|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
2002 FINAL STATELEGISLATIVE PROGRAM MIDDLE RANGE ISSUE ISSUE: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SUMMARY: The frustration over the perceived litigiousness of American society has resulted in a variety of proposals to take some of these disputes out of the courts and into alternative forums for settling differences. During most sessions of the General Assembly, suggestions for other avenues of dispute resolution are reflected in specific bills designed to enact these ideas into law. In 1992, for example, a bill was introduced that would have established a process for defendants and plaintiffs to negotiate offers of judgement in advance of a trial and again between the liability and award phases of the trial. The intent of the proposal was to encourage the parties in a trial to avoid extensive and expensive litigation. The American Bar Association, the Maryland State Bar Association, and many local and specialty bar associations have supported a wide range of alternative dispute mechanisms for many years. Law schools have courses and community organizations have numerous programs to encourage potential litigants to avoid the courthouse. There is a broad spectrum of the general public that would endorse new methods to help parties resolve differences out of court, and this sentiment was reflected in several recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Maryland Courts. The strong level of support for Alternative Dispute Resolution, (ADR) when added to the log jams in the court dockets of some jurisdictions, has resulted in an increase of support for legislation in this area. Agreement on several unresolved issues, however, such as mediator qualifications and standards, types of cases where mediation is desirable, and consumer protection concerns will need to be determined before legislation will move forward. In order to resolve some of the differences over the role of ADR in Maryland, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals appointed a 39-member commission in February, 1998. In December 1999, the Commission published its Practical Action Plan which outlined the ways ADR could be used in schools, neighborhoods, businesses, government agencies and other areas to divert many conflicts away from the courts. Since that time, the Commission has been working to implement these goals. MSBA 2002 POSITION: Support measures to permit unrestricted access to the judicial system including legislation that would make ADR available to the parties. Monitor legislation that would require ADR as a condition for filing lawsuits. The success of ADR depends upon flexibility and innovation. Simply entrenching a particular method or a program into statute will not achieve the goals of ADR. Monitor all bills that would provide incentives for early settlement of disputes. SAMPLE LEGISLATION:
|
||||||||||
