Law Commons^™

Introducing The 'New Handshake' To Expand Remedies And Revive Responsibility In Ecommerce, Amy J. Schmitz

Faculty Publications

There was a time when individuals would meet in person to make purchases and do deals. They would discuss the terms, assess the trustworthiness and character of their contracting partners, and conclude the deal with a handshake. The handshake helped ensure the enforcement of the deal without need for the rule of law or legal power. That handshake was one’s bond — it was a personal trust mark. With the emergence of eCommerce, however, that handshake has nearly disappeared along with the sense of responsibility it inspired. Accordingly, this article discusses how this has impacted consumers’ access to remedies regarding …

Taking Advantage Of Opportunities In Litigotiation, John M. Lande

Faculty Publications

This article is partially based on a study in which I interviewed respected lawyers about their negotiation processes in pretrial litigation. I asked these lawyers about their negotiation procedures generally, and I asked them to describe the last case they settled, starting with the first interaction with their clients in the matter. Although this article focuses on negotiation in the litigation context, some lawyers presumably use analogous procedures in transactional matters.

Family Lawyering With Planned Early Negotiation, John M. Lande

Faculty Publications

Whether you know it or not, you may already be using planned early negotiation (PEN). As the term suggests, this process involves planning to negotiate your cases at the earliest appropriate time. Normally you can be ready to negotiate long before you are ready for trial.

This article summarizes PEN procedures based on interviews with excellent lawyers about how they handle their cases. For example, one lawyer said that he “prepares for settlement from day one of the lawsuit” and that he engages in a “constant process of evaluating the claim” throughout the litigation. Planning to negotiate from the outset …

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, …