Disputing would like to announce guest post writer Merril Hirsh has published a thought-provoking and timely article focused on the idea that special masters are well-positioned at the intersection between Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) and the courtroom.  In “Special Masters: How to Help Judges Extend Their Reach… And Exceed Their Grasp,” Mr. Hirsh discusses how a special master may assist in broadening a judge’s reach by serving ADR roles that the judge not only lacks the time to perform, but also may not be well-positioned to perform.

Below is an excerpt from Mr. Hirsh’s article:

When Edmund Burke said that law “sharpens the mind by narrowing it,” he was not being kind. But it is difficult to deny there is some truth to it. Perhaps, by broadening our perspective on what judges can do with special masters, we can expand what our judges can do, period.

Mr. Hirsh discusses the idea of a multi-door courthouse proposed over 40 years ago by Harvard Law Professor Frank E.A. Sander in which grievants could find their way to many types of dispute resolution, and how this idea has flourished in the establishment of settlement programs, but not in using other types of ADR to assist dispute resolution.

Question 1: So when was the last time you had a court at a pretrial conference (say, apart from the Western District of Pennsylvania eDiscovery Masters Program (see description at bit.ly/2o2S9FQ)) discuss referring the case to a special master?

Question 2: So when was the last time you had a court at a pretrial conference (say, anywhere) not discuss referring the case for some kind of settlement conference or mediation?

Read original article


Tags: