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
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
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
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
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
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
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 just released a new report entitled, Change the … Continue reading PEDR is Important for Culture Change in Courts
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
This conversation started with my post about planned early dispute resolution (PEDR). My friend, Peter Benner, and I exchanged comments in that post. Here are links to Part 2-ish, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6 in this conversation. This is the last part for now. _____ Peter, throughout this conversation, you have … Continue reading Conversation with Peter Benner about PEDR, Part 7
This conversation started with my post about planned early dispute resolution (PEDR). My friend, Peter Benner, and I exchanged comments in that post. Here are links to Part 2-ish, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5 in this conversation. I had some questions about Peter’s last post. Here I pose the questions and Peter responded. … Continue reading Conversation with Peter Benner about PEDR, Part 6
