Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons^™

Justice Delayed: A Tribal Attorney’S Perspective On Elwha River Dam Removal And Ecosystem Restoration, Russell W. Busch

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

Presenter: Russell W. Busch, Attorney for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

10 pages.

Agenda: The Future Of Natural Resources Law And Policy, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

The Natural Resources Law Center's 25th Anniversary Conference and Natural Resources Law Teachers 14th Biennial Institute provided an opportunity for some of the best natural resources lawyers to discuss future trends in the field. The conference focused on the larger, cross-cutting issues affecting natural resources policy. Initial discussions concerned the declining role of scientific resource management due to the increased inclusion of economic-cost benefit analysis and public participation in the decision-making process. The effectiveness of this approach was questioned particularly in the case of non-market goods such as the polar bear. Other participants promoted the importance of public participation and …

Atlantic Pilotage Authority V Cmsg, Innis Christie

Innis Christie Collection

INTRODUCTION. The "RESOLUTION OF CONTRACT RENEWAL DISPUTES AGREEMENT" of April 24, 2003 between the parties, under which I am proceeding here, provides: The purpose of this agreement is to establish a binding dispute resolution process to be utilized in circumstances where the parties have engaged in collective bargaining for the purpose of entering into a collective agreement but have failed to reach a settlement. Under such circumstances the following process shall be used to conclude all outstanding issues for the renewal of the collective agreement:

Conflicts Of Interest And Institutional Litigants, Curtis E.A. Karnow

ExpressO

This paper uses techniques borrowed from the field of game theory to describe rational bargaining among institutional litigants, and explains how the results, while often not leading to the rational outcome in a given case, do rationally serve a more general strategy. The paper then reviews the law on conflicts of interests and concludes that such conflicts—as between attorney and client, and among clients—will often result when institutional litigants bargain. The paper continues with a review on the law of waiver and provides a basis to accommodate the conflicts of interests. That accommodation however will often not be practical, and …

Who Decides?: A Critical Look At Procedural Discretion, Robert G. Bone

ExpressO

Federal civil procedure today relies extensively on trial judge discretion to manage litigation, promote settlements, and otherwise tailor process to individual cases. Even those rules with decisional standards leave trial judges considerable interpretive freedom to make case-specific determinations. This Article criticizes these choices and recommends stricter rules. Many judges and procedure scholars applaud the discretionary approach, and the Advisory Committee seems content to draft vague rules that implement it. The assumption seems to be that trial judges have the expertise and experience to do a good job of tailoring procedures to the needs of particular cases. The assumption is wrong, …

Anchoring, Information, Expertise, And Negotiation: New Insights From Meta-Analysis, Chris Guthrie, Dan Orr

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this article, we conduct a meta-analysis of studies of simulated negotiations to explore the impact of an initial "anchor," typically an opening demand or offer, on negotiation outcomes. We find that anchoring has a significant impact on the deals that negotiators reach. We also explore whether negotiator experience and the information environment mitigate the influence of anchoring. We conclude by offering prescriptive advice, both "offensive" and "defensive," to negotiators.

A Price Theory Of Legal Bargaining: An Inquiry Into The Selection Of Settlement And Litigation Under Uncertainty, Robert J. Rhee

UF Law Faculty Publications

Conventional wisdom says that economic surplus is created when the cost of litigation is foregone in favor of settlement, a theory flowing from the Coase Theorem. The cost-benefit analysis weighs settlement against the expected value of litigation net of transaction cost. This calculus yields the normative proposition that settlement is a superior form of dispute resolution and so most trials are considered errors. While simple in concept, the prevailing economic model is flawed. This article is a theoretical inquiry into the selection criteria of settlement and trial. It applies principles of financial economics to construct a pricing theory of legal …

How Much Justice Can We Afford: Defining The Courts' Roles And Deciding The Appropriate Number Of Trials, Settlement Signals, And Other Elements Needed To Administer Justice, John Lande

Journal of Dispute Resolution

This article discusses how the court system can function optimally given declining trial rates and the limited resources available. It does not provide a detailed analysis of court financing but rather discusses broad issues relating to the role of trials in the legal system.

Insights From Cognitive Psychology, Chris Guthrie

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Understanding Settlement In Damages (And Beyond), Chris Guthrie

Journal of Dispute Resolution

The purpose of this article is to introduce these academic accounts of settlement and to consider whether they provide insight into the settlement of the Sabias' litigation against Humes and Norwalk. I believe these accounts are largely complementary rather than competing, so my own view is that each sheds some light on litigation and settlement behavior in most civil cases (including the Sabia case).

Settling The Wilderness, Sarah Krakoff

Publications

No abstract provided.

Forgetfulness, Fuzziness, Functionality, Fairness And Freedom, In Dispute Resolution, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Professor Subrin is a self-professed traditionalist who has been one of the most forceful defenders of what I might term neo-traditional “Clarkian” litigation. By that, I mean the model of civil disputing in which litigation is a primary vehicle. More important, the litigation is based on notice pleading, broad discovery, and a preference for adjudication on the merits.

