Category Archives: Trial

Dispute Resolution and the Normalization of International Adjudication

3 Comments

I attended a conference at NYU two weeks ago as part of NYU’s Journal of International Law & Politics symposium on the “Normalization of Adjudication in Complex International Governance Regimes.”  Invited to bring a little dispute resolution to this otherwise complete adjudicatory focus, it was very interesting to think about what the “normalization” of international courts and … Continue reading Dispute Resolution and the Normalization of International Adjudication →

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

Leave a comment

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) →

Hall Street & “a la carte justice on demand”

1 Comment

In response to Sarah Cole’s initial posting on the Hall Street decision, ohwilleke wrote: The clearest purpose I can see for the ruling is an institutional perogative of the judicial branch which does not want to be compelled to provide a la carte justice on demand.       What’s interesting about the hypothesis ohwilleke offers is that … Continue reading Hall Street & “a la carte justice on demand” →

The Possible Effect of Tightened Pleading Requirements on ADR

Leave a comment

Last summer, in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), the Supreme Court may have signaled the tightening of pleading requirements.  I’ve been wondering whether this also could signal the beginning of a trend that will affect the value—and perhaps even the viability—of ADR.  It’s pretty clear … Continue reading The Possible Effect of Tightened Pleading Requirements on ADR →

Mediation Fees as Recoverable Costs?

Leave a comment

Under the “American Rule,” each party bears the burden of whatever expenses it incurs during the course of litigation, regardless of the outcome of the case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 presents one exception to this broad assertion. Under its terms (and equivalent state provisions), “costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as … Continue reading Mediation Fees as Recoverable Costs? →

Contingent fees for non-binding arbitrators?

1 Comment

Contingent fees for non-binding arbitrators? or What’s good for the goose… Many court systems have adopted a form of mandatory arbitration for certain categories of cases. Though the details vary by jurisdiction, the basic structure is this: Parties file a lawsuit, and are directed to non-binding arbitration in advance of (or in lieu of) trial. … Continue reading Contingent fees for non-binding arbitrators? →