Large-scale international legal injuries are becoming increasingly prevalent in today’s globalized economy, whether they arise in the context of consumer, commercial, contract, tort or securities law, and countries are struggling to find appropriate means of providing collective redress, particularly in the cross-border context. The Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law (HiiL), along with the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS), will be responding to this new and developing challenge by convening a two-day event on the theme “Collective Redress in the Cross-Border Context: Arbitration, Litigation, Settlement and Beyond.” The event includes two different elements – a workshop on June 21-22, 2012, comprised of invited speakers from all over the world as well as a works-in-progress conference on June 20-21, 2012, designed to allow practitioners and scholars who are interested in the area of collective redress to discuss their work and ideas in the company of other experts in the field. Both events are organized by the Henry G. Schermers Fellow for 2012, Professor S.I. Strong of the University of Missouri School of Law. Persons interested in being considered as presenters for the works-in-progress conference should submit an abstract of no more than 500 words to Professor S.I. Strong at strongsi@missouri.edu on or before May 1, 2012. Decisions regarding accepted proposals will be made in early May, and those whose proposals are accepted for the works-in-progress conference will need to submit a draft paper by June 4, 2012, for discussion at the conference. All works-in-progress submissions should explore one or more of the various means of resolving collective injuries, including class and collective arbitration, mass arbitration and mass claims processes, class and collective litigation, and large-scale settlement and mediation, preferably in a cross-border context. Junior scholars in particular are encouraged to submit proposals for consideration. Persons presenting at the works-in-progress conference will have to bear their own costs, since there is no funding available to assist with travel and other expenses. The works-in-progress conference will be held on June 20 and 21, 2012, at NIAS, Meijboomlaan 1, 2242 PR Wassenaar, The Netherlands. Wassenaar is approximately 20 minutes from The Hague by car. The workshop of invited speakers will be held on June 21 and 22, 2012, also at NIAS. Both the Schermers workshop and the works-in-progress conference are open to the public, although advance registration is required. More information on both events is available at the HiiL website or from Professor Strong at strongsi@missouri.edu. Contact: Prof. S.I. Strong at strongsi@missouri.edu Deadline for proposals: May 1, 2012 For more on the Henry G. Schermers Fellowship at HiiL/NIAS, see: http://www.hiil.org/organ-bios/prof-s-i-strong

by Holly Hayes The University of Michigan Health System implemented a system to respond to patient injuries and medical malpractice claims and has “lowered its average monthly cost rates for liability, patient compensation, reserves, and non-compensation legal costs” as well as reducing “its average monthly rate of new claims from 7.03 to 4.52 claims per 100,000 patient encounters, decreased the average monthly rate of lawsuits from 2.13 to 0.75 per 100,000 patient encounters, and reduced the time between claim reporting and resolution”. The new system was implemented in mid-2001 and early 2002. The full report by Richard C. Boothman, Sarah J. Imhoff and Darrell A. Campbell JR can be seen in the Spring 2012 edition of “Frontiers of Health Services Management” an American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE) publication. Click here for ACHE member sign-in. At the beginning of the new approach, the University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) communicated with the plaintiffs’ bar and the Michigan courts. During the first year of the program, plaintiffs’ lawyers changed the way they approached UMHS about claims. Currently, they openly engage UMHS before any claims are asserted and before a suit is contemplated. This level of dialogue allows plaintiffs’ lawyers to make better choices about the cases filed and allows UMHS to resolve most claims without litigation. Before implementation of the new system, UMHS frequently settled non-meritorious cases (cases where UMHS felt the standard of care was met). Since the adoption of the principled approach, the non-meritorious settlements has decreased significantly. The meritorious claims, those where UMHS agrees the standard of care was not met, make up the majority of settlements. While the overall lower claims numbers result in claims savings, of major importance is the clarity from analysis of errors which presents opportunities for positive change across the system. The authors state, “We can delve deeply into the remaining claims for patterns to strategically target those areas in which errors have occurred to further reduce the number of claims through patient safety improvements.” In summary, The UMHS can no longer blame predatory lawyers and opportunistic patients for its malpractice losses. Isolating legitimate claims allows the health system to precisely examine patterns of behavior, staff members, and processes that signal fixable problems. The UMHS can at least put a partial price tag on the cost of failure to provide patients the quality of care they deserve. This engenders a sense of accountability and a greater sense that the health system can control its malpractice costs through improvements in patient safety. The link between patient safety and medical malpracatice has historiclly been elusive for most institutions; one of the most salient benefits derived from the Michigan Model is the graphic demonstration of that clear link, which is often obscured by the noise of litigation over complications that arrive in spite of reasonable care. We welcome your thoughts on the Michigan Model and the benefits of disclosure in health care. Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at holly@karlbayer.com.  

Following are this month’s recent developments in international arbitration law published by the International Law Office (free registration is required to view the articles): Malaysia: Court rules on enforcement of foreign arbitral award USA: Supreme Court reaffirms pro-arbitration stance India: Amendment of grounds in application for challenging arbitral awards Switzerland: Supreme Court saves pathological arbitration clause Turkey: Chamber of Commerce forms working group to amend arbitration rules United Kingdom: High Court rejects challenge to English arbitral award USA: Federal appeals court clarifies arbitrator ‘evident partiality’ standard Austria: Costly decision: court refuses to set aside arbitral award Greece: Formal validity of domestic arbitral award Malaysia: Court rules on competing arbitration clauses Netherlands: Interim measures prior to constitution of arbitral tribunal: a Dutch perspective Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a non-lawyer union representative could represent a grievant in a public labor arbitration. In Re Town of Little Compton, R.I. Supreme Court No. 2011–101-Appeal decided February 9, 2012. The court summarized the facts as follow: On July 8, 2010, the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (committee) conducted an investigational hearing in connection with a complaint filed with it by the Town of Little Compton (the town) against the Little Compton Firefighters Local 3957 (the union). In its complaint, the town contended that the union, or its representative, had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of G.L.1956 § 11–27–2, when the union allowed its nonlawyer business agent to represent it at a labor arbitration hearing. The committee’s report to this Court ultimately concluded that the union representative’s actions on behalf of the union constituted a “technical violation” of the statute governing the unauthorized practice of law. Mindful that this type of lay representation of unions in labor arbitrations is a common practice in Rhode Island, the committee petitioned this Court for guidance on how to proceed. After reviewing the committee record, the parties’ written submissions and oral arguments, and the many amicus briefs filed with the Court, we decline to limit this particular practice at this point in time for the reasons that follow. The court concluded: Accordingly, although the conduct involved in this case may be the practice of law pursuant to the language of § 11-27-2, because of the long-standing involvement of nonlawyer union employees at public grievance arbitrations, we will not limit this involvement at this time. We may in the future, however, and under the supervisory powers of the Court and with the full Court participating, decide the generic issue of nonlawyers participating in public grievance arbitrations. Any comments? Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law