Evaluation of the University of Denver's Center for Separating and Divorcing Families: The First Out‐of‐Court Divorce Option1

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (RCSDF) is the first U.S. alternative dispute resolution model to provide legal dispute resolution, therapeutic, educational, and financial services to separating and divorcing families in a single location outside the courthouse. Data were collected on 82 families at entry and service completion: service utilization, process timeliness, family satisfaction, and outcomes. Parents were highly satisfied with the process and demonstrated significant improvements in personal well‐being, co‐parenting, parenting quality, and reported reductions in children's anxiety/depression. Community partners felt RCSDF was a positive innovation in their community. The RCSDF model represents a culture shift from an adversarial process to a cohesive alternative that supports the well‐being of all family members.     

An evaluation of Montana's child welfare court pre-hearing conference pilot project

Pre-hearing conferences are a form of alternative dispute resolution that have been implemented into the child welfare court process. Montana recently piloted a pre-hearing conference model to occur before the first hearing on the case. The goal of the pilot was to increase discussion and resolution of contested visitation, placement, and service issues and to better engage parents in the process. Data were collected across multiple years to explore the effectiveness of the pilot in improving outcomes for children and families. Analysis of the data revealed a positive relationship between program implementation and timelier permanency. Parents who attend and have higher levels of participation in the pre-hearing conference are also more likely to reunify.     

Owning ASFA

As New York and many other jurisdictions struggle to comply with the timelines of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), the experiences of the Expedited Permanency Part of the New York City Model Court under the direction of Judge Sara Schechter may provide helpful approaches for overcoming unnecessary delays and obstacles. Despite resistance to change, scarce resources, and a shortage of attorneys for indigent respondents, the New York City Model Court has been able to implement ASFA without sacrificing due process in the handling of child protective and permanency proceedings. Some of these strategies include extensive case conferencing, the use of specially trained conference facilitators, time‐certain appointments, and compliance reviews conducted by a referee. The New York City Model Court has found that integrating these new approaches has markedly improved the permanency outcomes for the children within its jurisdiction. Innovations piloted in the New York City Model Court are being replicated throughout the five boroughs of the city.     

How Dispute Resolution System Design Matters: An Organizational Analysis of Dispute Resolution Structures and Consumer Lemon Laws

This study demonstrates how the structure of dispute resolution shapes the extent to which managerial and business values influence the meaning and implementation of consumer protection law, and consequently, the extent to which repeat players are advantaged. My analysis draws from, links, and contributes to two literatures that examine the relationship between organizational governance structures and law: neo‐institutional studies of law and organizations and socio‐legal studies of repeat players' advantages in disputing. Specifically, I compare an instance where powerful state consumer protection laws are resolved in private dispute resolution forums funded by automobile manufacturers but operated by independent third‐party organizations (California) with one where consumer disputes are resolved in public alternative dispute resolution processes run and administered by the state (Vermont). Through in‐depth interviews and participant observation in the training programs that dispute resolution arbitrators undergo in each state, I show how different dispute resolution structures operating in California and Vermont give different meanings to substantially similar lemon laws. Although my data do not allow me to establish a causal relationship, they strongly suggest that the form of the dispute resolution structure, and how business and state actors construct the meaning of lemon laws through these structures, have critical implications for the effectiveness of consumer protection laws for consumers.     

美国阶梯式纠纷解决条款执行力问题研究

如何选择一种更快捷、更有效以及更便宜的方式来解决合同纠纷,是国际商事社会如今所面临的挑战。这并不是说要摒弃传统的诉讼和仲裁等争议解决机制,而是指需要用其他替代手段来补充这些机制。本文将以美国为例,对ADR方式作为仲裁或诉讼前置程序的阶梯式纠纷解决条款进行研究,以期提供给当事方最好的争议解决机制来满足维持其彼此间良好关系的特殊需要。     

The Interdisciplinary Settlement Conference: A Grassroots Alternative for Resolving High‐Conflict Parenting Disputes in Lean Times

This article describes a court‐connected alternative dispute resolution program, the Interdisciplinary Settlement Conference. The key feature of this program is the participation of two volunteer panelists, one a family law attorney and the other a mental health professional experienced in parenting disputes, who assist the judicial officer in working with the parties and their attorneys (if any) to reach a resolution of their parenting dispute. Significantly, in addition to addressing the parties’ legal issues, the panelists also address the parties’ psychological and emotional issues relevant to the dispute on an as‐needed basis. Findings from six years of experience with the program are discussed, including evidence of high satisfaction with the program, a high rate of settlement, a decrease in relitigation, and a concomitant savings of scarce judicial resources.     

