Tag Archives: dispute system design

Non-Apology Apologies, Part 2

It seems that there are a lot of stories about questionable apologies in the news lately.  I don’t intend to discuss all of them, but here are a few more thoughts about some of them. 21st Century Fox First, some updates about the 21st Century Fox apology.  I thought it was bland but some commentators, … Continue reading Non-Apology Apologies, Part 2

Pomerantz and DR Section on Consumer Arbitration

My friend, Lisa Renee Pomerantz, a New York lawyer and neutral, wrote an article on consumer arbitration in ACResolution that you might want to check out.  It chronicles a history of efforts to regulate and improve consumer arbitration, leading up to the recent study and proposed rules issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  It … Continue reading Pomerantz and DR Section on Consumer Arbitration

A No-Brainer?

One might assume that using a “planned early dispute resolution” (PEDR) system should be a “no-brainer” for businesses that regularly litigate because litigation-as-usual undermines many business interests such as efficiency, protection of reputations and relationships, control of disputing and business operations generally, and risk management, among others. Although this seems like a plausible assumption, the … Continue reading A No-Brainer?

Is Proportionality of Discovery Good or Bad?

Alert readers of this blog will recall that amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect on Dec. 1, 2015, including a new requirement that discovery be “proportional to the needs of the case.” The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) thinks that’s a good thing.  Critics, like … Continue reading Is Proportionality of Discovery Good or Bad?

One Word

Here’s an account of the negotiations leading up to the international climate change agreement.  Apparently, there was an accidental change of the word “should” to “shall” in one passage, which almost sunk the deal.  A lesson to law students and lawyers everywhere. The story of this extremely complex negotiation really is fascinating, especially following the … Continue reading One Word

Another View of the New FRCP Rules

I recently posted an item citing the IAALS’s work touting the benefits of the new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For a counterpoint, here’s a draft article by SMU Professor Elizabeth G. Thornburg, Cognitive Bias, the ‘Band of Experts,’ and the Anti-Litigation Narrative.  Here’s the abstract: In December of 2015, yet another … Continue reading Another View of the New FRCP Rules

FRCP Amendments Intended to Change Culture of Litigation

On December 1, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will take effect which are intended to change the culture of litigation. According to a post on the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) blog, the new rules affect “judicial case management, disclosure, use of experts, and education for judges.” … Continue reading FRCP Amendments Intended to Change Culture of Litigation

Video and Powerpoints from Fabulous St. Thomas DSD Symposium

As I mentioned in a recent post, the University of St. Thomas Law School held a terrific symposium on November 13, entitled Dispute System Design: Justice, Accountability and Impact. They have posted a video of the symposium as well as powerpoints from most of the presentations. Kudos to Mariana Hernandez Crespo, Heidi Van De Berg, … Continue reading Video and Powerpoints from Fabulous St. Thomas DSD Symposium

Why and How Corporations Use PEDR – Preliminary Findings

On Friday, I was honored to join the all-star cast – including keynoter Lisa Blomgren Amsler, Jackie Font-Guzmán, Susan Franck, Tim Hedeen, Mariana Hernandez Crespo, Jan Martinez, Jackie Nolan-Haley, Jen Reynolds, Colin Rule, Andrea Schneider, Nancy Welsh, and Maureen Weston – at St. Thomas Law School’s Symposium, Dispute System Design: Justice, Accountability and Impact. I … Continue reading Why and How Corporations Use PEDR – Preliminary Findings

Problems with the New York Times Series on Arbitration

Noam Ebner posted a comment on the DRLE listserv about the recent series of articles in the New York Times about arbitration.  I wrote the following comment, in part, responding to his.  I am reproducing his comment with his permission.   In my comments below, I added a paragraph which wasn’t in my listserv comment, about … Continue reading Problems with the New York Times Series on Arbitration

PEDR is Important for Culture Change in Courts

As you may know, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS), is a “national, independent research center dedicated to facilitating continuous improvement and advancing excellence in the American legal system.”  It is an impressive, high-powered organization based in the University of Denver. It has four major initiatives:  (1) Quality Judges (promoting … Continue reading PEDR is Important for Culture Change in Courts

Dispute Resolution Systems and the Future of Our Field

First, I suggested that trials should be considered as part of (A)DR. Now, my school publishes a symposium on judicial education in our Journal of Dispute Resolution. You might understandably wonder if we have lost our freaking minds. I submit not.  Rather, I think that this reflects an evolution of our goals and how we … Continue reading Dispute Resolution Systems and the Future of Our Field