Category

blog

50 Years of Alternative Dispute Resolution

By | blog, Judge Ahalt's Articles, Online Dispute Resolution | No Comments

50 Years of Alternative Dispute Resolution
A Transition from the 20th Century to the 21st Century

History of ADR

Most judges and lawyers date alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to the early 1900’s with the advent of the American Arbitration Association and other institutional forms of arbitration. However, arbitration dates to early Biblical times with one of the first noted arbitrators King Solomon. Even earlier, arbitration was used as a method to resolve territorial disputes. In England arbitration was a common means of commercial dispute resolution predating the common law as early as the 1200’s.

George Washington, the nation’s first president, had an arbitration clause in his will requiring any dispute regarding an interpretation of the will to be decided by a panel of three arbitrators. His will stated that the decision was as final and binding as any decision of the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the most common form of dispute resolution, arbitration, was used to resolve labor disputes. This form of dispute resolution was codified by acts of congress and many state legislatures and today is incorporated into most labor collective bargaining agreements. Almost every commercial contract contains an arbitration provision. Also, many form contracts produced by industry specialty groups such as boards of realtors contain arbitration or mediation provisions.

Mediation has also been applied to assist individuals and countries resolve disputes for thousands of years. Through many seasons its use diminished and then later became common place.

Remarkably, neither form of dispute resolution was recognized in any consistent definitional form. It was not until the second half of the 20th Century when the legal community began to focus on trial court delay, that the different forms of dispute resolution began to be defined in commonly accepted ways. The acronym ADR did not become commonly used until the 1980s.

Impact of Trial Court Delay

Trial court delay did not begin overnight, but crept into state courts over several decades – beginning in the 1960s and reaching crisis proportion in the 1980s. In many metropolitan courts it was normal for parties to wait 4 and 5 years for a trial. The American Bar Association, the Conference of Chief Judges and the National Center for State Courts responded to the crisis of delay with commissions such as –
1. ABA Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration, Standards Relating to Trial Courts ( 1975)
2. National Conference of State Trial Judges, Court Delay Reduction Standards (1985)
3. Lawyers Conference Task Force of Litigation Cost and Delay, Defeating Delay: Developing and Implementing a Court Delay Reduction Program (1986)
These commissions and many others, after study and broad input, recommended many reforms. Chief among the reforms was the insertion of ADR into case management systems and processes.

Caseflow Management in Trial Courts

As the reforms began to be studied and implemented, experience was gained and some principles evolved. The center piece of the caseflow management principles became measurement. So it was said that a complete caseflow management information system should provide at least the following –
1. Measures of activity
2. Measures of inventory
3. Measures of delay
4. Measures of case scheduling accuracy
5. Evaluation measures; and
6. Individual case progress information.

As trial courts began to measure the key components affecting delay they discovered that a certain percentage of cases were resolved at each step in the process. Steps in the process varied from court to court but usually contained the following –
1. Discovery cut off
2. Settlement conference
3. Pre-trial
4. Trial

ADR in the Trial Courts

Gradually, the court and the organized bar realized that an additional step requiring ADR would further increase the case resolutions before trial – and so the caseflow process took a different look
1. Discovery cut off
2. ADR
3. Settlement conference
4. Pretrial
5. Trial

Many trial courts began to experiment with different forms of ADR and from those early experiments definitions and standards evolved (and are still evolving in some courts).Two of the most successful court ADR programs took different approaches yet have had a very significant impact not only on court based ADR activities but also non-court based ADR activities. First, the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Washington, DC and second, MACRO the Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office of the Courts of Maryland .
Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division of the Superior Court of Washington D.C. was the result of an experimental program motivated in part by the American Bar Association and the National Center for State Courts in 1985.Today, the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division maintains a staff of 22 full-time employees to administer its recruitment and training programs, intake and referral program, small claims mediation program, family and community mediation program, child protection mediation program, landlord and tenant mediation program, probate mediation program, tax assessment mediation program and civil mediation, arbitration and case evaluation programs. Most actual mediations and arbitrations are done by 300 independent, court certified neutrals, who are paid by the court. The Division provided a neutral forum for dispute settlement in more than 6,100 matters in 2005

MACRO, a product of the Maryland ADR Commission of 1998 is a court-related agency, which serves as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) resource for the state. MACRO supports innovative dispute resolution programs, and promotes the appropriate use of ADR in every field. MACRO works collaboratively with many others across the state to support efforts to advance effective conflict resolution practices in Maryland’s courts, communities, schools, state and local government agencies, criminal and juvenile justice programs and businesses.

Types of ADR
Arbitration
Arbitration means a process in which (1) the parties appear before one or more impartial neutrals / arbitrators and present evidence and argument supporting their respective positions, and (2) the neutrals / arbitrators render a decision in the form of an award that is binding. The parties may agree that the decision is not binding.
Mediation
Mediation means a process in which the parties work with one or more impartial neutrals / mediators who, without providing legal advice, assist the parties in reaching their own voluntary agreement for the resolution of the dispute or issues in the dispute.
Settlement Conference Facilitation
Both parties meet with an impartial Neutral, who will facilitate discussions between both parties to help the opposing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. The neutral will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case and help the parties analyze the risks associated with a trial. Sometimes, at the request of the parties, the neutral will offer an opinion regarding a likely verdict.
Neutral Case Evaluation
Neutral Case Evaluation means a process in which the parties and their attorneys present in summary fashion, evidence and arguments supporting their respective positions to a neutral. The neutral person renders an evaluation of their positions and an opinion as to the likely outcome of the dispute or issues in the dispute if the action is tried before a jury.

Rules of ADR

Most court rules contain provisions concerning the timing and compulsory requirements of ADR. All court rules and even some statutes mandate that the ADR activity be confidential to the parties and the neutral. Thus the court can never be privy to what the parties said or what their demand or offers were.

Compulsory or Voluntary

Some courts mandate that all parties participate in an ADR activity before a trial date is set – while others allow the parties to volunteer for a court sponsored ADR program. Most courts that mandate ADR allow the parties to petition the court to be relieved of the obligation upon a showing of good cause. The courts maintain a list of qualified neutrals and in most cases require the neutral to meet certain specified minimum qualifications.

