Had I not participated—quite poorly—in two negotiations, several decades ago, I never would have written “Managing Conflict Mindfully: Don't Believe Everything You Think.”
Had I not participated—quite poorly—in two negotiations, several decades ago, I never would have written “Managing Conflict Mindfully: Don't Believe Everything You Think.”
Time is tight: The deadline for nominations for the written 2023 CPR Awards arrives on Friday, Nov. 17, soon followed by the Dec. 15 deadline for the diversity and leadership awards.
During the pandemic, most mediations pivoted to online videoconferencing platforms (Gealy et al., 2021; Golann, 2021—all citations appear in full in the References and Resources box at the end of the article). Post-pandemic, parties have the freedom to choose between in-person and online mediation. Research that can inform decisions about mediation format has not kept pace with the meteoric rise in online mediation. While mediators and participants have shared impressions (and some, enthusiasm) about their experiences with online mediation during the pandemic (Franklin, 2021; Paulson, 2021), we need additional research examining whether and how mediation format affects the process and outcome of mediation.
In 2005, the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution published a two-volume book authored by John W. Cooley which addressed creativity in negotiations and mediators. This comprehensive treatment consisted of exploration of the theory and science of creativity and a compilation of articles and narratives by mediators on the tools they used to bring about resolution of litigation and other complex disputes. The difference between convergent versus divergent thinking is explained in the context of creativity with the chart at right comparing the two models. See Cooley's Section 1.3.3.2.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals four years ago generated buzz throughout the legal community and among arbitration practitioners about the levels of disclosure to be made by arbitrators when it issued Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages LLC, 940 F.3d 1130, 1135 (9th Cir. 2019) (available at bit.ly/43HZ5Ic).
CPR President and Chief Executive Officer Allen Waxman (bio at www.cpradr.org/contacts/allen-waxman) stepped down from his roles in a letter on Aug. 22. Waxman, who also is departing as publisher of Alternatives, told the CPR community:
Last month, author John Lande offered three steps that could help improve the court mediation experience. See “Getting Ready for Mediation Sessions: Recommendations for Federal District Court Websites and Local Rules,” 41 Alternatives 119 (September 2023) (available at https://bit.ly/3Z5wtYP). He suggested that courts use dispute system design processes to maintain their ADR policies; offer clear, easily accessible information about mediation (and provided three sample court informational forms), and require attorneys to consult with their clients and counterparts about use of mediation. Here are five more.
Anyone seeking to understand 21st century arbitration law has to master the story of the most pathological case of the previous century: Société Européenne d'Etudes et d'Entreprises c/ République socialiste fédérale de Yougoslavie, usually known as SEEE v. Yugoslavia.
While attending my first post-Covid conference on mediation in Atlanta in 2022, sponsored by the National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals, or NADN, my longtime friend and colleague, Larry Watson (a name principal in the Maitland, Fla., office of Upchurch Watson White & Max (see https://bit.ly/44QxdmI)), received a lifetime distinguished service award.
Courts have strong interests in promoting parties' careful preparation before mediation sessions. In general, if parties are well prepared, the process is likely to achieve the goals of all the stakeholders including parties, attorneys, mediators, and the courts. Parties would be knowledgeable, confident, and assertive so that they can make decisions as well as possible. This generally would increase the likelihood that they will settle their cases and reduce the amount of time that courts spend managing and trying cases.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：