Alternative Dispute Resolution Outline

ADR used for every dispute type. 
Admin ADR Act- encourages admin. agencies to negotiate RM instead of trad. adversarial process.
 
1.       Negotiation = most common resolution.
·         Parties control process & solution themselves
·         If parties cannot settle, third pty helps to control process
 
2.       Mediation – helps to assist parties to find solution.
 
3.       Adjudication- “rights focused” Ct power to impose solutions.-
 
All 3 can be combined = hybrid Dispute.
                For example: Rent-A-Judge arbitration or SJ trial
                Key different is in : control on outcome, how parties participate, formality, public vs. private, vol.                                  vs. invol., binding vs. non-binding.
 
4.       Arbitration- party submit dispute to neutral to make decision.
a.       Common in industrial labor & consumer disputes. Less formal, faster, less expensive than Ct.
b.       Uniform Arb Act governs 2/3 of states. Trial de novo encourages settlements.
c.        Priv Tribunal = Rent-a-Judge.
                                                               i.      Judge privately selected & paid by neutral pty
                                                              ii.      Can appeal decisions, exclude public, prevent delays
 
History
·         ‘80’s institutionalized practices among Attys/bus. to empower persons to resolve disputes. “ADR movement” led by Prof. Fiss (Yale). 
·         End ‘90’s shift from experimental stats/commentary to institution. 
o    ‘98 each Fed. Ct est. own ADR prog.
o    Ct & clients demand new tools to resolve
·         Uniform Mediation Act- priv encouraging effective mediation use. Not yet enacted (only 8 states & Dist. Columbia follow).
 
ADR Gen. – To save time & $, better process/results, community involved, increased access to justice, protect turf
·         Consensual Processes
o    Ombudsmen- Appt official to investigate complaints & prevent/resolve disputes w/in instit.
o    Fact finding
o    Negotiation- discuss to resolve disagreement. But, if third pty negotiates process = mediation. 
o    Mediation- neutral third pty helps plan/resolve transaction but NO power to impose solution. 
§ Result = agree in K, enforced by K law.
o    Conciliation- less formal than mediation. Netural pty = “go-between”
 
·         Mixed Processes
o    Mediation-Arbitration “Med.-Arb.”
§ Mediation, but if no agreement made, becomes arbitration. Common in labor manag.
o    Mini Trial – goal = mutual satisfaction, tailored to parties needs.
§ Neutral advisor gives opinion if litigation what likely outcome would be.
§ Can be binding = arbitration OR persuasive = settlement
o    SJ Trial- Atty presents case to Jury w/o power, non-binding, encourages settlement.
o    Early Neutral Evaluation- reduces pre-trial costs & delays.
§ Id where parties agree/disagree & evaluate each side.
o    Litigation Management & Planning- Atty practices to rev cases
§ “Position” = competitive, rights-based, adversarial. Want/entitled to. Parties opp. positions
·         Ex: Adjudication; possibly negotiation or mediation
§ Interest = need/motive underlying position. Parties have same interest to reconcile so both win. Prob solving, collaborative, value claiming.
·         Ex: possible negotiation or mediation.
 
Owen Fiss- Against Settlements
·         Parties not in equal positions.
·         Judgment not end prob, must return to Ct using public resources. Ct cannot enforce consent decrees
·         Settlement might secure peace but not justice.
 
Carrie Menkel- need both adjudication & settlement
·         Not for/against settlements but when, how, & under what circums should cases be settled.
 
Luban- settlements should be open to public. Settlement = moral value of compromise. 
 
Resnik- multi-door Ct house. ADR default b/c cheap & quick access to justice when arb fails.
·         ADR kinder to litigants, more responsive to probs, edu/focus Attys on clients needs, changes Ct behavior – accountability & responsibility [Judicial officers sanctioned], protects privacy. More efficient & fair. Vol methods w/added routes to justice.
·         Obstacles: 1. Unfamiliarity; 2. Fear of unknown; 3. Atty views role solely as advocate.
 
 
                                                                                                                                 I.            Interview & Counseling Clients
Interview = understand client & prob/issue
Counseling = define client problem & whether/how to address it
·         Goal = help client find best approach to prob.
 
Professional Models: Client Relationships
·         Trad Model – Atty in charge.
o    Used when:
1.       Need specialized knowledge
2.       Knows clients needs/values
3.       Neutral
4.       Client unwilling/unable to reach decision
·         Participatory Model- Share power. If:
o    Client capable to make decision. {study suggests participatory clients receive more $$]  
Interview: to get info. to understand situation, define rep. objects & est. trust
·         4 step process:
1.       Prelim Prob Id (what brought client in)
2.       Chronological overview
3.       Develop & verify interests/goals
4.       Develop legal theories & verify facts
·         Techniques- listening & asking questions.
o    L