Key Subrin works over the years have focused on the historical path of the Clarkian model, which served to fuel much of the law revolution of the mid-Twentieth Century, to the “new era” of civil procedure and dispute resolution that dominated the …

Judicial Mediation And Signaling, Edward J. Brunet

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Mediating Preferences: Litigant Preferences For Process And Judicial Preferences For Settlement, Judith Resnik

Journal of Dispute Resolution

In the 1980s, as a consultant to RAND's Institute for Civil Justice, I joined Deborah Hensler, Allan Lind, Robert MacCoun, William Felstiner, Tom Tyler, and Patricia Ebener in seeking to learn how litigants viewed their experiences with courtbased processes. We surveyed litigants whose cases had been resolved through trials, court-annexed arbitrations, judge-run settlement conferences, and bi-lateral negotiations between lawyers.' We found that litigants cared about process: they reported less satisfaction with processes in which they took no part and more satisfaction with processes in which they could participate. Contrary to some lore that litigants were alienated by trial-like procedures, the …

The Thinning Vision Of Self-Determination In Court-Connected Mediation: The Inevitable Price Of Institutionalization?, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

Ethical codes for mediators describe party self-determination as “the fundamental principle of mediation,” regardless of the context within which the mediation is occurring. The definition of self-determination, however, is a matter of dispute. Based on a review of the debate surrounding the promulgation and revision of ethical codes for court-connected mediators in Florida and Minnesota, this Article demonstrates that a vision of self-determination anchored in party-centered empowerment is yielding to a vision that is more reflective of the norms and traditional practices of lawyers and judges, as well as the courts’ strong orientation to efficiency and closure of cases through …

Ulysses Tied To The Generic Whipping Post: The Continuing Odyssey Of Discovery "Reform", Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

One need not be a charter member of the Critical Legal Studies Movement (“CLS”) to see a few fundamental contradictions in litigation practice in the United States. A prominent philosophical tenet of the CLS movement is that law and society are gripped by a “fundamental contradiction” and simultaneously seek to embrace contradictory objectives. Civil litigation, particularly discovery, is no exception: New amendments to the discovery rules are the latest example of this contradiction. Although the new changes are not drastic, they continue the post-1976 pattern of making discovery the convenient scapegoat for generalized complaints about the dispute resolution system. One …

Apology And Organizations: Exploring An Example From Medical Practice, Jonathan R. Cohen

UF Law Faculty Publications

In this Article, I focus on injuries committed by members of organizations, such as corporations, and examine distinct issues raised by apology in the organizational setting. In particular, I consider: (i) the process of learning to prevent future errors; (ii) the divergent interests stemming from principal-agent tensions in employment, risk preferences and sources of insurance; (iii) the non-pecuniary benefits to corporate morale, productivity and reputation; (iv) the standing and scope of apologies; and (v) the articulation of policies toward injuries to others.

Identifying Real Dichotomies Underlying The False Dichotomy: Twenty-First Century Mediation In An Eclectic Regime, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Some people (lawyers, scholars, judges, dispute resolvers, policymakers) are more concerned about fidelity to procedural protocols while others are more concerned with the substantive rules governing disputes and substantive outcomes. Those in the dispute resolution community preferring facilitation tend to be proceduralists. For them, the observance of proper procedure is a high goal, perhaps the dominant goal. They reason, often implicitly, that adherence to the rules of procedure is the essence of neutrality, fairness, and the proper role of a dispute resolving apparatus. At some level, usually subconscious, there is a post-modern philosophical aspect of this preference. Because humans cannot …

Advising Clients To Apologize, Jonathan R. Cohen

UF Law Faculty Publications

The article argues that lawyers should consider the possibility of advising clients to apologize for harms they commit, as in some cases apology may best serve their client's interests. The articles discusses some of the pros and cons to apology in the legal setting, as well as barriers that may inhibit apologies.

A Model For Arbitration: Autonomy, Cooperation And Curtailment Of State Power, Kenneth

Fordham Urban Law Journal

As compared with the formal pleadings, massive discovery, aggressive motion practice, and endless appeals of litigation, arbitration is undoubtedly more efficient as a dispute resolution mechanism. However, efficiency is only one of many advantages of arbitration. Arbitration empowers disputing parties, promotes individual autonomy and cooperation, and curtails the power of government in the process. Still, the state should not wholly limit its involvement in arbitral processes; the courts do and should have a substantial role in determining the enforceability of arbitration agreements and awards in a few select contexts. Overall, courts should enforce arbitration agreements and only limit enforceability that …

Protocols For International Arbitrators Who Dare To Settle Cases, Harold Abramson

Scholarly Works

The best time to settle an international business dispute can be after the international arbitration proceeding has been commenced. Just like in court litigation, parties may be ready to settle only after the adjudicatory process has begun and even has progressed. In court, judges commonly open the door to settlement; they hold settlement conferences and even actively participate in settlement negotiations. But arbitrators rarely open the door to settlement; when they do, they risk losing their jobs. So, what can international arbitrators safely do? What dare they do?

