like “deeply unsatisfactory,” “appall[ing],” “hesitant and muddy,” and “grotesque,” … Continue reading The Hall Street Decision – Professor Rau’s Rant →

ADR: The Federal Government’s Experience

1 Comment

I just read the recently-posted, to-be-published-somewhere empirical study of the use of ADR in the federal government in the late 1990s. Entitled, Dispute Resolution and the Vanishing Trial: Comparing Federal Government Litigation and ADR Outcomes, the study’s authors include Lisa Bingham, Tina Nabatchi, Jeff Senger, and Michael Scott Jackman. Their abstract reads: This study compares … Continue reading ADR: The Federal Government’s Experience →

“Peer” Arbitration – Request for Information

1 Comment

John Gradwohl of the University of Nebraska is conducting research about “peer” arbitrations — which he defines as “situations where the parties themselves want to have a system in which their participants make a binding determination of a dispute rather than bring in a third party decider.” He recently posted a request for information on … Continue reading “Peer” Arbitration – Request for Information →