Home

News

Useful Links

Case In Point

Downloads

FAQ

Docket Management 101: Case Referral

By Nancy Neal Yeend and Eileen Pruett

2/20/2009

Footnotes

1. Conserving judicial resources remains a significant goal for many court-connected DR programs. Conserving participant resources and improving public perception of the courts surfaced as reasons for creating some later DR programs. State Appellate ADR: National Survey and Use Analysis with Implementation Guidelines, 2nd Ed., Nancy Neal Yeend, The John Paul Jones Group, St. Petersburg, FL, 2002.

2. As an example, in Maine during 2002, of the program’s 509 cases, 490 selected mediation, 13 selected early neutral evaluation, and only 6 selected arbitration. Court-Connected Alternative Dispute Resolution in Maine, Hon. Howard H. Dana, Jr., 57 ME. L. REV. 349, University of Maine School of Law, 2005.

3. See Mark S. Umbreit, Ph.D., Crime & Reconciliation, Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN, 1985. Harry Mika, The Practice and Prospect of Victim-Offender Programs, 46 S.M.U.L. Rev. 2191 (1993). For additional information about Victim-Offender Mediation, see www.voma.org.

4. National Standards for Court-Connected Mediation Programs, Institute of Judicial Administration, Washington, DC, 1998.

5. Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators, American Arbitration Association, American Bar Association, Association for Conflict Resolution, 2004. See www.acrnet.org/pdfs/ModelStandardsofConductforMediatorsfinal05.pdf.

6. Ibid. Footnote 4. “While timing of a referral to mediation may vary depending upon the type of case involved and the needs of the particular case, referral should be made at the earliest possible time that the parties are able to make an informed choice.” (emphasis added)

7. Effectiveness of Court-Connected Dispute Resolution in Civil Cases, Roselle L. Wissler, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, V 22, n 1-2, Fall-Winter, 2004. See also, Stephen B. Goldberg, Nancy H. Rogers, Frank E.A. Sander, Sarah Rudolph Cole, Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation and Other Processes, 4th Ed., Aspen Publishers, Frederick, MD. 2003, and Which cases are most suitable for court-ordered mediation?, Richard Morley Barron, October, 2004. http://www.mediate.com//articles/barronMR1.cfm.

8. Ibid. Footnote 4.

9. In recent years; however, both juvenile delinquency and termination of parental rights cases referred to mediation have been successful. See, e.g., National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Publications http://www.ncfjcj.org/content/blogcategory/355/424.

10. Ibid. Footnote 1.

11. Nebraska Judges Handbook, 2005.

12. Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio, Rule 16, Mediation, http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Rules/superintendence/Superintendence.pdf; and Georgia Supreme Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules Model Court Mediation Rules http://www.godr.org/pdfs/MODELRULESODR.pdf; and Guidelines for Mediation of Cases Involving Domestic Violence, http://www.godr.org/pdfs/Guidelines.pdf.

13. Edward A. Dauer, Manual of Dispute Resolution, Shepard’s/McGraw-Hill, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, 1994.

14. Small Claims Mediation Programs, Jessica Notini, www.mediate.com, 2001.

15. Timing Is Everything, Virginia State Judicial Institute, 2001.

16. Ibid. Footnote 1.

17. Annual Report, First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, 2006.

18. Annual Report, Nevada Supreme Court, 2007. (Nevada does not have an intermediate court of appeal, so their settlement rate is exceptional.)

19. John S. Murray, Alan Scott Rau, and Edward F. Sherman, Process of Dispute Resolution, 2nd Ed., Foundation Press, Westbury, NY, 1996.

20. See 2007 Mediation Programs Report to the Judges of the Franklin County Municipal Court, on file with the authors.

21. Ibid. Footnote 1.

22. Ibid. Footnote 20, and Foreclosure Mediation Program Model Now Available to Ohio Courts, http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Communications_Office/Press_Releases/2008/foreclosure_020708.asp.

23. Ibid. Footnote 1.West Virginia has no intermediate appellate court, so it created a specific program for worker compensation cases. Oregon and Tennessee have similar programs.

24. Some states are silent on the issue of self-represented litigant participation. New York’s 3rd Judicial Department permits self-represented litigant cases, while California’s 1st District Court of Appeals only permits self-represented litigants when the party has a law degree. Federal appellate court programs cover the spectrum from permitting self-represented litigants, to permitting only self-represented litigants with law degrees, to silence on the issue, to outright prohibition of self-represented litigants. Mediation and Conference Programs in Federal Courts of Appeal, 2nd Ed., Robert J. Niemic, Federal Judicial Center, Washington, DC, 2006.

25. Ibid. Footnote 1.

26. Ibid. Footnote 1.

27. Ibid. Footnote 4.

28. See 2006 Mediation Programs Report to the Judges of the Franklin County Municipal Court, on file with the authors.

29. Ibid.Footnote 17.

1 | 2 | 3