In this article, the author explores the dilemma presented when one neutral …

Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Vacatur When Lower Court Decision Mooted By Settlement: Repeat Litigants Slide Into Home With Second Circuit Decision - Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. V. Pacific Trading Cards, Inc., S. Kristina Starke

Journal of Dispute Resolution

At heart in the scholarship advocating Alternative Dispute Resolution are two interests: one, that using processes such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration conserve public and private resources otherwise expended on litigation; and two, that in certain circumstances, these alternative processes may provide better justice than would occur in litigation.' However, once litigation of a case has commenced, and an adverse judgment has been made against one party, that party may not be willing to settle the case unless the adverse judgement is vacated.4 Historically, most state and federal courts would routinely grant vacatur when requested by litigants who settled their …

Symposium, The Florida Tobacco Litigation -- Fact, Law, Policy, And Significance, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

This is the transcript of the Florida tobacco litigation symposium, discussing the s$11.3 billion settlement concerning tobacco in the state of Florida. Jeffrey W. Stempel served as co-chair and moderator of the symposium.

Contracting Access To The Courts: Myth Or Reality? Bane Or Boon?, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Many scholars of the dispute resolution system perceive a sea change in attitudes toward adjudication that took place in the mid-1970s. Among the events of the time included the Pound Conference, which put the Chief Justice of the United States and the national judicial establishment on record in favor of at least some refinement, if not restriction, on access to courts. In addition, Chief Justice Burger, the driving force behind the Pound Conference, also used his bully pulpit as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to promote ADR, particularly court-annexed arbitration. The availability of judicial adjuncts such as court-annexed arbitration …

Using Decision Trees As Tools For Settlement, Marjorie Corman Aaron

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

While experienced lawyers can some­ times develop an intuitive sense of what a case is worth, their intuition may not be sufficient in a case of considerable complexity. Furthermore, intuitive "gut sense" valuations are hard to support or explain to clients.

Decision trees allow the parties and their lawyers to see more clearly how the strengths and weaknesses of their positions on specific issues will affect the overall value of a case. Long popular in the business community, deci­sion analysis has evolved as a tool for lawyers to help make decisions in complex litigation.

Class Action Settlement Bars, Cross Claims, And Co-Defendants: The Search For A Uniform Standard - In Re U.S. Oil & (And) Gas Litigation, Craig Richard Heidemann,

Journal of Dispute Resolution

Prior to the U.S. Oil & Gas decision, the federal courts had only considered settlement bars as related to non-settling defendants. In the U.S. Oil & Gas case, all of the defendants sought to settle with the plaintiff. 2 Only one settling defendant chose to contest the entry of the bar order. 3 In U.S. Oil & Gas, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a defendant who settled with the plaintiff but opposed an order barring its seemingly independent claims against the third-party defendant who also settled. For this reason it was a case of first impression. …

Shackling The Secretary's Hands: Limits To Authorizing Whistle-Blower Settlements Under Section 210 Of The Energy Reorganization Act - Macktal V. Secretary Of Labor, Jay M. Dade

Journal of Dispute Resolution

In seeking to encourage nuclear industry employees to report safety concerns, Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA) acts to protect such "whistle-blowers" in the event they are terminated or discriminated against because of their whistle-blowing activities.2 When an employee and an employer negotiate a Section 210 "whistle-blower" complaint and subsequently submit the settlement for approval, the Secretary of Labor faces certain encumbrances when reviewing the agreement . This limitation on review arises when certain provisions may be in violation of public policy.4 In Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, the United States Court of Appeals for the …

Settlement In Securities Fraud: Is Settlement Promoting Litigation - In Re Jiffy Lube Securities Litigation, Brian R. Hajicek

Journal of Dispute Resolution

In the complex securities fraud arena, partial pretrial settlement in cases involving multiple defendants would appear to reduce litigation in the dispute. However, conflict over the proper method of allocating responsibility for a damage award among settling and non-settling defendants can in fact increase litigation. Federal courts disagree as to which method most fairly and equitably apportions damage liability. In re Jiffy Lube Securities Litigation is the most recent case that touches upon the issue of damage allocation among settling and non-settling defendants. This Note will address competing policy considerations which drive courts to choose different allocative methods.

Valuation Of Cases For Settlement: Theory And Practice, Peter Toll Hoffman

Journal of Dispute Resolution

Trial lawyers frequently talk about the value of their cases when they are counseling clients' negotiating with opposing counsel, or conversing with their fellow attorneys. The term "value" may have several definitions when referring to cases, but most attorneys intend it to mean the amount at which they expect a case to settle. However, despite the frequency with which they speak of value, the subject remains cloaked with a miasma of lawyer folklore.

Is Settlement Conditioned On Vacatur An Option - Should It Be, Elizabeth L. Anstaett

Journal of Dispute Resolution

Currently, whether a court grants or denies a motion to vacate resulting from settlement depends more on the particular court in which the request is made, than on the facts of the case and the effect of vacatur. Courts not permitting vacatur have expressed the fear that parties sensing they are going to lose will "buy their way out of an unfavorable precedent often at the relatively cheap price asked by the single opponent they face in that appeal."1 Other courts routinely grant requests for vacatur. Settlements conditioned on the court's granting vacatur, and thereby avoiding precedent or issue preclusion, …