Neutral Certification

Largely because the courts began to mandate ADR, a requirement that neutrals be certified evolved. Most courts maintain a list of qualified neutrals in various specialties i.e. family law, medical malpractice, and personal injury, complex civil and commercial litigation. If an individual desires to be placed on a court list of neutrals, most courts require the neutral to demonstrate their experience and successfully complete a 40 hour course on the principles of mediation. Certification requirements and procedures vary widely from state to state and even county to county and in many instances they are largely discretionary with the court although minimum standards are usually established in state wide court rules of procedure.

Private ADR

Bricks and Mortar

In the Internet age, paper based activities are generally referred to as “bricks – and – mortar”. Beginning in the mid 1990s arbitration and mediation began to increase dramatically. There are not any good sources which reliability report the national, state or regional number of ADR activities. It would be difficult to tabulate such numbers in part because of the confidential nature of ADR. Some national organizations, such as the American Arbitration Association do report their total activities – however, they are only a small piece of the total ADR pie.

The dramatic increase of ADR is perhaps best demonstrated by the formation of many professional groups and associations. The American Bar Association formed the Section of Alternative Dispute Resolution in1993 and with 17,000 current members it is one of the fastest growing sections. Most state bar associations and many local bar associations have formed similar sections and committees. Most organizations have By-Law provisions similar to those of the Maryland State Bar Associations Section of Alternative Dispute Resolution which provides –

To act to improve the administration of justice and the use of alternative dispute resolution processes throughout Maryland by study, research, reports and recommendations to the Governor of Maryland, the Maryland Legislature, the Court of Appeals of Maryland or to any other public official, legislative body, judiciary or judge, or any other governmental or public agency or body, and also the Association.

The American Bar Association, The Association of Conflict Resolution and the American Arbitration Association promulgated Model Standards of conduct for mediators.

Following the lead of the organized bar state rules committees have provided standards for alternative dispute resolution and requirements for certification and training.

Most all federal agencies and each branch of the armed services have formal alternative dispute resolution programs.

The Internet – Moving into the 21st Century

The ability of technology- especially the internet – to make many business processes more efficient is now making it clear that online dispute resolution is the next frontier of alternative dispute resolution. Courts have not yet adopted any form of Internet ADR. The internet promises to make more disputes reachable by ADR and to facilitate the resolution of disputes faster and at a lower cost. But like many shifts from paper to technology, a clear strategic pathway has yet to appear.

What is Online Dispute Resolution

Online Dispute Resolution provides the ability for two (or more) disparate parties to settle their dispute using the Internet. Sometimes this involves lawyers and mediators and sometimes it does not. It depends on the vehicle/provider that the parties agree to utilize to resolve their claim.

History of Online Dispute Resolution
The concept of on-line dispute resolution (ODR) has been discussed in academic circles since the mid 1990’s . Professor Ethan Katish was a leading researcher and developer of concepts of ODR. From 1997-1999, Professor Katish mediated a variety of disputes online, involving domain name/trademark issues, other intellectual property conflicts, disputes with Internet Service Providers, and others. In the spring of 1999, he supervised a project with the online auction site eBay, in which over 150 disputes were mediated during a two week period. During the summer of 1999, he co-founded Disputes.org, which later worked with eResolution to become one of four providers accredited by ICANN to resolve domain name disputes. He is also an adviser to SquareTrade.com, an Internet start-up focusing on online ADR. There are over 20 internet companies listed on the ODR.info site which provide ODR online services.

How Can ODR Help ADR?
Online dispute resolution (ODR) promises to enable alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to become more efficient, faster and less expensive. By achieving those three improvements ODR will make ADR a real alternative to a greater number of disputes thereby bringing all of the advantages of ADR to a greater number of people. An examination of the ADR process and barriers to ADR will allow a deeper examination of the potential of ODR.

It is All about Change Not Technology – Overcoming Barriers

The adoption of technology by businesses and individuals over the last two decades is astounding. Just 10 years ago managers of the nation’s largest law firms were struggling to get their lawyers to put a PC on their desk and then actually use it. One manager of a firm found a creative strategy. He announced at a firm meeting that he was conducting a pilot to determine how best to use a PC in the practice. He was going to conduct the pilot with the 10 brightest lawyers in the firm. Anyone who was interested was advised to call his office. One by one every lawyer in the firm called, and as soon as they did, a PC showed up on their desk. Adoption of the computer in the everyday life of that firm was well underway.

Today only a few laggards in the legal profession fail to make use of the PC. Interestingly enough the leaders are not always the younger generations as many senior lawyers lead the way. Take Judge Richard Rombro, a retired Judge in Maryland (having been forced to retire because the Constitution requires retirement at age 70). Judge Rombro managed the entire asbestos docket for the Circuit Court for Baltimore City using Lexis-Nexis File and Serve – sometimes even from his winter office in Florida. The legal profession has fully embraced technology including the Internet in order to become better lawyers. Those who have not embraced technology are losing the competitive battle.

So why is it that disputes are still mainly resolved with a dependency on paper and face-to-face meetings? It is all about change. Old ways are not put aside easily. Who hasn’t heard a lawyer say – “I know that is the way it will be done in the future, but I am not going to change now.”

Change requires strong and great leadership. And great leaders always have a vision, a strategy, and they are enthusiastic and work really hard.

In developing a strategy it is essential to identify the barriers. The following are but a few:
1. The neutral needs to see the parties
2. Scanning and uploading documents
3. It is easier to do it the old way
4. My computer is too slow

As ODR enters its second decade, it requires adoption by three separate constituencies – the claimant, the respondent and the neutral. Much like a stool, if one leg is absent the stool falls. Thus, the challenge of change is multiplied or as the mathematician might say – “cubed”.
Most all practitioners have successfully overcome the barriers to change which were presented with the advent of court ordered ADR in the 1990’s. The benefits have become obvious – time savings, cost savings and “resolution satisfaction”. Yet the court dockets keep growing – so – much more remains to be accomplished.

Students of the dynamics of CHANGE will testify that change does not occur unless there is;
1. Leadership
2. Strategy
3. Management

What works Best in ODR?
In developing a strategy to successfully implement an ODR project it is helpful to analyze what has been successful.
What has become clear is that certain case criteria lend themselves to online activity, while other criteria lend themselves to the paper and face to face world. Online activity works best when there are only two parties and where the substance of the dispute is only monetary. ODR also has been effective where the dispute arises out of Internet commerce. ODR is difficult when there are many parties, the substance of the dispute is emotional or there is a large amount of money in controversy.
Current ODR Providers
Business-to-Business/Online Enterprise ODR Models

Square Trade handled thousands of disputes which have arisen between the buyer and seller of goods on eBay. Using this online solution a neutral mediates the dispute in an online chat format. In May 2008, however, it discontinued its eBay ODR service.
Cybersettle has successfully settled thousands of disputes, mainly involving personal-injury claims. Using the Cybersettle online process, the parties submit blind monetary demands and offers and agree that if they are within certain limits the case is settled at the midpoint of the last demand and offer.

