SUSSKIND, L. / / TILLEMAN, J. / / PARRA HERRERA, N.
Contents
Foreword
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) around the World
Chapter 3: The History of JDR in Canada
Chapter 4: JDRs Response to the Weaknesses of Litigation
Chapter 5: ADR v. JDR
Chapter 6: JDR Produces Satisfactory Results: The Divorce Case
Chapter 7: Advantages and Disadvantages of JDR
Chapter 8: Justice and Fairness in JDR The Motor Vehicle
Accident with Pedestrian Case
Chapter 9: Types of Judges: Skill, Temperament, and Attitude in
JDR Temperament in an Estate Dispute Case
Chapter 10: Confidentiality and Privacy in JDR
Chapter 11: Which Cases are Unsuitable for JDR?
Chapter 12: Juggling Complexity in JDR The Falling Rocks Case
Chapter 13: Divergent Interests of Adversarial Lawyers and Their
Clients
Chapter 14: JDR and the Role of Precedent The Medical
Malpractice Case
Chapter 15: The Importance of a Robust JDR Intake System
Chapter 16: The Chief Justices and How to Triage Special (SPEC)
JDR Cases
Chapter 17: Specialized JDRs (SPECs) A Look at Three Cases and
the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Chapter 18: How to Prepare for and What to Do During a JDR The
Power Pole Case
Chapter 19: The New World of Online Dispute Resolution (OJDR)
Epilogue: The Future of JDR Bibliography
Appendix Teaching Guide Case Studies.
We are concerned about the role of the courts, particularly judges, in guaranteeing justice. We are impressed with the success of the courts in Canada that are using what is called judicial dispute resolution (JDR). We also describe similar efforts in other parts of the world wherethe court helps parties resolve their differences in a timely way, not by deciding who is right and wrong, but by assisting the parties in resolving their differences and mendingtheir relationships.The judges who do this mediate, rather than adjudicate. All judges, worldwide, have responsibility for and authority over the procedures that are used in their courtrooms. This book describes the ways in which a judge can facilitate problem-solving between litigants. JDR is similar to mediation, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), as it is sometimes called, but it is provided by a judge, not a private mediator (as in the United States). This increases the chances of success. A judge, unlike a private mediator, can give the parties a definitive forecast of the likely legal outcome they can expect if their case proceeds to trial. JDR also affords the parties substantial assistance in working out the terms of a mutually agreeable outcome, in the setting of the courthouse (not a lawyer's office), and in the form of a court order signed by the judge.