Transforming Land‐Taking Disputes in Socialist Asia: Engaging an Authoritarian State

Few studies have responded to the calls by sociolegal scholars to explore how disputes evolve. This article takes up the challenge by examining how intermediaries in socialist Asia resolve land‐taking disputes that are intractable for administrative appeals and courts. Exploring alternatives to state‐based dispute resolution is a pressing issue for conflicts that pit citizens against authoritarian regimes. Using in‐depth interviews, this article investigates how intermediaries such as retired state officials navigate in and around authoritarian regimes, flattening power asymmetries between citizens and land officials. This analysis draws from, links, and advances three literatures that examine dispute resolution in different ways: the sociolegal “naming, blaming, and claiming” literature examines the trajectory of disputes, regulatory studies use legitimacy expectations to analyze how disputants evaluate and prioritize competing regulatory frameworks, and the collective identity literature analyzes how communities respond to disputes. This article contributes to the literature by developing a theoretical framework that explains how intermediaries circumvent conceptual differences and transform disputes. The findings compel researchers to consider the use of intermediaries as an alternative to state‐sponsored dispute resolution in authoritarian settings.     

论ADR对重塑我国非诉讼纠纷解决体系的意义

非诉讼纠纷解决方式 (ADR)是美国近 30年来异军突起的诉讼外纠纷解决机制。它是各种不违背法律强制性规定的 ,由纠纷双方当事人自主选择并控制的 ,替代诉讼程序解决民事纠纷方式方法的总称。ADR具有灵活解决纠纷、合理分配司法资源、降低纠纷解决成本等功能。由于我国传统法律文化等因素和ADR具有较大的亲和性 ,引进国外ADR的先进经验对重塑我国非诉讼纠纷解决体系具有重大的现实意义     

我国劳动争议多元化解决机制的反思与构建

上海、宁波、厦门和深圳等地富有特色的劳动争议多元化解决机制的构建经验充分体现和谐劳动关系的基本理念,以此为蓝本展示我国劳动争议多元化解决机制构建的实施过程并对比西方法律理念,结合我国和谐思想传统,对其进行理论反思将有助于理解劳动争议多元化解决机制构建的正当性和明确未来其在我国发展的可能路径。     

税务争议替代性解决机制探析

随着纳税人权利意识的增强,税务争议呈多发趋势。而解决各种税务争议多着眼于传统的途径即税务行政复议和税务行政诉讼,使得在税务争议解决实务中已存在的调解、和解、仲裁等替代性税务争议解决方式没有可靠的理论支撑和法律依据。因此,对税务争议替代性解决机制进行研究,以有效解决各种税务争议,成为税法理论界及实务界十分关注的课题。笔者从税法适用的角度,对引入税务争议ADR的法理合法性与现实合理性进行分析,并尝试研究国外税务争议ADR的成因、背景和运作状况,以借鉴其规则或惯例,为我国引进并完善税务争议ADR提出构想。     

法经济学与纠纷解决

作为一种全新的法学解释系统和理论框架,法经济学有着自身的研究范式。法经济学的研究范式应该是研究纠纷解决理论的有利工具。法经济学基本研究范式对纠纷解决的理论阐释包括对成本效益、供求关系和市场、纠纷解决过程中国家制定法与民间社会非正式规范的博弈均衡等诸多方面的理论分析。在法经济学的研究视角下,论述纠纷诉讼外解决的经济社会合理性。     

The importance of teaching dispute resolution in a twenty-first-century law school

Civil justice reviews over the past 20 years have encouraged the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and particularly mediation. Mediation is arguably now becoming more mainstream in terms of dispute resolution process choice. In some instances law changes have been introduced requiring parties in dispute to consider using mediation; similarly, lawyers have an ethical responsibility to provide advice to their clients about the range of dispute resolution processes available. What is lacking however is a corresponding appreciation of the changing attitudes to the teaching of dispute resolution in the majority of UK law schools, where the promotion of adversarialism within the curriculum appears to remain the focus as the primary and only method of dispute resolution. The article argues that this is unreflective of current attitudes and thinking towards dispute resolution in most common law countries, where litigation is no longer necessarily the primary dispute resolution process of choice. Whilst there was token appreciation of the importance of mediation advocacy and its inclusion recommended within the Bar Practice Training Course (BPTC), the recent Legal Education and Training Review was silent on any suggestions about the inclusion of dispute resolution based curriculum content at any stage of legal education in England and Wales. The article will explore the historical development of lawyers’ attitudes to dispute resolution within the civil justice arena and academics’ teaching of curriculum associated with it in UK law schools. The article will pose questions on why recent legal history suggests that law schools should now perhaps take a more socio-legal approach to their curriculum content and embrace the teaching of dispute resolution as a defined subject area for the twenty-first-century law school.     

