by Holly Hayes A blog we like, Franklin Solutions, posted about the American Health Lawyers Association healthcare mediation training on February 6 and 7, 2012, in Orlando, Florida. The course is two parts: Part I is taught by Jane Conard (see Disputing blog posts here ) and Jeanne Franklin and is an Introduction to the Basics of Mediation training. The course “will introduce theory, principles, process steps, essential skills and ethical requirements in mediation to those who are considering service as a mediator”. Part II is titled an Introduction to Interest Based Medical Malpractice Mediation and is taught by Chris Stern Hyman, a medmal mediator. The AHLA website describes Part II training as “A specific application of mediation to medical malpractice claims and lawsuits, this training will introduce how interest-based mediators proceed on the principle that the mediation is not simply bargaining for money and as a result use techniques to create greater satisfaction for the parties and promote resolution.” Technorati Tags: Healthcare 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.  

We recently came across an interesting article published at Lexology. The piece, written by Mayer Brown, LLP partner William H. Knull, III, is entitled “Ten Hallmarks of Effective Arbitration Agreements with Sovereigns and State Entities.” Here is an excerpt: Arbitrating with sovereigns involves all of the issues inherent in proceedings between private entities plus a variety of specialized concerns. This article lists 10 of the most critical terms to ensure a level playing field in resolving a dispute with a sovereign party. Unambiguous agreement to submit to arbitration. (Example: “Any dispute arising out of or relating to this agreement shall be finally resolved by arbitration …”.) Explicit agreement to submit to arbitration signed by any governmental entity that may be necessary to the dispute or to enforcement of the award, including the ultimate sovereign if necessary under the circumstances. Enforcement against non-signatories cannot be presumed. Strict compliance with the laws of the sovereign as to procedures to ensure that the substantive agreement, the agreement to arbitrate and the waiver of sovereign immunity by each signatory are all authorized under the sovereign’s constitution, laws and regulations. This should include, if necessary, approval by the legislature, cabinet of ministers or other ultimate authority. Specification of the site of the arbitration. This should be carefully chosen for its political neutrality, the quality and reliability of its arbitration jurisprudence and the respect that its courts have for the arbitral process. If at all possible, the arbitration site should not be in the country of the counterparty. Read the rest of the Hallmarks here. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

Via the Court ADR Connection Resolution Systems Institute Resource Center, we learned about a study conducted last year by the Michigan State Court Administrative Office, Office of Dispute Resolution. The study, entitled “Mediation After Case Evaluation: A Caseflow Study of Mediating Cases Evaluated Under $25,000,” found that settlement rates at mediation were higher when all summary disposition motions were decided prior to mediation than when a summary disposition motion was pending. Cases with trial dates scheduled early did not have higher settlement rates than cases without a trial date scheduled early. You may download the full study here.

Our blog contributor professor S.I.Strong has just published the article “Class and Collective Relief in the Cross-Border Context: A Possible Role for the Permanent Court of Arbitration.” The piece compares the benefits of large-scale litigation and large-scale arbitration in the cross-border context, and considers whether there is a role that the Permanent Court of Arbitration can play in resolving mass disputes of this type. Here is the abstract: Collective redress of mass legal injuries is a topic of concern in numerous countries around the world, with cross-border disputes giving rise to particular problems due to actual and perceived clashes of law, policy and practice. This article considers whether arbitration might be preferable to litigation as a means of resolving large-scale international disputes. After considering how each procedure handles issues involving jurisdiction, conflict of laws, procedure and enforcement, the article concludes that class and collective arbitration may be in many ways superior to similar actions in court. The article ends with a discussion of the role that the Permanent Court of Arbitration might play in the development of this area of law. This article appears in 23 The Hague Yearbook of International Law 2010, 113 (2011). Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration