Law Commons^™

Federal Civil Litigation At The Crossroads: Reshaping The Role Of The Federal Courts In Twenty-First Century Dispute Resolution, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were promulgated in 1938 to provide the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of all civil actions. The underlying theme of the Federal Rules is that meritorious litigants should have their day in court. To that end, the Federal Rules eliminated procedural pitfalls, including highly technical forms of action inherited from common law, that rewarded mastery of pleading techniques over the substantive merits of claims. The Federal Rules also introduced a simplified pleading system, commonly denominated as “notice pleading,” thereby easing the heavy burden imposed on the parties. The factual details of the case could …

When “Yes” May Actually Mean “No”: Rethinking Informed Consent To Adr Processes, Elayne E. Greenberg

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

It is time for us to rethink how to achieve meaningful party consent to ADR processes such as mediation and arbitration. I, along with my colleagues Professors Jeff Sovern, Paul F. Kirgis and Yuxiang Liu, recently contributed to the growing body of research finding that a party’s consent to use an ADR process rather than utilizing a court to resolve the dispute is too often neither informed nor consensual. In our empirical study “’Whimsy Little Contracts’ With Unexpected Consequences: An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Understanding of Arbitration Agreements,” we found a paucity of consumer awareness and understanding of arbitration …

The Smith Case: Is The Glass Half Full?, Elayne E. Greenberg

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Many in our ADR community have already chosen to side with one of the choruses of polarized voices that are either supportive of or critical of the recent judicial decision In re Cody W. Smith. In that decision, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge Jeff Bohm disallowed the trustee’s appointment of a mediator, because, inter alia, the trustee didn’t first secure the approval of the presiding bankruptcy judge. A cursory read of Judge Bohm’s decision mistakenly leads us to believe that the case is just about a bankruptcy trustee’s obligation to follow section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, …