Showing posts with label adr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adr. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2009
ADR and Healthcare
Here's a very interesting article by Emily P. Walker at medpagetoday.com. In it, she discusses the efficiencies of ADR procedures in the health care arena. She cites a study by Chris Stern Hyman of the Medical Mediation Group that of 19 cases that were mediated, 13 reached an agreement in an average of 2.3 hours. Of the 19 cases, 11 had an apology offered by a hospital system representative, and when the apology occurred, settlement was about two and a half times more frequent then when there was no apology.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
ADR and the Recession
An interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal got me thinking.
What effect is the recession having on the mediation-arbitration-alternative dispute resolution markets?
The reporting by Paulo Prada and Corey Dade analyzes funding cuts in the Georgia state court system. According to the authors, the court system's funding was cut by almost 15% last year, and future cuts are expected. One state judge is reported to have said that temporary hearings (for family custody cases) are now taking 60 days to reach instead of the usual "few weeks at most."
What does this mean for ADR professionals? I'd suggest it means opportunities.
It seems that we're told from day one in our training, and almost all of us market ourselves and the ADR process as a methodology that is cheaper, more efficient, faster, and more creative than the court system.
Now is our opportunity to prove that what we say in our training and marketing materials is true.
As ADR professionals, don't we have an opportunity--and perhaps an obligation--to assist those who are trying to access the court system to help them resolve their disputes in a less expensive, more efficient, and quicker way instead of waiting for overworked and understaffed courts to reach the case? Why can't we step in early and help folks discuss and structure the temporary orders in family cases? Why can't we help parties who are in the midst of a discovery dispute? Why can't we help the parties to resolve all of conflicts that occur during litigation, instead of just focusing on the final resolution of the entire case?
I'd like to know your thoughts.
What effect is the recession having on the mediation-arbitration-alternative dispute resolution markets?
The reporting by Paulo Prada and Corey Dade analyzes funding cuts in the Georgia state court system. According to the authors, the court system's funding was cut by almost 15% last year, and future cuts are expected. One state judge is reported to have said that temporary hearings (for family custody cases) are now taking 60 days to reach instead of the usual "few weeks at most."
What does this mean for ADR professionals? I'd suggest it means opportunities.
It seems that we're told from day one in our training, and almost all of us market ourselves and the ADR process as a methodology that is cheaper, more efficient, faster, and more creative than the court system.
Now is our opportunity to prove that what we say in our training and marketing materials is true.
As ADR professionals, don't we have an opportunity--and perhaps an obligation--to assist those who are trying to access the court system to help them resolve their disputes in a less expensive, more efficient, and quicker way instead of waiting for overworked and understaffed courts to reach the case? Why can't we step in early and help folks discuss and structure the temporary orders in family cases? Why can't we help parties who are in the midst of a discovery dispute? Why can't we help the parties to resolve all of conflicts that occur during litigation, instead of just focusing on the final resolution of the entire case?
I'd like to know your thoughts.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Norwegian Copyright ADR
Norway's Consumer Council is recommending that ADR be introduced in copyright litigation so that parties can meaningfully settle cases instead of "being forced into settlement arrangements simply because they could not afford to defend legal action brought by copyright holders."
What an interesting concept--that lawsuits can be so expensive that a party feels forced into settlement simply because it can't afford the fight.
Perhaps an advantage of alternative dispute resolution methods is that it helps to level the playing field, in that the parties do not have the expense of a trial?
My experience is that the most expensive portion of litigation is the pre-trial work: getting the defendant served, discovery, and dispositive motions. After that, the trial preparation is certainly expensive, but I wonder how many people would willingly sit down pre-discovery and try to negotiate a settlement?
What an interesting concept--that lawsuits can be so expensive that a party feels forced into settlement simply because it can't afford the fight.
Perhaps an advantage of alternative dispute resolution methods is that it helps to level the playing field, in that the parties do not have the expense of a trial?
My experience is that the most expensive portion of litigation is the pre-trial work: getting the defendant served, discovery, and dispositive motions. After that, the trial preparation is certainly expensive, but I wonder how many people would willingly sit down pre-discovery and try to negotiate a settlement?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)