We invite you to read the Harvard Negotiation Law Review lead article entitled “Decisional Errors – On the Field, On the Bench, In Negotiations” written by Disputing’s blog contributor Don Philbin. Needless to say, anything Don writes is worth reading. Find the full article here. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, negotiations
Continue reading...We just found out that our Disputing post
Continue reading...By Peter S. Vogel Allison O. Skinner is an attorney and full-time mediator at Sirote & Permutt and has written two outstanding articles about resolving eDiscovery disputes as a Mediator to develop a “Mediated Discovery Plan.” What a great way to help parties take advantage of the mediation process to reduce the out of control costs of eDiscovery and at the same time reach an amicable plan to deal with eDiscovery. Allison has setup a great model that will surely be widely adopted. Allison’s Strategy In a great article entitled “The Role of the Mediation for ESI (Electronically Stored Information) Disputes” Allison describes a straight-forward roadmap of how mediation can resolve eDiscovery disputes. She lists a number of benefits: self-direct workable solutions, define scope parameters, determine relevancy, create timelines for production or “e-depositions,” propose confidential compromises, create efficiencies with a mutual discovery plan, set guidelines for asserting violations of the plan, create boundaries for preservation, avoid spoliation pitfalls, manage protection of privileged information, maintain credibility with the court, avoid court-imposed sanctions, and allocate costs. “How to Prepare an E-Mediation Statement for Resolving E-Discovery Disputes” will help all lawyers who want to resolve eDiscovery disputes using the mediation process, and allowing Judges to not have to split the baby on ESI which they may not even understand. eMediation Will Work if the Mediators Understand ESI Disputes Allison’s great idea is destine to change ESI disputes, but only if the Mediators understand eDiscovery. To be successful with eMediation the Mediator must be able to communicate clearly and simply with the IT folks who manage the ESI, and at the same time Mediator can help educate the lawyers about what makes sense in their case. Before Judges appoint Mediators (and lawyers who volunteer names of Mediators) a determination should be made if the proposed Mediator has sufficient the IT technical skills and eDiscovery experience to make eMediation a successful effort. Stay tuned for Allison’s plan to revolutionize eDiscovery!!! Technorati Tags: ADR, law, mediation, e-discovery Peter S. Vogel is a trial partner at Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP where he is Chair of the Electronic Discovery Group and Co-Chair of the Technology Industry Team. Before practicing law he worked as a computer programmer, received a Masters in Computer Science, and taught graduate courses in information systems. For 12 years he served as the founding Chair of the Texas Supreme Court on Judicial Information Technology which is responsible for helping automate the Texas court system and putting Internet on the desktops of all 3,200 judges. Peter has taught courses on the Law of eCommerce at the SMU Dedman School of Law since 2000. Many of Peter’s topics are discussed on his blog www.vogelitlawblog.com.
Continue reading...Page Perry’s Investment Fraud Lawyer Blog featured last week an interesting and thoughtful post about securities arbitration. A federal judge in Atlanta recently dismissed a class action lawsuit brought against SunTrust for fraud in the sale of auction rate securities. The case was not dismissed on the merits of investors’ claims against SunTrust, but based on technical legal requirements about what it takes to plead a claim. Those requirements are strict in securities fraud cases that get filed in federal court, especially class actions, but they do not apply to cases that get filed in arbitration. Auction rate securities are fixed-income investments in which interest or dividends are set by periodic auctions. Typically, such securities were widely marketed as conservative cash equivalents, but the broker-dealers who sold them did not disclose that their liquidity was contingent upon the success of auctions that were in turn dependent upon the financial support of the brokerages and investment banks that ran the auctions. When the auctions for these securities froze in February 2008, thousands of investors were left holding over $300 billion in illiquid securities. Many investors were eventually able to cash out due to regulatory settlements and redemptions, while others have sold their securities at a deep discount on the secondary market. “But many investors are still unable to get access to their money,” says attorney Craig T. Jones, who represents a number of investors in auction rate securities case, “and even those who have obtained partial liquidity through regulatory settlements or secondary market sales have valid legal claims for their losses.” Jones’ firm, Page Perry LLC of Atlanta, has been filing individual arbitrations of behalf of most investors, including those who were defrauded into buying auction rate securities without full disclosure of the risks. Read more here.
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.