Mediation, arbitration square off; the majority of in-house counsel surveyed prefer mediation to binding arbitration, a significant change from three years ago
Article Abstract:
A survey conducted in 1996 by the litigation services group of Deloitte and Touche shows an increase in in-house corporate counsel viewing mediation as the preferred method of alternative dispute resolution, while there has been a large decrease in the number of such counsel favoring binding arbitration. The survey was based on 62 corporate counsel responses and 77 law firm responses. Only 28% of in-house counsel favored arbitration, while 65% favored mediation. Other factors surveyed included the amounts in controversy and reasons not to use alternative dispute resolution.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Realistic expectations: key to mediation success; counsel should advise that defense victories and huge damage awards rarely result from mediation
Article Abstract:
The goal of mediation is to reduce expenses, time and risk. What the clients expect should be discussed before mediation as unrealistic expectations can subvert the chance of a good result. A confidential settlement assessment memo may be a good idea. It might be wise to staff the mediation with an employee knowledgeable about the dispute but with little personal involvement. Reasons a mediation can fail include timing, skill of the mediator and inadequate settlement authority.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Environmental law; CERCLA retroactivity
Article Abstract:
Landgraf v. USI Film Products and Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, two Supreme Court cases, may show a new willingness to limit the retroactive reach of CERCLA and show increasing judicial opposition to the retroactive application of laws. The Apfel case, decided in June 1998, ruled that retroactive liability on coal companies for the medical care of coal miners could be unconstitutional if this liability was disproprortionate to the experience of a party.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Ombudspersons and the limits of the general counsel's authority under the National Labor Relations Act: an open letter to Fred Feinstein
- Abstracts: Getting out of J.A.M.S.; ADR provider's new policy discourages companies from requiring arbitration of employee disputes
- Abstracts: Mixed responses to new safety consultation rights. HSC proposes costly and far-reaching changes to use of work equipment laws
- Abstracts: Two cheers for shifting the presumption of validity: a reply to Professor Hopperton. The presumption of validity in American land-use law: a substitute for analysis, a source of significant confusion
- Abstracts: Looking back: the full-time baseline in regulatory takings analysis. Exactions, severability and takings: when courts should sever unconstitutional conditions from development permits