Med-Arb and the Legalization of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Brian Pappas, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law and Associate Director of Alternative Dispute Resolution at Michigan State University College of Law, has authored Med-Arb and the Legalization of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Volume 20, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, Spring 2015.  In his paper, Professor Pappas discusses the potential effects of incorporating Med-Arb in the dispute resolution process.

Here is the abstract:

Use of Med-Arb, a dispute resolution process incorporating both mediation and arbitration, is on the rise. Much of the recent interest in Med-Arb stems from the growing similarity between arbitration and litigation, and a resulting decline in Arbitration’s popularity. The formalization of mediation and arbitration provides incentives for combining the two and using Med-Arb to “correct” for the legalization of these ADR processes. Med-Arb is thus an effort to counterbalance arbitration as the “new litigation” and the weaknesses of the “evaluative” or “legalized” style of mediation. Despite efforts to provide flexibility and choice to prospective arbitrants, greater use of Med-Arb will harm both mediation and arbitration and will further the legalization of ADR. Future Med-Arb scholarship requires an examination of issues relating to the privatization of justice, effective dispute system design, and the implications for legal education.

The full text of the article may be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network.