Search

Mediation was brought into family court cases as a divorce litigation alternative. Today, parents are not only encouraged but mandated across most U.S. states to consider mediation before further court action can be taken. Research has not kept up with understanding how publicly mandated and subsidized mediation services become part of court cases and possible case resolution. This article reviews how mediation has evolved from outside alternative to family court "workhorse" within a family dispute resolution paradigm centered on shared parenting as in the best interest of children. Research results from a family court mediation program are presented to highlight how parents encountered and responded to mediation as an embedded part of today's family dispute resolution paradigm/court system. Especially in cases that keep coming back to court, family dispute resolution has become a means of "making family" as much as supporting family separation. Implications for practice include limitations of a mediation service as provided in an under‐resourced court and ultimate reliance upon parents to uphold the best interest standard through ongoing co‐parenting interactions. Key points for the family court community: Mediation was brought into family law to as a divorce litigation alternative in the wake of "no‐fault" family law reforms in the 1970s and 1980s.The evidence base for mandated mediation in child custody cases continues to lie primarily from studies of divorce cases and of mediation as divorce litigation alternative. However, divorce is only one reason why today's litigants file child custody cases.This study provides empirical data on how today's parents engage in mandated mediation services through focus in one U.S. family court program.This article calls for an updated research paradigm in which mandated mediation provides more than a litigation alternative and, in some cases, becomes a means through which the state is "making family" through pressuring parents to share parenting responsibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Should transactional lawyers bear responsibility when their competent actions facilitate unlawful activity by their client? Or is a lawyer's only concern to act in the client's interest by providing her with the advice and support she seeks? The high profile failure of Lehman Brothers provides a unique opportunity to explore these questions in the context of the provision of a legal opinion by a magic circle law firm. A legal opinion which, although as a matter of law was accurate, was a necessary precursor to an accounting treatment by Lehman Brothers which was described by the Lehman's Bankruptcy Examiner as 'balance sheet manipulation'. The article argues that the law's existing understanding of when consequential responsibility should be imposed on those who assist another's wrongdoing provides a theory and a tool-kit whose application can be justifiably extended to the professional regulation of transactional lawyers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new trend in Collaborative Family Law (CFL) in the United States and Canada raises new questions about theories of justice. CFL achieves many of the goals of a viable theory of justice and its implicit critique of the legal system is a valid one. However, it unnecessarily demonizes law and has yet to explicitly articulate where it fits in terms of its own theory of justice. After considering the claims made by CFL, it is apparent that while some are productive, others are problematic and should be discarded. Specifically, CFL's rejection of factual determinacy may be inappropriate in some cases. The CFL approach has the potential to ignore problems of power imbalance, and may sacrifice just outcomes for the sake of efficiency. The emphasis on relationships and the need for their protection is not always an appropriate approach, and in demonizing law in favor of private ordering, CFL unnecessarily rejects the importance of law as a site for public participation in the creation and defense of norms. CFL is an important step forward in law reform, but if it is to fulfill its potential, it needs to incorporate within its practice a theory of justice that avoids the pitfalls of liberal individualism and allows for the public authorship of norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on key aspects of civil justice and civil procedure in the U.S. Nature of settlement in the arena of litigation; Characteristics of civil procedure under the leitmotiv of case management; Factors influencing institutionalized disputing.

The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow pharmaceutical Inc. has focused attention on judicial treatment of expert testimony. A survey of the development of the forensic use of such testimony helps to explain the salient characteristics of modern American practice. The surveys in the context of medical experts, discloses a several centuries long trend toward an adversarial approach that places selections preparations and presentation of expert witness testimony ever more completely in the hands of the litigants. This trend has been challenged since at least the 1800s by those desiring an inquisitorial alternative featuring court's witnesses or neutral panels of experts. These proposals have generally been rejected. Daubert represents a modest step in the direction of greater judicial control of the presentation of expert evidence but raises questions about the evenhandedness of heightened judicial scrutiny of proffered expert testimony. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides the background on the development of the legislative proposal in the United States called the Drug Regulation Reform Act of 1978. Assessment of the economic impact of the legislation on the pharmaceutical industry; Differences between the perceptions of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and critics on the drug bill; Factors that lead the FDA to its position on the bill.