In 1998, Congress passed the Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) Act. 1 The ADR Act directed each district court across the country to “devise and implement its own Alternative Dispute Resolution programs to encourage and promote the use of ADR in its district.” 2 Such broad instruction created significant variances in the ADR programs that were created and implemented in all federal courts after 1998. 3 Regardless, some form of pretrial ADR is utilized in many, if not all, federal civil cases to promote judicial efficiency and attempt to settle disputes ahead of trial.4 Some districts have chosen to afford all mediation powers to federal magistrate judges, while others have outsourced pre-trial dispute resolution to local mediators and practitioners.5 This article will summarize the groundwork of how district-bydistrict disputant preferences regarding ADR have informed how federal courts have shaped their ADR programs, and explore the considerations that are of importance in tailoring these programs more effectively to promote efficient outcomes. This article will advocate for the importance of having practicalized communications with disputants early in the litigation regarding their menu of ADR options in a way that is standardized, transparent, psychologically informed, and accountable to the nuanced preferences of each district’s litigants.

Ohio’s list of achievements is as varied as it is impressive. The state is known as the birthplace of aviation1 , has the hometown of the first man on the moon2 , and houses the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame3 . On the court and field, the state is equally formidable, defined by LeBron James’s legacy4 and numerous college football titles. 5 But another achievement of the Buckeye State also warrants recognition: Ohio’s long labor history and union activity. Ohio stands as a cornerstone of the American labor movement, driving decades of industrial and union history. Featured in what is now called the “rust belt”, the state has a prominent industrial history featuring the automotive and steel businesses. 6 Stemming from this industry presence, many labor unions arose in Ohio and maintain a strong presence today. 7 Labor unions, seen by many as advocates for workers’ rights in their ability to negotiate with employers, have been engrained throughout the work force of Ohio.8 This history warrants recognition and protection in an age where workers’ rights can be diminished by powerful employers9 . This piece explores the history of labor activity in Ohio and highlights some of the entities that currently serve as advocates for worker rights. Part II of this piece introduces the concept of a labor union and its purpose, from the viewpoint of a union supporter. Part III will explore some of the history of labor in Ohio, from the state’s manufacturing roots to labor union formation. Part IV will identify and discuss several current Ohio unions and union federations. Part V explores opposition that unions face, both in Ohio and on a national level, and how critics of unions view these organizations. Finally, part VI advocates for support of Ohio union activity and maintaining this state achievement, alongside the Buckeye States numerous accomplishments.

Taylor Swift’s pursuit to own her masters spanned two decades and dominated pop culture headlines.1 Her journey to ownership of her catalogue involved numerous record deals, company acquisitions, and failed negotiations, until 2025.2 The dispute has already had impacts on the music industry and its ultimate conclusion allows us to explore the feasibility of her route for other artists.3 This piece will examine Swift’s battle over her catalog and address the viability of industry wide change stemming from it. Part II will examine what a masters recording is and its value. Part III will provide background on Swift’s pursuit and the entities that owned the rights to her first six albums from 2005 to 2024. Part IV will explore the circumstances that allowed Swift to successfully obtain ownership in 2025. Part V will explore the feasibility of this path for other artists and potential long-term changes to the music industry. Finally, part VI proposes contract transparency to assist future artists in their own catalog disputes.

Structured and formal criminal alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) first started being utilized in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s. 3 The earliest documented criminal ADR program, The Night Prosecutor Mediation Program, was founded in Columbus, Ohio in 1969.4 By 2021, criminal ADR programs were widely available, with over 400 community mediation programs and over 700 restorative justice programs in use all over the United States.5 Criminal ADR has been widely praised for its many benefits, including high victim and offender satisfaction, positive impact on recidivism rates, and increased perceptions of accountability and fairness.6 Given the many benefits of restorative justice programs, this article will explore the obligation of prosecutors to facilitate to these programs. This article will begin by illustrating how the prosecutor’s obligation to promote criminal ADR programs is complicated by ambiguity in confidentiality laws and requirements. This article will demonstrate that current confidentiality protections allow prosecutors to introduce statements made during criminal ADR through the use of the many exceptions enumerated by Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 408. 7 Then, this article will detail the prosecutors’ duty to facilitate criminal ADR and protect the confidentiality of these proceedings despite what may be limitedly required by them under FRE 408. Ultimately, this article will advocate for broader protections being afforded under FRE 408 and beyond to allow for the statements made during criminal ADR proceedings to be subject to a higher degree of confidentiality. Criminal mediation and related processes are no longer simply alternative, they have grown to become core components of our legal system, 8 and they should be afforded adequate confidentiality protection.

