Jose Antonio Garcia Alvaro, de Arbitraje y Mediación (ARyMe) reporta lo siguiente: Cataluña se adelantó –y sigue siendo objetivamente la Comunidad más avanzada y atrevida en materia de mediación de España—, pero Valladolid le sigue la pista en materia de mediación civil, si bien a nivel de proyecto inicial piloto de mediación civil adscrito inicialmente a dos juzgados. Así, Valladolid ha obtenido el visto bueno del Consejo General del Poder Judicial de España para poner en marcha la mediación civil como programa piloto anexo a los tribunales de esta ciudad. El principal impulsor de esta valiosa iniciativa fue, y es, el Presidente de la Audiencia Provincial de Valladolid, D. Feliciano Trebolle. Su propuesta fue, y es apoyada por Dª Margarita Uría, Vocal del CGPJ, que hizo hincapié en la novedad del programa y en la trayectoria de Cataluña en este ámbito. ¿Qué se pretende? A nivel de programa piloto no puede ser la pretensión tanto la “descarga a los tribunales”, como acercar la mediación a los justiciables, que de otra manera ni se plantearían la mediación por ignorancia sobre la existencia de la mediación como alternativa. Dos mil diez y esta es la realidad en España: ignorancia casi absoluta sobre mediación civil. Programas piloto de esta naturaleza cumplen con las Directivas de la UE sobre mediación de un lado; de otro, contribuyen a la modernización de la Justicia, que no todo han de ser ordenadores basados en z/OS mainframe; por último, se acostumbra a la Ciudadanía a, cuando menos, contemplar alternativas al juicio ordinario. Estos tres elementos serán los que en su día –y a largo plazo— contribuyan a la “descarga” de asuntos pendientes. Las Juzgados que se estrenarán en este programa piloto serán los de Primera Instancia 5 y 7. Como en todo programa piloto de esta naturaleza, serán los jueces quienes decidan qué asuntos en su opinión son idóneos para la mediación. Sólo será exigible que tras esta opinión inicial del Juez, las partes quieran someterse voluntariamente a un proceso de mediación. A diferencia de un creciente número de países, España no se atreve con la mediación prejudicial obligatoria, ni tan siquiera en programas piloto. La naturaleza de los asuntos que se someterán inicialmente a mediación serán “sencillos”, propios de juicios verbales, monitorios de muy poca cuantía, y relacionados generalmente con impagos de créditos y deudas en general, asuntos hereditarios, de comunidades de vecinos, etc.; es decir, asuntos civiles cotidianos, por expresarlo de alguna manera carente de tecnicismo. Se puede, o no, estar de acuerdo con la mediación como elemento reconstructor de la paz social, un eslogan relativamente reciente y persistente en sociedades que todavía están en fase de venta de las bondades de la mediación. Realmente, se trata de resolver disputas por una vía más sencilla, ágil y comprensible en la que las partes retoman el protagonismo, que en cierta manera ceden a los tribunales por el mero hecho de demandar lo que sea de quien sea. Lo de “hacia la Paz Social”, “cultura del acuerdo” y similares, es generalmente más propio de personas mediadoras que de personas mediadas hoy por hoy Margarita Uría insta al Ministerio de Justicia para que redacte/diseñe un “estatuto del mediador” con objeto de armonizar la legislación en materia de mediación en la totalidad de España. Quizás sea demasiado pronto, porque tiene generalmente poco sentido legislar lo que apenas se usa, a menos que el aburrimiento lleve miradas deambulantes a este ámbito. Un programa piloto es una taza; un estatuto corre el peligro de ser taza y media a destiempo. Quizás sea más acertado esperar y ver qué sucede, qué derroteros toma la mediación civil, qué elementos patológicos presenta, o no presenta, en nuestra realidad regional y nacional, que no en la realidad de ensayistas expertos tan adelantados en el camino hacia la mediación –no es sorna— que la sociedad civil ni les ven, ni les leen, ni les entienden. De otro modo, a escribir legislación de despacho, que es barato. ¿Es barato? ¿Es, sobre todo, aconsejable? Es de recordar el advenimiento de ODR a finales de los noventa y principios de la primera década de 2000. No ajeno a este fenómeno, el Colegio Federal de Abogados de los Estados Unidos de América se preguntó si merecía la pena regular o recomendar la legislación de esta forma de presentar ADR. Se contestó así mismo que no, que era demasiado pronto, que ninguna entidad ODR había madurado, que el modelo de negocio era embrionario, y que regular/legislar sería equivalente a no poder nunca comprobar desde una prudente distancia si la criatura que da sus primeros pasos se sostiene, o se cae. Optaron por dejar crecer a la criatura desde la vigilancia, pero sin reglas, aún habiendo podido elucubrar contra qué se golpearía, o qué podía haber roto, que es parte de la esencia de la mentalidad jurídica “continental”. En definitiva, a veces parece aconsejable animar y dejar hacer; la sorpresa no siempre ha de ser decepcionante, que es parte de la esencia de la mentalidad jurídica anglosajona. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law

