Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Judicial-Ish Efficiency: An Analysis Of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs In Delaware Superior Court, Jordan Hicks
Judicial-Ish Efficiency: An Analysis Of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs In Delaware Superior Court, Jordan Hicks
Washington and Lee Law Review
Since the late twentieth century, federal and state jurisdictions across the United States have explored the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) programs to resolve legal disputes. ADR programs provide extrajudicial mechanisms through which parties can resolve their disputes without the delay and expense of a traditional judicial proceeding. Courts and practitioners alike have lauded ADR programs. For litigators, ADR programs are a way to deliver outcomes to clients quickly and efficiently. For courts, ADR programs are a way to remove cases from overcrowded dockets.
While ADR is generally considered to be speedier and more cost-efficient than a trial, little …
Comment: Court Adr Analytics, Benjamin G. Davis
Comment: Court Adr Analytics, Benjamin G. Davis
Washington and Lee Law Review
For the reasons in my comments below, Jordan Hicks’s note entitled Judicial-ish Efficiency: An Analysis of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs in Delaware Superior Court is a tour de force. Its content and methodology suggest a fresh approach to thinking about court-annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) in general and court-annexed mandatory nonbinding arbitration programs in particular. The meticulous analysis of three different eras (1978–2008, 2008–2018, and 2018–present) of the program, with a focus on judicial efficiency (speed, failure rate, and prejudicial concerns), provides an important template for how this work might be expanded to look at programs in other courts …