Neutral-Focused ODR Providers
VirtualCourthouse.com™ has successfully settled hundreds of personal-injury, contract and real estate claims through an online binding arbitration process. The parties select a neutral though an online negotiation. Once the neutral is selected each party presents their case online – uploading supporting medical bills, doctor reports, pictures and other relevant evidence. The neutral then reviews the presentations and renders a binding decision.

VirtualCourthouse.com specializes in providing neutrals a market place for their services in addition to taking the parties through the entire ODR process. VirtualCourthouse.com comes closer to mimicking the actual court process than most of the services outlined above. They allow exhibits and supporting materials to be submitted electronically and case information is shared among the parties and the assigned neutral in a secure environment. The lowest cost for a simple case brought to VirtualCourthouse.com is less than $400. VirtualCourthouse provides an independent forum by enabling parties to select qualified neutrals (typically judges or attorneys with specific experience), submit digitized materials, schedule an ADR event and track other activities throughout the effort to resolve the claim.
The VirtualCourthouse.com™ story tracks the experience of a trial judge. The VirtualCourthouse dispute resolution process models a court dispute resolution process delivered on the internet using web based technologies.
§ A case is initiated and a list of Neutrals is selected and the Neutrals are ranked.
§ A system generated email is sent to the other party, inviting them to join the case.
§ The other party joins the case and a Neutral is agreed upon.
§ The Neutral reviews the case initiation, and sends an email to both parties, confirming the type of proceeding and the fees.
§ The claimant prepares a case presentation and uploads the scanned documents into the online case.
§ Once complete, a system generated email is sent to the respondent, advising them the claimant has completed their presentation, and now it is time for them to submit their case presentation
§ Once the case presentations are complete, a system generated email is sent to the Neutral advising them to review the evidence and render a decision.
§ Once reviewed, a verdict is submitted online, and a system generated email is sent to both parties notifying them a verdict has been rendered.
Mediate.com is a site that helps one locate a mediator in a particular geographical area and practice type. Unlike the VirtualCourthouse.com outlined above, Mediate.com does not offer a Web interface to enable one’s case to be submitted and adjudicated online.
Global Arbitration Mediation Association, Inc.’s (GAMA) arbitration and mediation E-Directories of ADR professionals are designed to help disputants find mediators and arbitrators appropriate for resolving their conflicts by permitting searches of the database by years of ADR experience, education, credentials, subject matter expertise, associations, geographic location, video conferencing compatibility and hourly rate.

Paper Based Organizations in Transition

The American Arbitration Association has settled several thousand cases digitally, but it still remains a very small percentage of the AAA caseload. AAA offers a lot of information on their Website, including PDF forms, and the ability to file a case electronically through AAA Webfile. The AAA offers both mediation and arbitration services and is the oldest ADR organization outside of the courts in the U.S.

JAMS , founded by the Hon. H. Warren Knight in 1979, provide mediation and arbitration services across the country. They specialize in a variety of claims including bankruptcy, mass tort and international. The JAMS Website allows the visitor to file an initial claim and select a location and neutral. But beyond that, JAMS does not offer the on-line automated case monitoring that the other services (outlined above) do.
National Arbitration Forum automates domain disputes on the Internet as well as other case types. The Forum is in the process of converting its paper based dispute resolution business to the Internet.

Regional ADR Service Providers

There are many regional ADR providers, like ADR Systems of America, LLC, headquartered in Chicago. ADR Systems has many retired Cook County Circuit Court judges on their roster of neutrals and specialize in complex personal-injury cases. The ADR Systems’ Web interface is limited but they focus on being a regional provider and therefore the need for automation is not quite as great as in a case involving geographically diverse parties.

Other ODR Providers

The ElectronicCourthouse.com , run by a Canadian company called iVentures, provides services to companies that must offer dispute-resolution. They specialize in companies that manufacture and distribute internationally.

Transferring an existing process from the bricks-and-mortar world to the Internet is a daunting undertaking. The process is fraught with barriers of change involving multiple parties and multiple processes. Developing a strategic approach is therefore essential. It is similar to “eating and elephant” – you do not want to plan this event for one meal or you will surely fail. You need to start small but you need to start. It is necessary to strategically identify a starting point where the existing barriers are not overwhelming and where efficiencies of online business will bring the greatest bottom line result.
Trial judges can help lead the way by knowing ODR alternatives which can be made available to litigants as another ADR opportunity. Each ADR opportunity will lead some deputes to a successful resolution thereby helping to relieve the court of congested dockets.
Conclusion
The last 50 years has seen enormous growth in the use of ADR. The growth has been championed and led by the judges of the many state courts. Judges have led the way by incorporating ADR in caseflow management, adopting standards and criteria for the certification of neutrals. The bar has championed ADR growth through the formation of ADR sections and committees and the adoption of model ethical standards. When the bar and the bench join forces as they have with ADR the synergy always leads the way to needed and beneficial change. That change has lead to more predictable, faster trial dockets. Litigants also are gaining greater confidence in the trial courts of the country, while experiencing a higher level of justice through self styled resolution of their disputes.

Most judges and lawyers date alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to the early 1900’s with the advent of the American Arbitration Association and other institutional forms of arbitration. However, arbitration dates to early Biblical times with one of the first noted arbitrators King Solomon. Even earlier, arbitration was used as a method to resolve territorial disputes. In England arbitration was a common means of commercial dispute resolution predating the common law as early as the 1200’s.

by Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt ( Ret.) – October 2, 2009

RE-ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION WITH THE INTERNET

By | blog, Judge Ahalt's Articles, Online Dispute Resolution | No Comments

RE-ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION WITH THE INTERNET
This article was first published in the June issue of the Maryland Bar Bulletin which is published by the Maryland State Bar Association, Inc.

