The Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution at the University of Texas School of Law will host the Eleventh Annual Spring Symposium on Dispute Resolution on April 29, 2011 from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm in the Jeffers Courtroom. The featured keynote speaker is Robert M. O’Neil, former President of the University of Virginia and Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law. The symposium, hosted by The Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution at the UT School of Law—will also feature eleven UT graduate and law students presenting research on various dispute resolution topics. The student presentations and the keynote address are free and open to the public. O’Neil will give the symposium’s keynote address, “Forging Paths in Dispute Resolution- A Lifelong Fascination,” in the Jeffers Courtroom at 11:15 a.m. The address will be followed by a panel presentation featuring Prof. H.W. Perry– Associate Professor of Law and Government, Prof. Madeline Maxwell– Communication Studies, and Melissa Biggs-Coupal- Difficult Dialogues program coordinator. Graduate students from the Cockrell School of Engineering, LBJ School of Public Affairs, and the School of Law will present their research on topics including plea bargaining in the war against Al-Qaeda, the Catholic Church’s influence on labor arbitration, and child protection mediation in the Jeffers Courtroom and classroom TNH 3.142 from 8:35-10:50 a.m. and 1:45-3:30 p.m. For more information on the event you may contact Mary Gaski, Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution, at mgaski@law.utexas.edu. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, mediation, arbitration

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that the the Federal Arbitration Act preempted California law with regard to class arbitration in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 09-893, (April 27, 2011). Check back for more information on the case soon. Disputing‘s previous blog posted after the Court heard oral argument in the case is available here. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

John Lande, Director of the LLM Program in Dispute Resolution and Isidor Loeb Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, recently published An Empirical Analysis of Collaborative Practice, Family Court Review, Vol. 49, pp. 257-281, April 2011; University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-10. In his article, Professor Lande summarizes empirical studies conducted to date on collaborative practice. The publication discusses many topics including the “demographic characteristics of collaborative clients,” “clients’ reasons for choosing collaborative practice,” “collaborative lawyers’ backgrounds and practices,” and “additional professionals.” Here is the abstract: This article summarizes empirical research about Collaborative Practice, the Collaborative movement, its interaction with other parts of the dispute resolution field, and its impact on the field. It reviews studies of Collaborative Practice describing the individuals involved in Collaborative cases, how the process works, the operation of local practice groups, and the impact of Collaborative Practice on legal practice generally. Based on this analysis, it suggests an agenda for future research. Finally, it offers suggestions for constructive development of the Collaborative field. The article may be downloaded here (without charge) from Social Science Research Network. Other publications by Professor Lande are available here. We would love to hear your thoughts. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, arbitration

Earlier this month, an interesting arbitration case was decided in the Northern District of Mississippi. In Cook v. GGNSC Ripley, LLC, No. 3:10CV018 (N.D. Miss., Apr. 14, 2011), the court held a nursing home resident was bound to an arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary. The American Health Lawyers Association reported, A federal trial court in Mississippi ruled April 14 that a negligence action against a nursing home by a deceased resident’s estate was arbitrable pursuant to an agreement that her daughter signed as part of the admissions process. Although the daughter did not have a power of attorney and the arbitration agreement was not a healthcare decision under state law, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi found, the resident was a third-party beneficiary to the agreement under Mississippi contract law. According to the court, the arbitration agreement became part of the admissions agreement under its express terms. The resident did not sign the admissions agreement, but she was a third-party beneficiary of the agreement given that her care was its essential purpose. “As such, [the resident] is bound by the terms of the contract, including the arbitration agreement,” the court said. You may read the entire American Health Lawyers Association article here. What are your thoughts on the court’s ruling? Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law