JDR Group Pic

Upcoming Events

Horizons: Conversations About Future Directions in Dispute Resolution

Thursday, January 29, 2015
5:00 – 9:00 PM | TBD

Friday, January 30,  2015
8:30 AM – 4:00 PM | TBD

 

102 – Public Policy

Richard M. Alderman, The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Meets Arbitration: Non-parties and Arbitration, 24 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 586 (2012).
Currently, debt collectors are collecting in excess of $50 billion dollars. Though many of these collectors comply with the law, there exists opportunity for abuse. The FDCPA was implemented as a tool to prevent abuse and compensate individuals who have been aggrieved. This article examines the arbitrability of FDCPA claims in light of recent Supreme Court decisions and analyzes whether the FDCPA’s purpose justifies a different application to existing rules.
{45} ARB: MANDATORY, COURT-ANNEXED—GENERAL
{102} SUBJ MATTER: PUBLIC POLICY
{144} LEGISLATION
 
Katherine B. Church, Comment, Arkansas and Mandatory Arbitration: Is the Feeling Really Mutual?, 65 Ark. L. Rev. 343 (2012).
This comment discusses the recent passage of the Arkansas Arbitration Act. The author argues that Arkansas state courts should continue to enforce the mutuality-of-obligation contract doctrine in order to protect consumers against mandatory arbitration.
{44} ARBITRATION—GENERAL
{102} SUBJ MATTER: PUBLIC POLICY
 
William B. Gould IV, Beyond Labor Law: Private Initiatives to Promote Employee Freedom of Association in the Obama Era, 87 Ind. L.J. 69 (2012)
FirstGroup PLC, a British Corporation designed a novel dispute resolution process to handle labor union issues arising out of the corporation’s business in the United States. This article analyzes the FirstGroup program, including its relationship with the National Labor Relations Board and Obama Administration initiatives.
{60} ADR—GENERAL
{95} SUBJ MATTER LABOR—MANAGEMENT (UNION)
{102} SUBJ MATTER: PUBLIC POLICY

Honorable James E. Gritzner, In Defense of the Jury Trial: ADR Has Its Place, but It Is Not the Only Place, 60 Drake L. Rev. 349 (2012).
In this piece, the author addresses the large increase in ADR’s popularity and the modern trend to prefer it to a traditional jury trial. The author argues that ADR is becoming too common, and that jury trials are now truly “alternate” to more popular forms of ADR.
{60} ADR—GENERAL
{102} SUBJ MATTER: PUBLIC POLICY
 
Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley, Is Europe Headed Down the Primrose Path with Mandatory Mediation?, 37 N.C.J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg. 981 (2012).
This article discusses the experience in the United States with mandatory mediation. The author also discusses whether Europe should consider moving towards implementing mandatory mediation while keeping the mediation experience of the United States in mind.
{21} MEDIATION—GENERAL
{102} SUBJ MATTER: PUBLIC POLICY
 
Susan Oberman, Confidentiality in Mediation: An Application of the Right to Privacy, 27 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 539 (2012).
This article locates the roots of confidentiality in mediation in the right to privacy. This article seeks to bring recognition to both the value and precariousness of confidentiality as an application of the right to privacy, while also exploring some complexities surround the decision to maintain it.
{21} MEDIATION—GENERAL
{102} SUBJ MATTER: PUBLIC POLICY
{132} CONFIDENTIALITY
 
Peter Robinson, Opening Pandora’s Box: An Empirical Exploration of Judicial Settlement Ethics and Techniques, 27 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 53 (2012).
This article is an empirical study of what judges do when they facilitate a settlement they believe is substantially different from the usual range of outcomes at trial. It looks into the blurring of judicial roles as settlement facilitator and decisionmaker and the policy concerns that may arise.
{1} NEGOTIATION—GENERAL
{102} SUBJ MATTER: PUBLIC POLICY
{121} SETTLEMENT: AUTHORITY

David S. Schwartz, Claim-Suppressing Arbitration: The New Rules, 87 Ind. L.J. 239 ( 2012)
The author argues stronger parties are using pre-dispute arbitration clauses to reduce the claims of weaker parties arising out of relationships between the two. Decisions of the Supreme Court have exacerbated the issues related to pre-dispute arbitration clauses between strong and weak parties.
{44} ARBITRATION—GENERAL
{102} SUBJ MATTER: PUBLIC POLICY
{126} REQUIREMENTS: CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES

Michael J. Yelnosky, Fully Federalizing the Federal Arbitration Act, 90 Or. L. Rev. 729 (2012).
This article examines the belief that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act has resulted in a doctrine that does not respect state lawmaking power. Despite legitimate state interests, Congress has the authority to regulate the enforcement of arbitration agreements in interstate commerce. The author argues that a federalized savings clause would result in the creation of a uniform body of arbitration law that effectively addresses major issues.
{44} ARBITRATION—GENERAL
{102} SUBJ. MATTER: PUBLIC POLICY