Can online dispute resolution (ODR) successfully re-engineer alternative dispute resolution (ADR)?
Recently, an investment advisor was informing clients that the opportunity the recent recession provided was advances in technology. The theory expressed was that companies who had to lay off people because of the economic downturn would not rehire the people they laid off because of the downturn. Instead they would invest in technology to reduce the number of people that it took to deliver goods and services. Terminating jobs is extremely stressful whether for good reasons or bad. It is even more stressful for the professional. The investment advisor theorized that companies would be asking themselves – how can we change our business model so that we no longer need these extra layers of employees?
According to some futurists, this dynamic, changing the business model, is already happening in the legal profession. Just recently at the annual ABA Tech Show, author Richard Susskind, who has written two books outlining a new evolving business model for the legal profession, told the audience in his keynote address that the economic downturn would only accelerate powerful trends that were already in motion. The new generation of lawyers is using technology to compete in delivering quality legal services at a lower cost. Change is clearly in the air.
One needs only to look at developments in the last several years. Virtual Law Firm, Virtual Law Office (this year’s winner of the prestigious ABA annual James I Keane Memorial Award), VLO technology, Legal Advice Line, Legal Zoom and others are leading the way at an ever increasing pace. Will the current hard economic times accelerate this process? Only time will tell, but the history in other industries is making a strong case for such change. As clients change the way they do business, they will demand that their lawyers also change their ways.
How will these developments impact ODR?

ADR has been around in commerce since the 1920’s and the founding of the American Arbitration Association. Many date ADR to biblical times and King Solomon. Originally the focus was on providing commercial entities with alternatives to adjudicating their disputes in the court. During the next eight decades many barriers have been overcome; however, the paper- based alternatives of the past that paved the way for ADR have become expensive and time consuming. In some cases it’s as if a new ADR bureaucracy has replaced the old judicial bureaucracy. Although face-to-face and paper-based alternative dispute resolution is not as time consuming and expensive as litigation in the courtroom, the time and expense of paper and face-to-face meetings denies many parties the opportunity of a fair and neutral resolution of a genuine dispute. Certainly the costs are also increased, unnecessarily, in many cases.
The ability of technology, especially the Internet, to make many business processes more efficient is now making it clear that online dispute resolution (ODR) is the next frontier of ADR. The internet promises to make more disputes reachable by ADR and to facilitate the resolution of disputes faster and at a lower cost. The internet also provides the legal profession the opportunity to prevent the vast waste of our scarce resources. The opportunity to use less paper and less of our precious resources is now at the legal profession’s door steps. Better stewardship is achievable, but like many shifts from paper to technology, a clear strategic pathway has yet to appear.

Here are the ADR activities you can achieve using the internet.
1. Demand for Arbitration
2. Neutral Case Evaluation
3. Select a Mediator or Arbitrator
4. Schedule a Mediation or Arbitration
5. Online Arbitration
6. Online Negotiation

The main barrier to change in the way ADR occurs is the STATUS QUO – It is just easier to do things like we have always done them even when we know there is a more efficient way. An evolving strategy is to use ODR. Using ODR, a lawyer can now obtain the following quickly, efficiently and at a reasonable cost on the internet.
1. NEUTRAL CASE EVALUATION. Have an experienced neutral provide an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses and value of your case for as little as $400. The neutral case evaluation will be helpful to you, your client and provide protection against claims of malpractice.
2. DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION. Initiate your case online and send an official demand for arbitration which does not bind you and your clients to costly paper based ADR providers.
3. INVITATION THROUGH A NEUTRAL PARTY. Often the suggestion of ADR in settlement negotiations is met with resistance because it is viewed in an adversarial light. Initiate your case online and have a neutral party send the invitation. For a complete listing of service providers see a recent article in the ALI-ABA Practical Litigator – What You Should Know about Online Dispute Resolution. www.virtualcourthouse.com/news
The important thing to do is to change the way you think about ADR

*Judge Ahalt currently conducts private arbitration and mediation, is CEO of VirtualCourthouse.com and is recalled by the Court of Appeals as a Judge in the 7th Judicial Circuit of Maryland.

What You Should Know About Online Dispute Resolution

By | blog, Judge Ahalt's Articles, Online Dispute Resolution | No Comments

What You Should Know About Online Dispute Resolution
Online dispute resolution (ODR) has all of the advantages of other forms of ADR-and it is faster and more cost-effective.

LESS THAN 15 years ago the legal community struggled to implement alternative dispute resolution (ADR) into the case management programs of federal and state trial courts. This effort was largely motivated by overcrowded trial dockets which allowed cases to remain pending four and five years before a trial date. Now ADR is an accepted component of most case management programs of any trial court and reaches into almost every segment of our lives. Schools, prisons, communities, businesses, consumers, and families now have ready access to alternative dispute resolution training and specialists. Many state courts have established conflict resolutions programs such as the highly effective and award-winning Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO) of the Maryland Judiciary. See http://www.courts.state.md.us/macro/.
ADR has been around in commerce since the 1920’s and the founding of the American Arbitration Association. Many date ADR to biblical times and King Solomon. Originally the focus was on providing commercial entities with alternatives to adjudicating their disputes in the court. During the next eight decades many barriers have been overcome; however, the paper- based alternatives of the past that paved the way for ADR have become expensive and time- consuming: in some cases it’s as if a new ADR bureaucracy has replaced the old judicial bureaucracy. Although face-to-face and paper-based alternative dispute resolution is not as time- consuming and expensive as litigation in the courtroom, the time and expense of paper and face-to-face meetings denies many parties the opportunity of a fair and neutral resolution of a genuine dispute.
The ability of technology-especially the Internet-to make many business processes more efficient is now making it clear that online dispute resolution (ODR) is the next frontier of ADR. The internet promises to make more disputes reachable by ADR and to facilitate the resolution of disputes faster and at a lower cost. But like many shifts from paper to technology, a clear strategic pathway has yet to appear.

WHAT IS ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ? • ODR provides the ability for two (or more) disparate parties to settle their dispute using the Internet. Sometimes this involves lawyers and mediators and sometimes it does not. It depends on the vehicle/provider that the parties agree to utilize to resolve their claim.

