Please use the below link to access The Caucus. The edition includes updates regarding new CME requirements, congratulations to new board members, commentary on MEAC opinions and much more.
Spring Caucus 2014: Read The Caucus to stay informed of current events, MEAC opinions and stay abreast many more useful tools. Our newsletter features member articles, updates, news from the DRC and much more.
On March 24, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Strine v Delaware Coalition for Open Government, Inc., 2014 US Lexis 1984, and let stand a ruling from the Third Circuit (733 F3d 510). The Third Circuit ruling was a 2-1 decision.
The question before the Third Circuit was whether the public has a right of access under the First Amendment to Delaware’ s state-sponsored arbitration program. Chancellor Strine, then the presiding judge of Delaware Chancery Court and now chief judge of the Delaware Supreme Court, and the judges of the Delaware Chancery Court, who oversee the arbitration process, appealed from a judgment in favor of the Delaware Coalition for Open Government. The Third Circuit found that Delaware’s arbitration program was subject to the same rules governing civil trials and thus must be open to the public. The appellants argued that the First Amendment does not mandate a right of public access to state-sponsored arbitration proceedings.
“ODR technologies most likely will appeal to the latent legal market and will be seen by the public as something that improves access to justice and legal services, which will make it difficult for lawyers to make the case that these types of services should not be offered.”
Killian, 2014. The Florida Bar News
A family law mediation was held through the court mediation program. Both parties were represented by counsel. A partial agreement was reached and the mediator prepared the mediation report and agreement. The attorneys, parties and mediator signed the Mediation Report that a partial agreement was reached and set forth the remaining issues to be adjudicated by the Judge. The parties a..’1d attorneys left the courthouse as it was after 5:00 p.m. The attorneys and parties had left the mediation with the understanding that they had signed the mediation report and mediation agreement. The mediator made copies of the report and agreement and discovered that one of the parties and their attorney had not signed the Agreement. All parties and their attorneys had initialed each page of the Mediation Agreement. The mediator called the attorney that had not signed the agreement and immediately took the agreement to the attorney for signatures. The attorney told the mediator that the client had already left town but would be back the next day to sign that it was not a problem it was only an oversight. The attorney signed the original mediated agreement. The mediator checked with the attorney the next week and found out that the client would not sign the agreement now, but just wanted a few minor changes and a letter was being sent to the other attorney regarding the changes …
Three legal veterans are the principals of WGK-ADR, a newly launched dispute resolution practice established by Wiand Guerra King PL that focuses on complex litigation matters.
Chancellor Angela Merkel dictates Germany “must pitch in, to help bring certain conflicts towards a resolution” during a visit from the United Nation’s Ban Ki-moon.
“There is never one single solution. No conflict around the world can be solved purely by military means,” Merkel said.
How can ADR play a larger role in these international conflicts?
GENEVA (AP) — A U.N. mediator said on Tuesday that negotiations in Switzerland between the two sides in Syria’s ongoing civil war will continue, despite the immediate breakdown in discussions held on Monday.
Click here for Link to Full Story
The New MEAC Opinion seeks to advise on the below listed question that arises as a procedural and ethical dilemma. To review the entire MAC Opinion, follow the link provided.
“Is it a breach of confidentiality for a certified mediator or the mediation unit to report to
the court that a party, appearing telephonically or by some other electronic means pursuant to a
Court order, who fully participated in the mediation which resulted in an agreement, but violated
the order for telephonic appearance by failing to return a mediation agreement for which said
party gave verbal consent to prepare and verbally agreed to sign?”
Check out our newsletter for the “The Caucus” Summer 2013 (click to view/download the pdf).