Symposium on Dispute Resolution in the Courts
Wednesday, April 18th, 2012
Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill
Washington, DC
Cosponsored by the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution
and the
ABA Criminal Justice Section
Draft Agenda as of January 25, 2012
Welcome 9:30 am – 9:45 am
Symposium Plenary 9:45 am - 11:00 am
Court Trends Affecting the Development of ADR
In this plenary session, Ms. Amy McDowell, one of the editors of the National Center for State Courts’ publication Future Trends in State Courts, and Ms. Donna Stienstra, who has conducted numerous studies on civil case management and dispute resolution for the Federal Judicial Center, will share information about trends facing the state and federal courts and give us their views about how those trends may affect court ADR programs. Recent years have witnessed severe cutbacks in the budgets of many state courts as they struggle to manage dynamic caseloads and meet community needs. Other trends in state courts include reengineering programs, demands for instantaneous access to information via social media, judicial education initiatives, the rise of specialty courts, and efforts to enhance court outreach to the community. The federal courts have not faced the severe cutbacks and crises of many state courts, but they, too, are managing their caseloads under much more difficult circumstances. Trends facing the federal courts include a changing caseload composition (including the rapidly rising prisoner and non-prisoner pro se caseloads), calls for better judicial case management, a persistent failure to create new judgeships or fill judicial vacancies, and the expected retirement of large numbers of judges and their replacement with judges who have practiced in quite different legal and technology environments. The speakers will discuss what impacts on court ADR programs can be anticipated from these court trends and how ADR programs can help courts adjust to the “new normal.”
Amy McDowell, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA
Donna Stienstra, Federal Judicial Center, Washington, DC
Concurrent Series 1 11:30 am – 1:00 pm
Foreclosure Mediation 2.0
Foreclosure mediation programs first appeared around 2008, when the housing crisis began to escalate. First connected to the courts, foreclosure mediation programs can now be found in judicial and non-judicial foreclosure states, with a plethora of processes and participants comprising the programs. This distinguished panel, which includes representatives from Nevada, Florida, D.C., Connecticut, and Philadelphia, will discuss what lessons they learned in the first few years and how new programs have incorporated best practices into their design. They will highlight recent studies about foreclosure mediation and will discuss foreclosure mediation's continued proliferation in a variety of states and municipalities. Special attention will be given to how mediation's core values play out in the foreclosure context. Participants will also discuss what the future holds for foreclosure mediation and mitigation programs.
Verise V. Campbell, Deputy Director, State of Nevada Foreclosure Mediation Program, Las Vegas, NV
Annette M. Rizzo, Presiding Judge over the Philadelphia Court of Common Please Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Program, Philadelphia, PA
Kahlill Palmer, Foreclosure Mediation Program Manager and a mediator with the Center for Dispute Settlement, Washington, DC,
Thomas H. Bateman, civil mediator and former Circuit Judge, Second Judicial Circuit of Florida, Tallahassee, FL
Roberta Palmer, Court Annexed Mediation Program Manager, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch Superior Court Operations Unit, Hartford, CT
Susan Yates, Resolution Systems Institute, Chicago, IL
Mediating Behind Bars: ADR Options in Prisoner Civil Rights Cases
This program provides a forum for discussing the benefits of using ADR options in federal court prisoner civil rights cases. The pro se prisoner filings in the District Courts continue to increase each year. Currently, the pro se filings in most District Courts represent 35-45% of the overall yearly filings. This program will address best practices and recommendations for a prisoner ADR program: (1) District Courts should develop mediation, early neutral evaluation, and other alternative dispute resolution methods in pro se prisoner cases; (2) District Courts should adopt a formal program for the appointment of pro bono counsel, including the use of limited representation, advisory counseling, and attorney admission funds to increase pro bono representation in prisoner ADR proceedings; and (3) District Courts should convene a quarterly meeting of representatives from state correctional departments to create a settlement authority mechanism and establish a protocol for convening ADR proceedings in prisons. Districts considering the use of a Prisoner ADR Program are encouraged to implement three prongs: (1) initial screening of prisoner pro se cases to determine the appropriate form of ADR; (2) appointment of pro bono counsel: and (3) the use of mediators who develop skills in addressing issues affecting prisoners.
Denise M. Asper, Prison Litigation Project Director, Ninth Circuit Officeof the Circuit Executive, San Francisco, CA
Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke, District of Nevada, Reno, NV
Chief Magistrate Judge Candy Dale, District of Idaho, Boise, ID
Sujean Park, ADR and Pro Bono Program Director, Eastern District of California, Sacramento, CA
Paul Panther, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Inmate Litigation, Boise, ID
Symposium Lunch 1:00 pm – 1:45 pm
Concurrent Series 2 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm
Innovative Approach to Cost-Benefit/Effectiveness Analysis: An Evaluation of ADR in Maryland Courts
Maryland courts employ mediation from the lowest levels in the District Court to the second highest court in the state, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. Despite its use, little in-depth analysis has occurred to explore the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of ADR supported by the Maryland Judiciary. In 2010 the Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Research and Development Department brought together a group of court-ADR stakeholders and researchers to define a comprehensive policy and program analysis of the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of ADR supported by the Maryland Judiciary. This groundbreaking research project addresses three goals: 1. A comprehensive cost benefit analysis of ADR in 4 settings; 2. An assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of various ADR approaches and systems in 5 settings; and 3. An understanding of the role of ADR and ADR programs throughout Maryland and their role in promoting access to justice. This presentation will discuss the development of the research design and methodology and how the research addresses gaps in existing studies. The panel of researchers will provide information on the current status of the research, lessons learned, and data collection.
Toby Guerin, Center for Dispute Resolution at University of Maryland Carey School of Law, Baltimore, MD
Brian Polkinghorn, Center for Conflict Resolution Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD
Lorig Charkoudian, Community Mediation Maryland, Glen Burnie, MD
E. Patrick McDermott, Center for Conflict Resolution Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD
Criminal Alternative Dispute Resolution and Restorative Justice Programs: Perspectives From the Field
The last decade has witnessed a marked increase in the use of ADR and restorative justice tools in the criminal law arena. Community-based victim-offender mediation programs, problem-solving courts, and re-entry and rehabilitation programs all utilize ADR and restorative justice strategies to improve the criminal justice system. This panel will highlight and explore successful criminal ADR and restorative justice programs in operation in a variety of contexts across the country. Speakers will include representatives from courts, criminal justice agencies, academia, and community ADR organizations.
Roger Fairfax, George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC
Tess Lopez, Tess Lopez Sentencing Consulting, Novato, CA
Christine Butera-Ortiz, U.S. Probation Office, Northern District of California, Santa Rosa, CA
John McCarthy, State's Attorney's Office for Montgomery County, Maryland, Rockville, Maryland
Michael O'Hear, Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, WI
Joseph Spero, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco, CA