History Of Online Dispute Resolution
The concept of ODR has been discussed in academic circles since the mid 1990’s. See www.odr.info.Professor Ethan Katish was a leading researcher and developer of concepts of ODR. From 1997-1999, Professor Katish mediated a variety of disputes online, involving domain name/trademark issues, other intellectual property conflicts, disputes with Internet Service Providers, and others. In the spring of 1999, he supervised a project with the online auction site eBay, in which over 150 disputes were mediated during a two week period. During the summer of 1999, he co-founded Disputes.org, which later worked with eResolution to become one of four providers accredited by ICANN to resolve domain name disputes. He is also an adviser to SquareTrade.com, an Internet start-up focusing on online ADR. There are over 20 internet companies listed on the ODR.info site which provide ODR online services.
As a Judge of the Circuit Court for Prince Georges County, Maryland in conjunction with my activities directing the nation’s first electronic filing pilot project and managing the courts civil docket I realized that dispute resolution could be aided by the Internet. The ideas were first published in a series of on-line articles by VirtualCourthouse beginning in 1996. See http://www.montyahalt.com/vc.htm. VirtualCourthouse.com™ was founded in 2001.
The VirtualCourthouse dispute resolution process models a court dispute resolution process delivered on the Internet using Web-based technologies:
A case is initiated and a list of Neutrals is selected and the Neutrals are ranked;
A system generated email is sent to the other party, inviting them to join the case;
The other party joins the case and a Neutral is agreed upon;
The Neutral reviews the case initiation, and sends an email to both parties, confirming the type of proceeding and the fees;
The claimant prepares a case presentation and uploads the scanned documents into the online case;
Once complete, a system generated email is sent to the respondent, advising them the claimant has completed their presentation, and now it is time for them to submit their case presentation;
Once the case presentations are complete, a system generated email is sent to the Neutral advising them to review the evidence and render a decision;
Once reviewed, a verdict is submitted online, and a system generated email is sent to both parties notifying them a verdict has been rendered.

VirtualCourthouse creates a marketplace by recruiting the neutrals, administering the electronic case file, and providing access to the system to members of the plaintiff and defense bar, including insurance staff counsel, claims agents, and the parties. It also VirtualCourthouse provides an independent forum by enabling parties to select qualified neutrals (typically judges or attorneys with specific experience), submit digitized materials, schedule an ADR event and track other activities throughout the effort to resolve the claim. Critical to the design of this service is its neutrality: VirtualCourthouse impartially facilitates neutral selection by providing structured communication among parties via a controlled and secure message service. Any party can attach digital exhibits such as digital photographs or scanned images of medical records. The Neutral can use the message service to communicate with parties. VirtualCourthouse streamlines every step in the process and minimizes the need and costs of unnecessary face-to-face meetings, mailing, and copying.
The VirtualCourthouse Dispute Resolution Engine (DRE) is a combination of multimedia technologies and business processes, integrated with a customer-friendly user interface. The DRE replicates the current process of dispute resolution in an online environment, removing constraints of time, expense and distance. The engine is a sequence of events utilizing Internet-based media technologies that are designed to resolve conflicts between two or more parties. The DRE enables the resolution of disputes by functioning as a middleware to connect the disparate business processes of attorneys, claimants and neutrals. The DRE permits the exchange of data between these business processes which would otherwise lack the technology interfaces essential to working together electronically. The engine, centralized through VirtualCourthouse.com™, is the electronic “glue” that binds these users of otherwise unrelated systems into a virtual private data and business process network.
The Internet creates an online marketplace for dispute resolution by bringing together parties with disputes and neutrals seeking a storefront for their services. Registered users are able to visit the “virtual” court 24/7, review the docket and conduct any proceedings under way. Lawyers are able to check on the status of their cases, view documents and make filings at any time. Case administration for the parties and the neutral by a case administrator is minimized as case administration activities are automated through the virtual private data and business process network

How Can ODR Help ADR?
ODR promises to enable ADR to become more efficient, faster and less expensive. By achieving those three improvements ODR will make ADR a real alternative to a greater number of disputes thereby bringing all of the advantages of ADR to a greater number of people. An examination of the ADR process and barriers to ADR will allow a deeper examination of the potential of ODR. The ADR process usually unfolds this way:
One party decides to pursue ADR, an existing agreement requires it, or a court or other authority requires it;
A neutral is selected. (This can be by suggestion and negotiation of the parties, identification of the neutral in an exiting agreement, or appointment of the neutral by a court or other authority);
The parties provide the neutral with written documentation of their respective positions;
An ADR session is scheduled;
An ADR session is held and conducted; and
A decision or report is rendered by the neutral.

Each of these steps can be automated by technology and the Internet. The goal of ODR is to reduce the time and cost of each step thereby making it available to greater number of people.

Change, Not Technology
The adoption of technology by businesses and individuals over the last two decades is astounding. Just 10 years ago managers of the nation’s largest law firms were struggling to get their lawyers to put computers on their desks and then actually use them. One manager of a firm found a creative strategy. He announced at a firm meeting that he was conducting a pilot to determine how best to use a computer in the practice. He was going to conduct the pilot with the 10 brightest lawyers in the firm. Anyone who was interested was advised to call his office. One by one, every lawyer in the firm called, and as soon as they did, a computer showed up on each lawyer’s desk. Adoption of the computer in the everyday life of that firm was well underway.
Today only a few laggards in the legal profession fail to use a computer. Interestingly enough, the leaders are not always the younger generations as many senior lawyers lead the way. Take Judge Richard Rombro, a retired Judge in Maryland (having been forced to retire because the Constitution requires retirement at age 70). Judge Rombro managed the entire asbestos docket for the Circuit Court for Baltimore City using Lexis-Nexis File and Serve-sometimes even from his winter office in Florida. The legal profession has fully embraced technology including the Internet to help become better lawyers. Those who have not embraced technology are losing the competitive battle.
So why is it that disputes are still largely resolved with a dependency on paper and face-to-face meetings? It is all about change. Old ways are not put aside easily. Who hasn’t heard a lawyer say, “I know that is the way it will be done in the future, but I am not going to change now.”
Change requires strong and great leadership. And great leaders always have a vision, a strategy, and they are enthusiastic and work really hard. I learned these attributes of leadership from basketball great Jim Valvano. I was riding in my car to a Maryland basketball game against North Carolina State listening to Johnny Holiday’s pre-game radio show. Johnny was interviewing the State coach Jim Valvano. Valvano had just won a National Championship the year before. Shortly into the interview Johnny ask Coach Valvano what his secret to success was. Coach Valvano said rather nonchalantly and quickly, “Well Johnny you have to have a vision, then a strategy and you have to be enthusiastic, then you have to work like crazy to make sure that you accomplish the vision.” Coach Valvano said that his vision was to win the game on a shot at the buzzer. His strategy was to get to the last two minutes of the game no more than six points down. He was sure that his team could play strong enough defense in the final two minutes to make sure the other team did not score and he was sure his team could execute and score over that relatively short period of time. Sure enough over the years Coach Valvano executed his plan for success and he wound up being one of the most successful coaches. His life was cut short by a tragic and fatal fight with cancer, but the coach never gave up. His lesson and legacy will live on for years. Valvano’s formula for success has four parts: vision, strategy, enthusiasm, and work. In developing a strategy it is essential to identify the barriers. The following are but a few:
The neutral “needs to see the parties”;
Scanning and uploading documents;
“It’s easier to do it the old way:; and
“My computer is too slow.”

