MEDIATING JUDICIAL POLICY

Despite the widespread use of mediation to resolve public policy disputes, there is little written on the mediation of judicial rule disputes. A successful mediation of a dispute over proposed court rules to govern mediation of certain family law cases involving domestic violence concerns is reviewed. The authors conclude that the mediation provided (a) a confidential venue for disputing judges to respectfully disagree with one another, (b) an opportunity for collaborative problem solving, (c) an opportunity to reduce conflict among judicial colleagues. (d) a format for dialogue with other stakeholders, and (e) greater degree of influence with regard to the outcome of the dispute. Specific recommendations to encourage the effective use of judicial policy mediation are offered.     

JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Judicial Dispute Resolution or JDR is a pre-trial settlement process involving judges as settlement facilitators. In October 2000 the Family and Youth Court in Edmonton, Alberta launched a yearlong JDR pilot project to determine whether JDR would help in resolving family and child welfare matters before the court. The project was very successful and has become a permanent program in Edmonton. This article explains how the Edmonton JDR polit project was set up and evaluated as well as its success as a permanent program. The article describes the JDR process in detail and discusses the current statistics from the program. The design and development of the new JDR Centre in the Edmonton courthouse is also addressed.     

THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Since Chief Justice Taft's highly activist tenure, many people have looked to the Supreme Court for leadership in efforts to modernize federal judicial administration. This article reviews the role of the Chief Justice of the United States in federal judicial administration. as well as organizational and procedural improvements in court management at all three tiers of the federal court system, as seen by one trained in public administration Although improvement is apparent. other needed steps include less emphasis on the number of judgeships and more careful long-range planning and experimentation with new techniques