Jose Antonio Garcia Alvaro from ADR Resources (ARyME) reports: In Spain, Catalonia has always been a step ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to mediation. Catalonia was the first region in the country to pass an act regulating family mediation, and the first ever to legislate civil mediation at large. Valladolid (a province of the larger Castilla-León region) follows suit, and has decided to pilot-test a court-annexed program on civil mediation. Hon. Feliciano Trebolle, President of the Audiencia Provincial of Valladolid has spearheaded this project, and Ms. Margarita Uría, of Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary, has supported it enthusiastically. What is the point of this pilot project?, What does it intend to accomplish? As a pilot project its intention cannot be “alleviating perennially overburdened courts”, as much as binging mediation to Valladolid’s citizens, to its civil society, a society that does not even know what mediation actually is. In fact, most of Spain, today in 2010, does not know that mediation can be alternative to litigation because almost no one has explained its nature and usefulness. Pilot programs of this nature are useful on many accounts. First, promoting mediation in civil matters is in keeping with European Union Directives in this area. Second, mediation can help modernize the Justice system in Spain, as not all that is needed are main-frame, z/OS managed computer systems. Third, civil mediation pilot projects will touch some who will hopefully talk to others, thus putting mediation on the larger civil map. The combination of all three collateral consequences may just alleviate that overburdened Judiciary, in time. The pilot program will start this month of January in two First Instance Courts in Valladolid. This is the jurisdictional level where citizens go to resolve minor civil disputes regarding small loans, neighbor relations, hereditary disputes, and the like. Justices will have full discretion to choose which cases they think would be best suited for mediation. However, Judges will not be allowed to mandate that parties mediate. The basis of the pilot program requires the consent of the parties. There is entirely too much talk about mediation as some sort of “tool that brings about social harmony and peace”, instead of being sold as what is: a worthy, useful alternative to litigation. This kind of talk tends to be found in societies where mediation is not established. Additionally, slogans of “social peace through mediation” is more mediator talk than party talk, as citizens rarely endeavor to consciously contribute to creating a culture of anything, but rather want their disputes resolved in a comprehensible, sensible, professional, time and cost-efficient manner. Ms. Margarita Uría, of the Judiciary of Spain, is thrilled, too thrilled. The pilot project has not yet begun, and Ms. Uría is already calling to draft a “mediator statute to harmonize mediation legislation throughout Spain”. Mind you, family mediation laws are barely 10 years old; most are less than five years old. Mediation for civil matters outside family-related disputes is practically non-existent. Commercial mediation does not exist for all practical purposes. Just as you can ban smoking in countries whose population can’t afford Marlboro’s –meaning that that there is no smoking to begin with—on account that it is the “modern thing to do”, it is obvious that you can legislate mediation in countries with little or no mediation tradition. This might be a problem, because legislation for the sake of legislation pleases the supply side of the equation at best (mediators), not so much the demand side, civil society, that needs time to assimilate a new way to resolve disputes. Pilot mediation programs do build a culture of mediation; far-reaching mediation legislation may just hinder its growth if untimely passed. Just about every country has mediation experts –no cynicism intended—but in some countries (Spain included), Legislatures should wait and see instead of acting on sound-bites, slogans and essays on how wonderful mediation is in countries thousands of miles away. Why Spain calls for country-wide mediation legislation on account of a pilot that has not yet kicked in appears closer to zeal than to reason. Does anybody remember the advent of ODR in the US, back not so long ago? Aware of this trend, the ABA thought about regulation. Then they stopped cold, and issued recommendations recognizing that ODR was too immature to be legislated and/or formally regulated, arguing that ODR organizations needed time to find out if they had a viable business model, and that it was wiser to wait and see how it matured on the supply and demand sides. There is a fundamental difference between Continental/Roman and Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions. While the former seems to always be seeking perfect, air-tight legislation in an intellectual vacuum, the latter is more prone to let the reality of disputes shape, through case law, laws that in a Roman-based legal tradition would be labeled incomplete. There seems to be no reason today in Spain to try harmonizing non-existing legislation for the sake of it. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law

