Negotiation -- Mediation -- Arbitration -- Dispute resolution public policy. Bargaining in the shadow of the law : the case of divorce (1979) / Robert H. Mnookin and Lewis Kornhauser -- Machiavelli and the bar : ethical limitations on lying in negotiation (1980) / James J. White -- Toward another view of legal negotiation : the structure of problem solving (1984) / Carrie Menkel-Meadow -- The limits of integrative bargaining (1996) / Gerald B. Wetlaufer -- Mediation : its forms and functions (1971) / Lon L. Fuller -- The theory and practice of mediation : a reply to Professor Suskind (1981) / Joseph B. Stulberg -- The mediation alternative : process dangers for women (1991) / Trina Grillo -- Understanding mediators' orientations, strategies, and techniques : a grid for the perplexed (1996) / Leonard L. Riskin -- The new federal arbitration law (1926) / Julius Henry Cohen and Kenneth Dayton -- Commercial arbitration (1961) / Soia Mentschikoff -- Panacea or corporate tool? : debunking the Supreme Court's preference for binding arbitration (1996) / Jean R. Sternlight -- Employment arbitration : the repeat player effect (1997) / Lisa B. Bingham [Lisa Blomgren Amsler] -- Why the "haves" come out ahead : speculations on the limits of legal change (1974) / Marc Galanter -- Varieties of dispute processing (1976) / Frank E.A. Sander -- Against settlement (1984) / Owen M. Fiss -- Pursuing settlement in an adversary culture : a tale of innovation co-opted or "the law of ADR" (1991) / Carrie Menkel-Meadow.
Summary:
"As a law professor who teaches civil procedure and mediation, "Pursuing Settlement" reads like a history. Menkel-Meadow's uncanny accuracy in predicting the future, her prescient fears for where institutionalization of ADR might take us, and the remarkable continued relevance of her suggested reforms and accompanying experimentation combine to make an easy case for declaring her work foundational. She challenged us to consider "whether new forms of dispute resolution will transform the courts or whether, in a more likely scenario, the power of our adversarial system will co-opt and transform the innovations designed to redress some, if not all, of our legal ills." (p. 5) And she offered a qualified "no" to the query whether the growth and expansion of ADR within institutions has changed the consciousness of those who solve legal problems. What we now know With the benefit of 27 years of pursuing settlement in the shadow of litigation, what do we now know? Turns out, very little beyond what Menkel-Meadow presaged for us. Without question, I could now teach my entire procedure course using only case law decisions about disputed mediation issues (Coben, 2015). Exactly as Menkel-Meadow predicted, lawyers now routinely "use" mediation as the all-purpose excuse for all sorts of failures and omissions ranging from incomplete discovery and failing to designate trial experts to late-filed motions and untimely requests to amend pleadings (Cole et al., 2019, ch. 5). Lawyers (and clients) fail to realize the numerous ways mediation participation (or non-participation) influences litigation decisions quite distinct from the mediation itself. Courts have, among other things, treated the failure to participate in mediation as a factor in justifying: the pre-judgment attachment of property in aid of security, awards of prejudgment interest, and denials of continuance requests. Mediation behavior also is commonly invoked to support or deny awards of attorney's fees. Moreover, "traps for the unwary" abound (Coben, 2013). Parties have been deemed to have waived objections to venue and personal jurisdiction based on mediation participation. Requesting time to mediate has been deemed evidence of the lack of imminent harm to justify granting of a temporary restraining order. Information exchanged in mediation has been relied upon to establish or negate the amount in controversy necessary to justify federal court diversity jurisdiction and removal. State court mediation efforts have been cited as a reason for federal courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. In my home state of Minnesota, a settlement reached in mediation is evaluated under the law of contracts except that a mediated settlement must include the parties' affirmance that they intend the agreement to be binding upon them for the agreement actually to become binding - an affirmance that most first-year law students learn very early in their studies is akin to the "wax seal" or "ribbon" triviality no longer necessary to create a binding contract"-- Provided by publisher.
This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.