Alternative Dispute Resolution
George Mason University School of Law
Fall 2013
Instructor:
Telephone:
Email:
Class:
CRN 80931
Office Hours
Cindy Mazur
202.646.4094
cmazur1@gmu.edu
Monday Night 6:00-8:40 pm--Hazel Hall 121
CRSE # 348 SEC 2 Credits 3
By Appointment
Required Text: Jay Folberg, Dwight Golann, et al., Resolving Disputes: Theory, Practice &
Law (2nd ed. 2010).
Course objectives: This course examines the various alternatives to adjudication that lawyers
use to help clients resolve civil disputes, including negotiation, mediation, collaborative practice,
arbitration, private and public hybrids, and other innovative processes. Students will learn about
the theoretical basis, legal framework, and practical operation of each process. The course will
also address process design, effective advocacy in ADR settings, ethical and policy issues
relevant to each process, and the relationship of ADR processes to the court system.
Course policies: We will spend a significant part of each class engaged in role play simulations
and other activities. Class attendance, therefore, is required. Absence or lateness will have a
significant negative effect on your grade (excused absences are limited to religious observances,
or medical or family emergencies). If you expect to miss a class, you must notify me prior to the
class you will miss. Students are expected to do the readings assigned for each class. Before
each role play, you may receive “confidential information.” Please do not discuss the
“confidential information” with your classmates, except during the simulation with your assigned
counterpart(s).
Papers: Written submissions should be typed, double-spaced, with one inch margins. Each
paper must be your own independent work. If you turn your assignment in late, there will be a
significant negative effect on your grade. I prefer that you submit the paper to the course’s
TWEN site in the appropriate drop box or email it to me directly. I prefer that the electronic
document be sent in either pdf or Word.
Grades: Grades will be based on (1) class preparation and participation (20% of grade); (2) a
short annotated dispute resolution provision that addresses a specific circumstance, due
November 18 by 5:00 pm (20% of grade); (3) a paper 10-12 pages, developing what we have
discussed in class and applying legal theory and case law to an ADR topic of your choice,
creating a new use or context for ADR, or inventing a new tool that would be used in lieu of
litigation, due on December 9 by 5:00 pm, please discuss your paper thesis with me by October
28 (30% of grade); and (4) three class simulations that demonstrate your knowledge of the
practical application of ADR skills (30%).
Fall 2013 Schedule
Class
Topics & readings in Resolving Disputes (2nd ed. 2010).
8/19
Processes of dispute resolution (All readings are from Resolving Disputes
unless otherwise indicated.) BEFORE CLASS
1-16 (esp. 5-16), 26-33, 95-97. Please view the film “A Separation” before
the first class, on reserve at the library or available commercially.
8/26
Approaches to negotiation; information exchange; ethics
59-73, 77-80, 95-97, 108-117, 195-200; Model Rule of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 4.1
(TWEN); Please view film “Qui Ju” available on reserve or commercially.
9/2
Holiday; No class. Please view the DVD “Sluggers Come Home” on reserve at the library.
9/9
Case value; distributive bargaining
97-104, 121-30, 146-55, 158-61.
9/16
Integrative bargaining; client counseling
18-21, 81-82, 131-33, 161-66; Donald G. Gifford, “The Synthesis of Legal
Counseling and Negotiation Models,” 34 UCLA L. Rev. 811, 844-850 (1987).
9/23
Approaches to mediation
249-52, 256-59, 267-78, 331-40; Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 2.11 (TWEN).
9/30
Mediation process; confidentiality; ethics
299-331, 475-85, 498-502, 519-30. Read one of the three social media books
on reserve at the library, “Blogging in one Hour for Lawyers,” (Kennedy),
“Facebook in One Home to class with a carefully thought out
suggestion for how ADR can be used in or impacted by social media.
10/7
Mediation advocacy
346-52, 359-61, 369-74, 379-84, 386-98.
10/14
Fall Recess-No class.
10/15
Court-connected mediation (Observe Monday Schedule)
407-52, 459-72, 503-509.
10/21
Collaborative practice; dispute resolution design; private judging
216-22, 745-54, 766-68; MRPC1.0 (e) & 1.2 (c); Robert W. Wooldridge, Jr., “The New Use of an
Old Tool: the Judge Pro Tem Statute,” Virginia ADR, Fall 2010 at 1 (TWEN).
10/28
Arbitration process. Please discuss your thesis idea with me by this date.
538-47, 561-601.
11/4
Legal framework for arbitration.
611-18, 620-23, 627-29, 636-41, 659-64, 676-90; AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (TWEN).
11/11
Fairness and integrity of the arbitration process
695-708, 717-31; Peter B. Rutledge, “The Case Against the Arbitration Fairness Act,” & Jean R.
Sternlight, “Fixing the Mandatory Arbitration Problem: We Need the Arbitration Fairness Act,”
from the ABA Dispute Resolution Magazine, Fall 2009 (TWEN).
11/18
Mixed processes. ADR provision due by 5:00 pm
603-09, 736-43; Daniel Winslow, “Litigation Prenups,” Fed. Lawyer, October 2010 at 4 (TWEN).
11/21
Thinking critically about dispute resolution
453-57; Phillip M. Armstrong, “Why We Still Litigate,” 8 Pepp. Disp.
Resol. L. J. 379-84 (2008) (TWEN).
Final assignment due: December 9 @ 5 pm