The following bills relating to alternative dispute resolution were introduced by the 111st Congress. Click on the bill number to read its text and on the status link to find the bill’s most recent legislative action. Stay tuned to Disputing for more legislative updates! Bills that passed: “An Act Making Appropriations for the Department of Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010, and for Other Purposes” contains an amendment (the “Franken Amendment“) that bans funds to defense contractors who require workers (employees and independent contractors) to arbitrate “any claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” (H.R. 3326 ; Amendment; Senator Franken’s video is here) H.R. 3326 was signed by President Barack Obama and became law on December 19, 2009. Final version is here and major actions are here. Also, find guest-post by F. Peter Phillips here and here. [UPDATE] The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 3288), a spending bill signed into law by President Obama on December 16, 2009, includes a provision under which owners of automobile dealerships can use a binding arbitration process administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to seek reinstatement if their businesses were closed by automobile manufacturers during the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Read our posts here and here. Find out more details at the AAA website. A recent WSJ article is here. Bills still pending: The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009 would ban mandatory pre-dispute arbitration in employment, consumer, and franchise contracts. Senate version: S. 931 and Status. House version: H.R. 1020 and Status. The Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 would amend the National Labor Relations Act to require first mediation and then binding arbitration if both parties are unable to reach an agreement within a certain time frame. Senate version: S. 560 and Status. House version: H.R. 1409 and Status. The Payday Loan Reform Act of 2009 would amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish additional payday loan requirements to protect consumers. This bill prohibits a mandatory arbitration clause that is “oppressive, unfair, unconscionable, or substantially in derogation of the rights of consumers.” H.R. 1214 and Status. The Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2009 would render pre-dispute arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts unenforceable. S. 512 and Status. House version: H.R. 1237 and Status. The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009 would amend the Truth in Lending Act of 1968. The bill provides that “[n]o residential mortgage loan and no extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan secured by the principal dwelling of the consumer, other than a reverse mortgage may include terms which require arbitration of any other nonjudicial procedure as the method for resolving any controversy.” H.R. 1728 and Status. The Labor Relations First Contract Negotiations Act of 2009 would amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the arbitration of initial contract negotiation disputes. H.R. 243 and Status. The Consumer Fairness Act of 2009 would treat arbitration clauses which are unilaterally imposed on consumers as an unfair and deceptive trade practice and prohibit their use in consumer transactions. H.R. 991 and Status. The Preserving Homes and Communities Act of 2009 would require certain mortgagees to make loan modifications, establish a grant program for state and local government mediation programs, and create databases on foreclosures. S. 1731 and Status. The Conflict Resolution and Mediation Act of 2009 would provide assistance to local educational agencies for the prevention and reduction of conflict and violence. H.R. 4000 and Status. The Agricultural Credit Act of 2009 would reauthorize state agricultural mediation programs under title V of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. H.R. 3509 and Status. The Department of Peace Act of 2009 would establish a Department of Peace that would take a proactive, strategic approach in the development of policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict. H.R.808 and Status. The Rape Victims Act of 2009 provides that employment-related arbitration agreements shall not be enforceable with respect to any claim related to a tort arising out of rape. S. 2915 and Status. The Foreclosure Mandatory Mediation Act of 2009 would require lenders of loans with Federal guarantees or Federal insurance to consent to mandatory mediation. S. 2912 and Status. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law