As VirtualCourthouse approaches the 1,000th case filing it has become obvious that ODR requires adoption by three separate constituencies-the claimant, the respondent and the neutral. Much like a stool, if one leg is absent the stool falls. Thus, the challenge of change is multiplied or as the mathematician might say-“cubed.”
Most all practitioners have successfully overcome the barriers to change which were presented with the advent of court ordered ADR in the 1990’s. The benefits have become obvious: time savings, cost savings and “resolution satisfaction.” Yet the court dockets keep growing so much more remains to be accomplished.
Students of the dynamics of change will testify that change does not occur unless there is leadership, strategy, and management. Over the past four years VirtualCourthouse has demonstrated that technology can elevate ADR to higher levels, but it requires the participation of all three legs of the stool: the claimant, respondent, and neutral. Leadership is key and the leaders in each constituency are stepping forward as the pioneer’s did and they are establishing new territory.
Eric Frye, a lawyer in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, continues to file his cases in VirtualCourthouse before he files in Court. Jeff Wigodsky with Karp Frosh, in Washington, D.C. has successfully adopted the same policy. Several insurance claims department have successfully integrated VirtualCourthouse into their claims examiner training process. The neutrals have had an easier time adopting as Judge Vincent Femia, Alan Feld and Cy Pickens will attest. The common denominator with all of these folks is their ability test the vision of VirtualCourthouse and overcome the reluctance to change.
Most people are risk-averse and they therefore resist change. “I have been doing just fine without all of this technology” is a familiar refrain. However, the evidence now is overwhelming that ODR will pay significant dividends to those willing to give it a try. The VirtualCourthouse team does a formal evaluation on every case filing and the results are truly exceptional. Over 90 percent of those responding are “very satisfied”-a “5” on a five-point scale-with VirtualCourthouse as a method of dispute resolution. About 90 percent are also “very satisfied” with the customer service. Now this does not mean that everyone is thrilled with the result, because as in all dispute resolution, expectations are not always achieved. And yes, there are occasional “technological” glitches and challenges. But that is where the ODR provider excels by its experience in overcoming these challenges. Even in the “paper world” not all is perfect and there are occasional problems and challenges to overcome. Who hasn’t had the experience of a paper file that has been lost or destroyed or a letter that was somehow lost in transit?

WHAT WORKS BEST IN ODR? • In developing a strategy to successfully implement an ODR project it is helpful to analyze what has been successful. What is becoming clear is that certain case criteria lend themselves to online activity, while other criteria lend themselves to the physical or “bricks-and-mortar” world.
Online activity works best when there are only two parties and when the substance of the dispute is only monetary. ODR also has been effective when the dispute arises out of Internet commerce. ODR is difficult when there are many parties, the substance of the dispute is emotional or there is a large amount of money in controversy.
Square Trade has handled thousands of disputes which have arisen between the buyer and seller of goods on eBay. Using this online solution a neutral mediates the dispute in an online chat format. While Square Trade no longer offers ODR for eBay it demonstrated that ODR is a viable and effective alternative.
Cybersettle has successfully settled thousands of disputes, mainly involving personal-injury claims. Using the Cybersettle online process, the parties submit blind monetary demands and offers and agree that if they are within certain limits the case is settled at the midpoint of the last demand and offer.
The American Arbitration Association has settled several thousand cases digitally, but it still remains a very small percentage of the AAA caseload.
VirtualCourthouse.com™ has successfully settled hundreds of personal-injury, real estate, construction and contract claims through an online binding arbitration process. The parties select a neutral though an online negotiation. Once the neutral is selected each party presents their case online – uploading supporting medical bills, doctor reports, pictures and other relevant evidence. The neutral then reviews the presentations and renders a binding decision.
Neutral-Focused ODR Providers
Services like VirtualCourthouse.com specialize in providing neutrals a market place in addition to taking the parties through the entire ODR process. VirtualCourthouse.com comes closer to mimicking the actual court process than most of the services outlined above. VirtualCourthouse allow exhibits and supporting materials to be submitted electronically and case information is shared among the parties and the assigned neutral in a secure environment. The lowest cost for a simple case brought to VirtualCourthouse.com is less than $400.When shared by the parties that results in a dispute resolved for $200 a major cost saving to either ADR or court.
Mediate.com is a site that helps one locate a mediator in a particular geographical area and practice type. Unlike the VirtualCourthouse.com outlined above, Mediate.com does not offer a Web interface to enable one’s case to be submitted and adjudicated online.

Paper-Based Organizations In Transition
The American Arbitration Association offers a lot of information on their Website, including PDF forms. You have the ability to file your case electronically through AAA Webfile. The AAA offers both mediation and arbitration services and is the oldest ADR organization outside of the courts in the U.S.
JAMS, founded by Hon. H. Warren Knight in 1979, provide mediation and arbitration services across the country. They specialize in a variety of claims including bankruptcy, mass tort and international. The JAMS Website allows the visitor to file an initial claim and select a location and neutral. But beyond that, JAMS does not offer the automated case monitoring that the other services outlined above do.

Regional ADR Service Providers
There are several regional ADR providers, like ADR Systems of America, LLC, headquartered in Chicago. ADR Systems has many retired Cook County Circuit Court judges on their roster of neutrals and specialize in complex personal injury cases. The ADR Systems’ Web interface is limited but they focus on being a regional provider and therefore the need for automation is not quite as great as in a case involving geographically diverse parties.
Other ODR Providers
The ElectronicCourthouse.com, run by a Canadian company called iVentures, provides services to companies that must offer dispute resolution. They specialize in companies that manufacture and distribute internationally.

