Over the years, a common theme heard among litigators after a grueling case where one side loses is that there must be a better way to manage disputes. In the mid -1970s, legal scholars from around the nation came together to review ways to make the legal process more user-friendly and accessible. They concluded, among other things, that a multi-door courthouse with processes that were designed to fit the forum to the dispute might be worth considering.

A recent discussion among a seasoned group of neutrals about the struggles of the professional mediator caught my eye. Some complained that the trend in litigated cases was to reduce the value of the mediator to a commodity, due to the constraints put on them by the litigants who were not process oriented.

Amalia D. Kessler, Lewis Talbot and Nadine Hearn Shelton Professor of International Legal Studies and Professor (by courtesy) of History at Stanford University, has authored “Arbitration and Americanization: The Paternalism of Progressive Procedural Reform,” Yale Law Journal, 2015 Forthcoming; Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2586550.

The Supreme Court of Texas has ordered a property developer to arbitrate its claims against a general contractor but refused to require it to submit the company’s claims against a number of other defendants to arbitration.