The Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution is pleased to bring you Volume 5, Issue I of the Mayhew-Hite Report on Dispute Resolution and the Courts.
In Judicial Ethics and Judicial Settlement Practices: Time for Two Strangers to Meet, 21 Ohio St. J. On Disp. Resol., 569 (2006), the Honorable John C. Cratsley proposed that the American Bar Association promulgate an ethical rule that would prohibit any judge directly involved with mediation or settlement efforts from presiding over that case at trial if settlement attempts ultimately proved to be unsuccessful. Responding to Justice Cratsley's article, the Honorable Dan Aaron Polster (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio) argues in The Trial Judge as Mediator that a judge who takes an active role in mediation or settlement activities should not be barred from trying the case, assuming it would be a jury trial. Polster, drawing on his extensive involvement in mediating civil cases as a federal judge, asserts that a trial judge can be an exceedingly effective mediator, if he adheres to a number of ground rules, many of which were articulated by Justice Cratsley. Increased mediation efforts by the trial judge, Polster argues, conserves judicial and private resources. It will likely produce more, and earlier, pre-trial settlements, or will enable a judge familiar with a case to streamline issues for a jury. The full-text of this article can be accessed here.
In ADR Through a Cultural Lens, 2 J. Disp. Resol. 289 (2005), Julia Ann Gold, Director of the Mediation Clinic at the University of Washington School of law, addresses the nexus between culture and a society's approach to conflict resolution. The author identifies five cultural value patterns and two communication styles that are particularly important in the context of dispute resolution and provides examples of national groups that exhibit each value pattern and communication style. Recognizing that the dispute resolution methods most commonly used in the United States reflect dominant American cultural values, Gold provides advice to practitioners on how to tailor an ADR process to complement the cultural values of the parties to the dispute. A detailed summary of this law review article can be accessed here.
This year, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Beaumont), decided a case, In re Heritage Bldg. Sys., Inc., 185 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. Ct. App. 2006), where it resolved the issue of whether a court could require parties to go to mediation before ruling on a party's motion to compel arbitration pursuant the contract governing the relationship between the parties. The court's analysis indicates that under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court can only examine threshold issues before ruling on a motion to compel arbitration. A detailed summary of this case can be accessed here.
In The Uniform Mediation Act: An Analysis of Current State Acts, Gary Provencher provides a comprehensive overview of the versions of the Uniform Mediation Act that, at the time of writing, have been adopted by eight states and the District of Columbia. Provencher begins the paper by discussing the various privilege exceptions in the UMA as they form the basis for most the departures from the UMA by individual states. In turn, the author discusses the adjustments each state has made to the UMA, recent state adoptions, and offers his prediction for the future of the Uniform Mediation Act. Appended to the paper are a series of tables that provide a comparison of each state's UMA with the original version. Gary Provencher is a 2007 J.D. Candidate at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and has participated in the College's Mediation Practicum, serving as a volunteer mediator for the Franklin County (Ohio) Municipal Court. Currently, Provencher is still volunteering as a mediator with the Franklin County Court and is a law clerk at the firm of Cloppert, Latanick, Sauter & Washburn. The full-text of this paper can be accessed here.
SAVE THE DATE
The Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution Presents:
Alternative Dispute Resolution Strategies in End of Life Decisions
January 18, 2007
Saxbe Auditorium, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
The Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution's annual symposium will look at both moral and legal struggles surrounding end of life decisions. A distinguished panel of experts will explore the challenges of using dispute resolution technologies to resolve health care conflicts that affect families, as well as legal and medical professionals, in crisis. For more information click here, or you may contact Symposium Editors Joy Garnett (Garnett.email@example.com) or Rebecca Gonzalez (Gonzales.firstname.lastname@example.org).
Philip Morrow & Betsy Elder in collaboration with members of the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution.
Professor Sarah R. Cole
Send Comments To:
Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution
The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law
55 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1391
Phone Number: (614) 292-7170