Developing A Successful Strategy
Transferring an existing process from the bricks-and-mortar world to the Internet is a daunting undertaking. The process is fraught with barriers of change involving multiple parties and multiple processes. Developing a strategic approach is therefore essential. It is similar to “eating an elephant”: You do not want to plan this event for one meal or you will surely fail. You need to start small but you need to start. It is necessary to strategically identify a starting point where the existing barriers are not overwhelming and where efficiencies of online business will bring the greatest bottom line result.

CONCLUSION • The last 50 years have seen enormous growth in the use of ADR. The growth has been championed and led by the judges and the lawyers of the many state courts. Judges have led the way by incorporating ADR in case-flow management, adopting standards and criteria for the certification of neutrals. Lawyers have led the way by forming professional organizations and adopting ethical standards. ODR promises to take ADR to the next level: meeting the dispute resolution needs of a greater number of people in a way that is both faster and less expensive. By using a technologically sophisticated process over which they have substantial control, litigants will have greater confidence in the legal community and experience a higher level of justice.

PRACTICE CHECKLIST FOR
What You Should Know About Online Dispute Resolution
The ability of technology-especially the Internet-to make many business processes more efficient is now making it clear that online dispute resolution (ODR) is the next frontier of ADR.

The VirtualCourthouse dispute resolution process models a court dispute resolution process delivered on the Internet using Web-based technologies:
__ A case is initiated and a list of Neutrals is selected and the Neutrals are ranked;
__ A system generated email is sent to the other party, inviting them to join the case;
__ The other party joins the case and a Neutral is agreed upon;
__ The Neutral reviews the case initiation, and sends an email to both parties, confirming the type of proceeding and the fees;
__ The claimant prepares a case presentation and uploads the scanned documents into the online case;
__ Once complete, a system generated email is sent to the respondent, advising them the claimant has completed their presentation, and now it is time for them to submit their case presentation;
__ Once the case presentations are complete, a system generated email is sent to the Neutral advising them to review the evidence and render a decision;
__ Once reviewed, a verdict is submitted online, and a system generated email is sent to both parties notifying them a verdict has been rendered.

The VirtualCourthouse Dispute Resolution Engine (DRE) is a combination of multimedia technologies and business processes, integrated with a customer-friendly user interface. The DRE replicates the current process of dispute resolution in an online environment, removing constraints of time, expense, and distance. The engine is a sequence of events utilizing Internet-based media technologies that are designed to resolve conflicts between two or more parties.

ODR works best when there are only two parties and when the substance of the dispute is only monetary. ODR also has been effective when the dispute arises out of Internet commerce. ODR is difficult when there are many parties, the substance of the dispute is emotional or there is a large amount of money in controversy. Providers include:
__ Square Trade;
__ Cybersettle;
__ The American Arbitration Association;
__ VirtualCourthouse.com™ (which comes closest to mimicking the actual court process);
__ Mediate.com;
__ JAMS;
__ ADR Systems of America, LLC;
__ The ElectronicCourthouse.com, run by a Canadian company called iVentures.

The ability of technology-especially the Internet-to make many business processes more efficient is now making it clear that online dispute resolution (ODR) is the next frontier of ADR. The internet promises to make more disputes reachable by ADR and to facilitate the resolution of disputes faster and at a lower cost. But like many shifts from paper to technology, a clear strategic pathway has yet to appear.

by Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt ( Ret.) – April 1, 2009

Digital Footprint – What’s That ?

By | blog, Judge Ahalt's Articles, Online Dispute Resolution | No Comments

Digital Footprint – What’s That ?
Who Controls Your Digital Footprint ?
Ten years ago, a large percentage of the legal profession-lawyers, judges, administrators and marketing experts were consumed by the privacy debates. The fear, in some cases paranoia, was that “bad people” would misuse personal data. Even public data in public files at the courthouse were thought to be protected in some sort of cloak of confidentiality. After all, real estate marketers were doing “bad things” with online court data; they were obtaining foreclosure records and marketing their services to the distressed homeowner, many of who were no doubt embarrassed by their financial plight. Never mind that those “bad things” were happening in newspaper ads and handmade signs on the community telephone poles.

Consider what has occurred over the past ten years; the amount of information about an individual which is accessible on the internet, without the specific permission of that individual, is astounding. Try googling your own name and see how much information you find about yourself; you will be shocked!

This is your “digital footprint”; information about an individual, law firm or business which resides on the World Wide Web. This information can be used to your benefit, or it can be used in an unfavorable manner. It is collected from content on a website, and it is collected from your browsing history. Think of the various search engines you visited just today; Google, Yahoo, Bing. Check it for yourself and see how much information is revealed in a single month of history.

One company Executive put it this way; “They leave a data footprint. They tell me what they are interested in. They tell me what kinds of things they are searching on. They tell me what kinds of article they are reading. They tell me whether a user is interested in preparing for the tax season next year. They tell me…….” – the list goes on and on. Put several years together and it is possible to paint a very relevant picture.

How to monitor your digital footprint.
Monitoring your digital footprint is really very easy.
1. Perform a google search of your name, your law firm or your business.
2. Schedule a monthly or quarterly google search.
3. Create a google alert on your name, your law firm or your business.

How to manage your digital footprint.
There are three principles to managing your digital footprint: content, content, content. The best and surest way to manage a digital footprint is to create content on the world wide web. Rather than allowing others to create this content, take a proactive approach.

1. Create and manage a personal website.
2. Create a professional profile on a professional networking site such as Linkedin or Plaxo.
3. Create a business/profession page on Facebook, Linkedin, Avvo, and Lawyers.com.
4. Publish articles in your area of expertise for other professionals and the general public.

The more information that you put on the web about yourself, your practice and your law firm, the more the web will reflect what you say, not what others say for you.

Rules of Professional Conduct and Ethical Consideration

What about the Rules of Professional Conduct and Ethics? Currently, the discussion traffic about ethics is heavy and the speed of response is “warped speed”. Blogs and Twitters on the subject abound. One side says you cannot do much; the State Bar Counsel and Ethics Panel says you are ethically responsible for what others might be saying about you on sites like Avvo, Linkedin. The other side says all options are open. As usual, the truth and practice will lie somewhere in the middle – although the “middle” is still being defined.

