A team of University of Texas at Dallas (UT Dallas) students placed first in the advocate/client division and won the Dan Stamatelos National Trophy for Advocacy at the National Mediation Tournament held November 4-6 at the Drake University Law School in Des Moines, Iowa. 32 teams from 19 schools located across the nation participated in the tournament. An additional UT Dallas team placed second in the advocate/client division, making UT Dallas the only school in attendance to have two teams make it to the final rounds. Last year, a UT Dallas team also took home top honors. The tournament is sponsored annually by The International Academy of Dispute Resolution “to emphasize alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques and to provide a counterbalance to Moot Court and Mock Trial, which emphasize the adversarial side of the law.” A mediation round consists of advocate/client pairs from two schools, and mediators from two other schools. The competitors are given a simulated dispute to settle. Advocacy teams are judged on their ability to state their positions but show flexibility in working toward a solution. Mediators are judged on their ability to react to the demands of the advocates and clients and to facilitate a possible settlement. The students who made up the teams that represent the University this year consisted of: Taylor Brigance, senior international political economy major. Dionna Budd, junior political science major. Shannon Bumpas, senior accounting major. Ryan Campbell, senior interdisciplinary studies major. Dina Shahrokhi, senior political science major. Richard Stees, senior business administration major. Last year the UT Dallas team of Shahrokhi, Bumpas and Megan Newman (BA ’10) won the national championship in the advocate/client division. Disputing would like extend our to congratulations to the UT Dallas teams. You may read more about the award here. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, mediation
Continue reading...by Holly Hayes This week, a Wall Street Journal Health Blog headline stated, “Big Challenge for Mediation in Medical Malpractice: Doctor Participation.” The post discussed a study published in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law which reviewed 31 cases from New York City non-profit hospitals. The study found that although mediation in a medical malpractice context has potential benefits, no physicians participated in the cases. The authors of the study said the lack of physician participation, misses some opportunities — first, to ‘repair the relationship between human beings,’ that is, the physician and the patient (or family of the patient), Carol Liebman, co-author of the study, a professor of law at Columbia Law School and director of the school’s mediation clinic, tells the Health Blog. It also misses the chance to collect information from patients, families and physicians to fill in the blanks of what actually happened, and if there was an error, to figure out how to prevent it from happening again, she says. The mediation approach used in the study holds that any information important to someone at the table, not just what is legally relevant, can be discussed. (Information disclosed during mediation is confidential.) When you don’t have the involvement of “the person who is involved in these decisions, day in and day out, you don’t get valuable information,” Liebman says. “A lawyer’s job is to defend the case, not to reshape policy.” Mediation, she says, offers the opportunity to improve patient safety in a way litigation cannot. Of the 31 cases reviewed, 16 settled at mediation, five settled after mediation and 10 were not settled. The lawyers involved stated a busy schedule prevented physicians from participating in the mediations. Liebman, however, wonders if physicians were discouraged from attending by lawyers and administrators who might be looking ahead to the possibility of a trial. What do you think? 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. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, mediation
Continue reading...Mark your calendars! The Texas Bar CLE presents the Alternative Dispute Resolution Course 2011, Tactical Interventions in Mediation: Preventing Bad Settlement Decisions and Impasse Minute By Minute, cosponsored by The Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the State Bar of Texas. The live conference will take place in Houston on January 28, 2011. A video conference will be available in San Antonio on March 4, 2011. Discussion topics will include: Neuro-science and Negotiation Skills Dealing with Emotions in Peacemaking Dealing with Deeply Held Beliefs Using Neuro-science and Negotiation Skills to Get the Deal Done [Avoid Impasse] The featured speaker will be Douglas E. Noll, a “nationally recognized author, speaker and lecturer on advanced peacemaking and mediation theory and practice.” According to the brochure, This highly interactive day with Doug Noll will help you recognize what is happening and equip you with effective tools to use in the moment. Expect teams of three and four learning, watching and practicing useful skills. The course brochure is available here. You may register via mail, fax, telephone or online. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, mediation, arbitration
Continue reading...On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Lagstein, 10-534. The case sought to address whether a “manifest disregard of the law” standard of review for arbitration awards remains after the Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C v. Mattell, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008). In the case, Lagstein, a medical doctor, filed a claim for disability benefits under a policy he purchased from Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (Lloyd’s). After two years without payment on his claim, Lagstein filed a lawsuit in federal court. A district court stayed the case and the parties entered into binding arbitration pursuant to the terms of the disability policy. A three-member arbitration panel awarded Lagstein “full policy benefits, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages, all of which totaled more than six million dollars.” The district court refused to confirm the arbitral award, however, and vacated it on the grounds the award was excessive and in manifest disregard of the law. Additionally, the district court vacated the punitive damages award because the arbitral “panel lacked jurisdiction to enter it after the panel had entered its compensatory award.” Lagstein appealed the district court’s vacatur of the arbitral award. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s vacatur and remanded the case. According to Lloyd’s petition for certiorari, (from SCOTUSblog) the questions presented included: 1. (a) Whether review of an arbitration award for “manifest disregard of the law” or “complete irrationality” remains available after Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), a question that this Court again expressly reserved in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010), and on which there is a clear Circuit conflict; and (b) If such review is available, may a reviewing court determine whether an award is irrational under the totality of the circumstances (as the district court did here and as the Second Circuit permits), or are awards impregnable unless it is “clear from the record that the arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it” (as the Ninth Circuit below held). 2. Whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires vacatur of an arbitral award issued by arbitrators who failed to disclose material facts bearing on their integrity and their relationships with each other, in violation of the applicable rules governing arbitrations, or (as the Ninth Circuit held) are arbitrators required to disclose only their relationships with the parties and counsel, with the burden to investigate and unearth other material facts falling on the parties. 3. Whether arbitrators “exceed their powers” within the meaning of Section 10(a)(4) of the FAA when they issue an arbitral award after the deadline expressly agreed to by the parties in accordance with the governing arbitration rules. Because the Supreme Court denied Lloyd’s certiorari petition, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion will stand. Disputing has discussed the implications of Hall Street Associates many times since it was decided. You may read some of those posts here, here, here and here. We would love to hear your thoughts. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration
Continue reading...Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.
To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.
Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.
To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.