This page was last updated on 11/16/2018
Provides information about court connected ODR (online dispute resolution) and ADR (alternative dispute resolution) programs, including the different types of programs available (arbitration, mediation and other dispute resolution processes); funding issues; certification of neutrals; and established standards.
Links to related online resources are listed below. Non-digitized publications may
be borrowed from the NCSC Library; call numbers are provided.
This pilot project, funded by SJI, is being developed by the Utah AOC to allow self-represented litigants access to justice through a computer or mobile device. The system that was conceptualized by the ODR Steering Committee will assist users in filing documents, defending claims, communicating with other parties, learning about processes, and participating in their small claims cases.
This Resource Bulletin from the Joint Technology Committee provides a basic primer in ODR and describes several implementation models, as well as court-specific opportunities and considerations.
This Resource Bulletin from the Joint Technology Committee is a companion to the JTC Resource Bulletin: ODR for Courts and describes ODR implementations in a variety of court settings.
This study, published in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review, examined how well litigants could identify their court as offering mediation or arbitration when such ADR programs were in fact available. The study found that litigants had significantly more favorable views of their court when they knew it offered mediation.
The University of Maryland Center for Dispute Resolution hosted the Maryland Judiciary Alternative Dispute Resolution Research Symposium June 2016. The Symposium highlighted the results of eight discrete research studies and examined the implications of the research for court-connected dispute resolution programs and the ADR field generally. Instead of using typical self-reporting information from mediators, the Maryland study used rigorous research methodology, including behavioral observation of actual mediations, control groups, and other empirical data gathering and analysis to provide rich information into areas previously unstudied in the field. The outcome is a vast and informative amount of data to help mediators, court administrators, and judges think critically about the benefits of ADR to the Judiciary and the public.
A helpful link to numerous current discussions relating to ADR and its ever evolving uses.
This special study is a statewide, comprehensive assessment of court-annexed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs in appellate, district, metropolitan, and magistrate courts, and suggested practical strategies for improving the use and impact of ADR programs for the New Mexico Judiciary and the public it serves. Such programs hold great promise to save both time and money for courts and litigants.
A toolkit for courts to collect high-quality, reliable data on their mediation programs. In collaboration with the ABA Dispute Resolution Section, these tools are available to all courts.
MACRO's activity during the ADRESS project can be grouped into three categories: developing the software application, developing the questionnaires, and publicizing the project. Together, these activities have resulted in a robust system that will collect and report vital data not only for the management and improvement of the Maryland judiciary's ADR programs, but also for any other court system nationwide that chooses to use it.
This project evaluation looks at the program's need, the court's response and provides background for the project. Evaluation criteria include whether agreement was reached, whether plans enhanced the care and safety of high risk adults, the avoidance of contested court proceedings, and whether participants experienced a satisfactory mediation process.
This article offers an overview of Maryland's new Quality Assurance (QA) system; compares it to approaches that have been taken elsewhere; and commends it to courts and other mediation users as a vehicle for improving mediation practice and for serving as a trustworthy indicator of skilled performance.
These standards were approved by the ABA House of Delegates at its 2004 midyear meeting and cover ombuds qualifications, impartiality, confidentiality, limitation of authority, and removal from office.