One of the most cherished relationships in the world is that between a parent and a child. The parent provides a child with guidance, emotional support, basic needs, stability, and affection. Simultaneously, the child provides the parent with a sense of joy, pride, purpose, and love. Because of the importance of this relationship, the Supreme Court has held that parents have a fundamental right to raise their child.1 But should this fundamental right be terminated solely if a parent is incarcerated? This is an issue that has plagued various states, including Ohio, for the past three decades. In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).2 Among other things, ASFA mandates that an agency file for permanent custody of a child if they have been in the agency’s custody for fifteen of the last twenty-two consecutive months (15/22 rule).3 The court must then hold a hearing to determine whether or not to terminate the parent’s custody rights. Following the passage of ASFA, Ohio amended their custody statutes to accommodate for the 15/22 rule but lowered the number of months necessary before filing a motion for permanent custody to twelve out of twenty-two months (12/22 rule).4 Because of the strict timeline for termination created by ASFA, and Ohio’s laws governing termination of parental rights, many incarcerated parents lose their fundamental right to raise their child.5 The law does little to protect these parents, despite incarceration often being the only thing preventing them from family reunification. A simple two-year sentence can be enough to have parental rights terminated and all parent-child communication cut off.6 This paper critiques ASFA and Ohio’s laws that have led to an increased number of incarcerated parents losing their parental rights and recommends possible changes to the system to protect the fundamental right of childrearing. Part II of this paper provides a comprehensive overview of ASFA and Ohio’s current laws governing the termination of parental rights. Part III addresses how the current structure of designing case management plans further exacerbates the issues created following ASFA by leaving incarcerated parents out of the planning. Part IV recommends updating Ohio’s case management plan system to involve mediation between children’s services agencies, incarcerated parents, and the courts. Part V briefly concludes.

Since the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision in 2022, many in the United States have found themselves living in areas with either total or partial abortion bans creating limited access to comprehensive reproductive health care.1 A constitutional right that was, more or less, guaranteed nationally since 19732 disappeared and with this disappearance arose questions of whether this right would be protected where one lived. 3 When a local government has limited access to reproductive health care and the traditional routes of litigation fail, what other options are available to those seeking care? This piece explores the state of abortion access in a post-Roe world and the out-of-court routes that those seeking this care are taking. Part II of this piece will provide a brief background on the state of abortion access post-Roe. Part III will introduce the concept of sanctuary states in the reproductive health realm and explore the alternative route of seeking care from such a state. Part IV will identify these routes as akin to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) solutions and explore existing issues with access to this form of justice. Finally, part V explores additional hurdles that are arising nationally for abortion access and their impact on these ADR measures.

As the old adage goes, “the best-laid plans… often go awry.”2 Perhaps some of the better illustrations of this adage are posed by disputes that commonly arise in the construction industry. The construction industry is particularly prone to disputes between parties regarding a host of issues stemming from failure to meet deadlines, coordinating projects, bad financing, and poor communication.3 Over the years, the construction industry has thrown the whole kitchen sink at these problems, utilizing various types of arbitration, mediation, and in extreme circumstances, even litigation. In fact, since the 1990s, in direct response to high rising costs of litigation, the construction industry has specifically designed and used a series of project embedded ADR systems for resolving disputes during high-stakes construction projects.4 In a 1995 paper assessing this exact industry shift away from litigation towards ADR, author Darrick Mix noted the shift towards use of dispute mechanisms such as partnering, dispute review boards, and standing neutrals.5 These were each ADR techniques developed specifically by the construction industry in part of the widespread efforts to resolve disputes away from the courtroom.6 Even so, it was hypothesized at that time that eventually even arbitration efforts after an issue arises would fail to meet the needs of large-scale construction projects.7 This blog post will argue that now, in 2026, ADR is used in the construction industry no longer as a resolution tool, but rather an embedded project design at every layer of a project’s lifespan. Various alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have been built into the construction industry in order to prevent disputes before they even arise. Technological advancements, particularly in the realm of AI, have only continued to advance the ability of construction companies to adequately implement faster and more efficient methods of imbedded project dispute resolution.

For more than two decades, Ohio has been at the center of the nation’s opioid epidemic. What began with the aggressive marketing of prescription painkillers in the late 1990s quickly escalated into a statewide public-health crisis marked by soaring addiction rates, economic strain, overwhelmed healthcare systems, and devastating loss.1 In response, Ohio – along with thousands of other state and local governments – pursued litigation against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies whose conduct directly caused the epidemic.2 These efforts led to massive national settlements, with participating states receiving billions of dollars in settlement funds.3 Unfortunately, Ohio has not always been clear with how these funds are spent, leading to a lack of transparency, and a call for accountability from the people most affected by the crisis. This article starts by examining the opioid crisis in Ohio in Part II, and outlining the history of national opioid settlements. Part III explores the current status of opioid settlement fund disbursement in Ohio compared with other states who have better, more transparent strategies for disbursement. Part IV proposes specific reforms Ohio could make to promote transparency and protect settlement funds, such as one-hundred percent reporting requirements, constitutional protection of funds, specific mandates on what funds are going towards, and a designated group to oversee that funds are distributed in a manner consistent with the terms of various settlements.