by Holly Hayes I recently conducted a Q & A via email with Richard J. Webb (pictured left) who writes the Healthcare Neutral Blog. Mr. Webb is a graduate of Yale University (B.A., cum laude, 1975) and the Duke University School of Law (J.D. 1978). His additional alternative dispute resolution training currently amounts to 177 hours of classroom time, including 60 hours of advanced mediation courses at the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. He has received a peer review rating of AV from Martindale-Hubbell, and has been recognized as a New Jersey SuperLawyer in the field of healthcare law. 1. On your website, Healthcare Neutral ADR Blog, you state, “the effective use of ADR in healthcare disputes requires combined expertise in both the process of dispute resolution and the subject matter giving rise to the conflict.” Can you talk more about that? Some would argue that ADR is primarily about process and communication skills, so that a neutral, particularly in mediation, need not know anything about the substantive issues underlying the dispute in question. In the healthcare field, I strongly disagree. (Note that I am referring here to disputes in which the healthcare context is important, and not to disputes that transcend the industry setting, e.g., a zoning dispute involving construction of a hospital’s parking garage.) The complexity of the legal and regulatory issues as well as the business landscape require the neutral to have subject matter expertise if evaluative techniques are to be used effectively. The credibility of the neutral with the parties also depends upon developing confidence in the neutral’s judgment, something that is difficult when the neutral can’t even speak the parties’ language. On the other hand, neutrals with health law expertise but no meaningful training or experience in ADR add little to what the parties and their counsel already have in the room. Remember, too, that efficiency is a major goal of ADR, one that is difficult to reach if the neutral requires on the job training in the process or the subject matter. 2. What was your inspiration for moving into the healthcare ADR field? About ten years ago, having been in legal practice for twenty years, I became increasingly disenchanted with the traditional litigation process as the “standard” or “accepted” means of resolving conflicts. I began to study ADR developments and took some courses, and soon realized that my field of practice, healthcare law, was fertile ground for the use of ADR. While continuing my legal practice, I then charted a course of ADR training and experiential opportunities that culminated in forming Healthcare Neutral, LLC in 2007. 3. What have been your greatest challenges in the healthcare ADR field? Healthcare ADR remains a relatively new field, and many of the parties in a position to utilize ADR have yet to embrace it. With the exception of some “mature” markets around the country, achieving engagement as a neutral requires not only convincing parties that you are a qualified neutral, but first getting them to understand why they should use ADR at all. This is the main reason I write my blog: to build awareness of the subject and my commitment to it. Of course, with that comes the challenge of time – there are only so many hours in the day. 4. Could you talk about the evolution of healthcare mediation over your 30 years of legal practice in the field? I have noticed a few things. First, the use of ADR provisions in all types of agreements written in the field has gone from being an exception to the rule. Lawyers (myself included) 30 years ago looked suspiciously at ADR provisions because they threatened to take what we thought were clearly written contract provisions and turn them over to some unknown neutral, rather than allowing a judge to simply apply the law we all knew. Experience with some real judges’ decisions and the frustrations arising from the litigation process opened our minds. In this same period, the ADR movement grew to include a core of dedicated academics, trainers and practitioners who presented the notion of ADR as a real alternative to courtroom litigation. Having said this, there remains some distance to go before ADR is not only recognized in the drafting of agreements, but also truly embraced by the legal community. For example, the bulk of “healthcare mediation” today occurs in the form of post complaint settlement conferences. These are useful, but don’t reach the potential benefits that mediation can offer. 5. Is there a particular style of mediation, in your experience, that works best in healthcare? I assume you refer to what’s often called facilitative v. evaluative v. transformative mediation. Any given case may call out for one of these techniques to be used primarily, but in general, I find that elements of all three have value in most mediations. The art is in when to employ them. In this regard, healthcare disputes are no different than any other. 6. How might the new Joint Commission standards, regarding a hospital Code of Conduct, impact ADR or mediation in healthcare? A new Joint Commission standard targeting disruptive behavior went into effect last year. It requires all hospitals to have in place a code of conduct that will define the scope of acceptable behavior by all hospital personnel (including medical staff), and provide for a process by which unacceptable behavior will be addressed. A separate, new Joint Commission leadership standard requires hospital boards, medical staff and senior management to develop a process to manage conflict among these leadership groups and implement it when needed. Both initiatives effectively mandate an “alternative” dispute resolution process. This is a great development for healthcare ADR. 7. Are there instances in healthcare when you think mediation is not appropriate? Very few disputes, in or outside of healthcare, would not benefit from mediation. One that comes to mind is a case in which one (or both) of the parties needs a judicial determination to establish […]