社会管理中的信访工作法制化建设和制度化创新

基层社会管理离不开信访工作创新。信访解决纠纷机制有其合理性,将会在一定范围内继续存在,但这种解决模式不应当是一种常态,只能是社会转型时期的一种纠纷解决措施。因此,应当通过信访本身具有的权利表达功能将这些政策性纠纷导入常规性的纠纷解决渠道,不断推进信访工作制度化、规范化和法制化建设,不断推进信访工作制度化创新。     

Rule‐Intermediaries in Action: How State and Business Stakeholders Influence the Meaning of Consumer Rights in Regulatory Governance Arrangements

The boundaries between public and private actors are increasingly blurred via regulatory governance arrangements and the contracting out of rights enforcement to private organizations. Regulation and governance scholars have not gained enough empirical leverage on how state actors, private organizations, and civil society groups influence the meaning of legal rules in regulatory governance arrangements that they participate in. Drawing from participant observation at consumer law conferences and interviews with stakeholders, my empirical data suggest that consumer rights and, in fact, consumer law, mean different things to different stakeholders tasked with adjudicating consumer rights. Rights afforded consumers who purchase warranties are now largely contingent on first using alternative dispute resolution structures, some created and operated by private organizations with soft state oversight and others run by stakeholders but with greater state oversight and involvement. Using new institutional sociology and regulatory governance theories, I find that stakeholders involved in overseeing and administering these dispute resolution systems filter the meaning of consumer rights through competing business and consumer logics. Because consumer laws mean different things to stakeholders tasked with adjudicating consumer rights, two different rights regimes simultaneously exist in this field. I conclude that how rule‐intermediaries administering private and state‐run dispute resolution systems conceptualize what consumer laws mean in action may have implications for regulatory governance and more broadly, consumers' access to justice.     

Circle sentencing in Canada: A partnership of the community and the criminal justice system

Throughout North America, there has been an increasing interest in the development of alternative forums for dispute resolution that may more effectively address the needs of victims, offenders, and the community. Concurrent with this has been an attempt to alter the adversarial framework of the criminal justice system. This has included the development and implementation of case processing strategies premised on restorative justice and attempting to secure the participation of communities as partners in the resolution of disputes. One particularly innovative initiative is circle sentencing, which has been implemented in several communities in the Yukon, Canada. The procedure by which cases are processed in circle sentencing is outlined and the involvement of the offender, the victim, the community, and the territorial court are discussed.     

PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN FAMILY COURTS: BALANCING AUTONOMY AND STATE INTERVENTION

This work considers how court‐connected parent education programs can assist parents to access dispute resolution processes that best suit their families’ needs, in a manner involving appropriately curtailed levels of state interference with parental autonomy. After reviewing traditionally accepted limits on state interference with family functioning, the increased concern for children's emotional well‐being, and data relating to one parent education program, the author concludes that providing mandatory “basic level” informational programs to all separating parents seeking access to the family law regime is a warranted level of state intervention. “Skills‐building” programs aimed at achieving demonstrably changed parental practices should be available on a voluntary attendance basis.     

The Ideologies of Mediation: The Movement's Own Story

This paper has three aims. First, it describes the ideologies of six organizations that have been and continue to be prominent in the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) movement in the United States. These organizations all feature the use of mediation as a central component of their work and as a solution to larger social problems.
Second, it elaborates some points of similarity and difference in these ideologies in light of a debate that emerged in the late 1970's between "community" and "agency" models of mediation, that is, between programs that chose to closely affiliate with the formal justice system and those that chose not to. Several years after the start of this debate, we believe there are important points of convergence and divergence that have not received enough attention by those who advocate for or against alternative dispute processing.
Finally, the authors wish to use the opportunity this study provides to speculate more openly on the contemporary meaning of legal informalism and the ways in which formal and informal legal structures now seem to be linked.     

行政争议的中立评估及其制度构建

行政争议的中立评估机制是指由具备专门解纷知识的中立评估员对纠纷进入行政复议、行政诉讼等渠道的审理前景进行预测的一种制度。它能在降低当事人过高的解纷期望、促成当事人之间达成和解、克服评估式调解的弊端等方面发挥积极作用,亟待引入我国行政争议解决领域之中。中立评估机制处于合意型行政争议解决机制与决定型行政争议解决机制的连接点...     

FAMILIES,COURTS, AND THE END OF LIFE: SCHIAVO AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEM

The article discusses a proposed universal adoption of comprehensive family law subject matter jurisdiction, inclusive of end‐of‐life (EOL) cases, as articulated in the unified family court (UFC) concept. It posits, using the Schiavo matter to illustrate the difficulties inherent in EOL disputes, that contested EOL cases are unlike other civil court cases in that they involve intimate facts and emotionally laden family dynamics. As such, these cases pose a distinctive challenge for the courts. The article suggests that contested EOL cases should be heard in a UFC because UFCs include alternative dispute resolution (ADR) protocols to deescalate family strife with the goal of facilitating out‐of‐court settlements and that litigation is an imperfect solution for an EOL dispute. It is also noted that judges presiding in UFCs are more experienced in handling fractious family matters and thus they are more likely to avert protracted litigation if the matter is not settled via ADR.