I was privileged to engage in a stimulating and thought-provoking conversation with Tony Guise on Expert Views on ADR (EVA) Vid/Podcast Show. In different capacities, Tony Guise has been at the heart of every major #civil #justice #reform of the past Thirty (30) years.

Notable successes include the formation of the Civil Justice Council (CJC) in 1997, the campaign for new court accommodation in 2007 that became the Rolls Building, and, in 2013, #costs budgeting.

Tony ceased to practice as a commercial litigation solicitor in 2016. He now works full-time as the Director of DisputesEfiling.com Limited.

His lectures concern civil justice reform and the intersection of ADR with Legal #technology. He wears many hats, so I have left the link to his profile:https://uk.linkedin.com/in/tonyguise.

In this series, Tony explored Bentham’s critiques of the legal system of Bentham's era and compared those insights to our current legal framework, highlighting how many of his ideas remain applicable today. We also included perspectives from his mentees, particularly the valuable contributions of John Stuart Mill and others.

Additionally, we discussed the application of utilitarianism in mass mediation. This approach is non-binary and flexible, making it one of the most preferred ADR methods. Tony's overarching argument is that the outcomes for parties involved in disputes would often be more favourable if they chose mediation over traditional binary methods. For example, consider the implications of processing hundreds of thousands of cases through pre-court mandatory mediation—would there be sufficient mediators and mediation advocates to manage such a workload?

Moreover, we examined whether the mediation process is prearranged as it has been in England and Wales, utilising telephone and email—both technologies dating back to the 20th century.

This highlights the necessity for innovation in legal technology; on a larger scale, we must assess success through clear criteria. For instance, are we effectively reducing waiting times and hearing durations? While resolving cases may be expedient, we must also consider parties' satisfaction levels with these resolutions.

Tony revealed that Bentham’s philosophical or hedonistic calculus underscores the need for empirical and quantitative evidence, demonstrating the potential role of legal technology in enhancing our understanding of mediation outcomes. To achieve this, Tony suggested that ADR centres implement routine evaluations at the outset and reassess after two years to gauge progress and effectiveness. Chinwe also emphasised the importance of funding and raising awareness. If the government in England & Wales & other jurisdictions actively supports ADR, it will stand the taste of time.

Chinwe likened Jeremy Bentham to Nostradamus, who foresaw future events. This comparison positions Bentham as a visionary whose ideas or thoughts on justice now align with contemporary methods of conflict resolution, such as ADR.Tony expressed his appreciation for the empirical data on public awareness from various states in the U.S. presented in my book, 'Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Comparative Perspectives in Nigeria, the U.S., and the UK.' This evidence serves as a strong foundation for advocating greater investment in and awareness of ADR processes.

You can order my book, 'Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Comparative Perspectives Nigeria, the UK, and the US,' via #springer: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-57476-4.

#adr #EDR #mediation #costs #court #litigation #jeremybentham #johnstuartmill #tonyguise #hedonisticcalculus #theory #conflictresolution #utilitarianism #podcast #britishhistory #life #podcast #factual #education #awareness #law #letsmakeadrgoviral #viral #UCL #england #wales #british #brits #english #scotland #ireland #europe #africa #nigeria #northamerica #caribbean #asia #northamerica #southamerica #latinamerica #australia #law #ethics #society

I was privileged to engage in a stimulating and thought-provoking conversation with Jonathan Wood, FCIArb, on Expert Views on ADR (EVA) Vid/Podcast Show. He was the president of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb)-at the time we recorded the interview. He has in-depth knowledge and understanding of Ciarb, having served five (5) years as Chair of the Board of Trustees and eight (8) years as a Trustee. During that time, he has overseen significant growth and change in Ciarb. He wears many hats, so I have left the link to his profile: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-wood-fciarb-93264960. In this series, we analysed the role of Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR), specifically mediation and Arbitration, in resolving conflicts or disputes and how far they have enhanced access to Justice in the UK.

Mr Wood highlighted that ADR is an acronym for Alternative Dispute Resolution, and what it means in broad terms is that it is an 'Alternative' in resolving disputes outside the court system; it is a non-court system process of resolving disputes.

He indicated that it is an acronym first coined by Professor Frank Sander, an American academic, in 1976 and was first mentioned to the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) at a conference by again an American academic, Jonathan Marx, in 1983. We alluded to the fact that, universally, Mediation is a well-known form of resolving disputes outside the court system. On the one hand, Arbitration as an ADR mechanism is different in various jurisdictions. For instance, arbitration is considered a binding adjudicative process in the USA, while the UK view includes mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, and adjudication under the remit of ADR. Mr Wood emphasised that he stands with the English perspective- that arbitration falls within the remit of ADR, recounting his experiences with the Turkish government, where concepts like mediation and arbitration were challenging to distinguish; he came up with an alternative description, 'facilitative negotiation.' We critically analysed the recent case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416, which emerged in the Court of Appeal, UK, overturning doubts cast by a previous case, Halsey, about the court's power to mandate mediation with cost sanctions against recalcitrant or uncooperative parties. The basis of that objection is that it might infringe on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides the right to a fair trial. It is imperative to state that it was a case in which the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) intervened with a number of others to try and educate the court on the very important role of mediation. The outcome of the case led the foundation to enable the court to order the parties to undergo mediation and to stay proceedings whilst they did so. As a result, the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in the UK have now been changed to allow that to happen in appropriate and proportionate cases; a cost sanction can now be ordered by the court against the party who is recalcitrant or does not want to engage in mediation in good faith. That has heralded a new era of mediation in the UK, which goes hand in glove with access to justice. Mr Wood indicated that justice has become increasingly expensive in courts, while mediation offers a more affordable and expedited solution, which, in turn, enhances access to justice. He revealed the historical development of CIArb and why they might change its name in the future to include 'Mediation.' Finally, he analysed the steps CIArb has taken to handle diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and cybersecurity. #adr #CIArb #arbitration #mediation #peace #peacekeeping#podcast #disputeresolution #technology #jonathanwood #tanzania #turkish #reform #highereducation #university #uk #england #english #wales #ireland #scotland #europe #northamerica #southamerica #africa #asia #australia #latinamerican #world