When dealing with technology and the Internet, the tendency is to forget the occurrences and problems in the regular non-technology universe. For instance, social networking for a legal professional is as old as the profession. Lawyers are social by nature; they have neighbors, join country clubs, belong to churches, service organizations, community associations. Their friends and families are interconnected often by several generations. They call each other, meet with each other, and talk over the back fence or on the front porch. All of these activities must comport with ethical standards, yet are impossible to track or trace.

So what is different about this new and evolving technological Internet world? How is Facebook different from the community bulletin board and the local telephone tree? How is Linkedin different than the Rotary Club, Kiwanis or Lions Club? How is Avvo different than the yellow pages? A close look will lead to the conclusion of – not much. Yes, the speed and distance by which information and connections travel is multiplied and sometimes cubed. But at the same time, the tracks are easier to find and follow.

For the legal professional, the pathway seems pretty clear – get involved, use these new tools, learn about them, experiment with them, find out their strengths and weaknesses. While conducting activities, continue to guide them by basic ethics.

1. Don’t give legal advice.
2. Don’t solicit work.
3. Don’t let people think you are representing them and creating a lawyer client relationship.
4. Make sure your words are not misleading.
5. Make sure you protect client confidences.
6. Watch out for conflicts of interest situations.

We should adapt our technology and internet use to the ethical standards that have always guided our conduct. We should not create a new set of rules in reaction to new technology

by Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt ( Ret.) – February 17, 2010

September 2008 – In Memorium – Judge E. Allen Shepherd 1937-2008

By | blog | No Comments

September 2008 – In Memorium – Judge E. Allen Shepherd 1937-2008

Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt (Ret.)


I write this memorial of my friend and colleague Judge E. Allen Shepherd. Judge Shepherd was born on March 26, 1937 in Bridgeport, Connecticut. His death occurred on July 23, 2008 in Mitchellville, Maryland – and leaves behind his loving wife, Juanita, son Chuck, daughter Cindy, and 3 grandchildren
Judge Shepherd was raised in University Park, Maryland attending local schools and graduating from the University of Maryland. He was a graduate of the George Washington University School of Law. While attending school he served his country in the United States Naval Air Reserves from 1954 to 1962.
Although our roots were in University Park/College Park we did not become friends until my son, Kevin and Al’s son, Chuck were in the same Boy Scout troop in Bowie. Al and I soon decided that we would start our own informal camping and hiking combine. We first met professionally when I tried my first case as a lawyer – defending a client accused of an armed robbery of the Palmer Drive-In Movie Theater. The case was prosecuted by Assistant State’s Attorney E. Allen Shepherd and resulted in a conviction of my client. Over the next 10 + years we spent many days and hours backpacking the Appalachian and Big Blue Trail in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia and camping in Vance’s Cove near Wardensville, West Virginia. It was on the trail and around the campfire that I learned of Al’s many positive character traits and legal wisdom. Our camping group of Al, John Pleisse, John Buchanan and others solved many legal problems around the camp fire on those trips – usually with the wise counsel of our friend and colleague.
The Man
Al Shepherd had a sincere belief in God and made that relationship a priority in his life. As a long time member of Hope Presbyterian Church in Mitchellville, he sang in the choir and served as an elder. Al’s family was always a priority as the faithful
husband to Juanita for 43 years and father of Chuck and Cindy and 3 grandchildren.
Al was a man of broad interests. It was not unusual to walk into his chambers as he was listening to his favorite classical music station and reading the London Times on the Internet while he was waiting for a verdict. He was an expert on many Civil War Battles as well as World War I and World War II. He would regularly recount the batting averages of Oriole hitters as well as the ERA’s of the pitchers – he did not like to miss an opening game. And, oh yes, he was an expert in ballistics – an expertise gained from his thorough preparation of many gun cases as a prosecutor and defense attorney.
The Lawyer
It would be difficult to find a trial lawyer in the state who had a more diverse and deep experience. Al started his legal career in Baltimore as an insurance defense lawyer with the firm of Rollins, Smalkin, Westin and Andrews where he practiced law from 1963 until 1967.Thereafter,he was appointed assistant state’s attorney in Prince Georges County where he served for 4 years from 1967 until 1971.Deputy States Attorney Vincent J Femia hired him and recounts that Al soon became the “go to guy” in the office and developed a reputation for his thorough preparation and tenacious advocacy. In 1971 he commenced the private practice of law where he successfully represented clients in criminal, family, personal injury, real estate and many other types of cases. He was regularly assigned the representation of the most difficult criminal cases including numerous first degree murder and capital punishment cases. In 1985 he was appointed the Public Defender for Prince Georges County. He served in that position until he was appointed to the District Court in 1991. During his practice Al became a mentor to numerous young lawyers who have gone on to successful careers as prosecutors, trial lawyers and judges. He launched the careers of numerous trial lawyers and current judges through his steady and wise mentoring
The Judge
Al served as a District Court Judge until he was appointed to the Circuit Court in 1995 where he served until his retirement in 2007 when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 70. He was then recalled by the Court of Appeals and continued to try numerous and diverse cases. Judge Shepherd was predictably assigned the most difficult cases because of his breadth of experience. He was always available to assist his colleagues in grappling with complex legal and trial issues. As a Judge, Al continued his mentoring of lawyers, law clerks and newly appointed Judges.
Judge Shepherd was a court house fixture for 40 years. His presence will continue to exert wide influence through the many lawyers and judges he nurtured.
As a man, lawyer and judge he had many admirable character traits – among them – modesty, humility, honesty and diligence. Testimonies from current judges, trial lawyers and employees include the following –
– “ quiet and thoughtful”
– “ a lawyer’s judge”
– “ his door was not just open it was wide open”
– “ enormous, grace, poise, dignity and humility under fire”
– “ one of the greats of the bar and the bench”
– “ the personification of what a judge should be”
Throughout his career Al was subjected to enormous public criticism from his unpopular clients, victims, victims’ rights groups and the press. In the face of such criticism for just being an excellent lawyer, Al had the unique ability to rise above it all with humility and grace. Al was not defined by what the public said but by his faith in his Creator and his Lord Jesus Christ. That faith enabled him to achieve his life’s work.
The Bar has lost a great lawyer, judge and friend but we are better off because of his lasting character and many disciples.