...Summarizes the current and pending policies of the Supreme Judicial Court and the Trial Court with respect to alternative dispute resolution (ADR); describes the trial court's current ADR programs and their impact and reports the key findings of studies evaluating court-connected ADR in Massachusetts and elsewhere; appendices include lists of ADR programs in Superior and District Court, summaries of research on the impact of ADR and articles regarding the use of ADR by the legal profession and business...

LexisNexis Practice Guide: Massachusetts Alternative Dispute Resolution distills the lifetime experience of a retired Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court who was Chair of the Superior Court's ADR Committee for ten years and is now an arbitrator and mediator with JAMS. Combining lucid legal analysis of Massachusetts law and ADR procedure, it provides step-by-step guidance to fulfilling the Massachusetts attorney's duty to discuss ADR with clients, selecting the appropriate type of ADR and participating in that ADR. Topically organized, it explains such topics as the following:Nature and purpose of ADR;Obligation to consider ADR;Approaching adversary about ADR;Statutes and rules governing mediation;Federal Arbitration Act and Massachusetts arbitration statutes;Identifying disputes that are generally suitable for mediation;Evaluating confidentiality and mediation privilege;Evaluating potential mediators;Ethical requirements for mediators;Role of attorney in mediation;Enforcing mediated settlement agreements;Using court connected mediation;Private contractual arbitration;Court connected arbitration;Compelling arbitration;Selecting arbitrators;Pre-arbitration issues and processes;Participating in arbitration;Delivering opening statements;Advocating at hearings;Conciliation;Case evaluation;Mini trial;Summary jury trial;Dispute intervention;and much more.LexisNexis Practice Guide: Massachusetts Alternative Dispute Resolution integrates how-to practice guidance, over 40 task-oriented checklists, over 150 practice tips, and citations to leading authority to make this complex area readily understandable to practitioners. It offers targeted practical guidance for the Massachusetts attorney struggling to select and pursue the appropriate type of ADR.

The Massachusetts Land Court is overburdened. More than 15,000 new cases are filed each year, with the even more cases carried over from previous years. Each emotionally taxing case can cost litigants between $50,000- $150,000 to try, with no guarantee of winning. One promising option that would relieve the overload, reduce the cost to litigants, and give them control over the outcome is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This is an approach to resolving disputes that allows parties to find mutually beneficial agreements with the help of a neutral mediator. The Land Court already has an ADR program - and has since 1999. But the program is underutilized and it is not clear why that is the case. Despite unanimous support for ADR among mediators, Land Court judges, and attorneys, less than 1% of cases that go through the Court are mediated. I find that the Massachusetts Land Court ADR program is perceived as "second-class justice" - less desirable than a trial. A lack of understanding about ADR and its value, a perception that the costs of mediation not worth the service, and emotional factors emerged as the key barriers to wider use of mediation in Land Court cases. I make recommendations for each of the involved parties. For the courts, I recommend reinstating an in-court ADR program (rather then sending cases to external mediators) and giving judges and clerks more responsibility for addressing litigants' misperceptions of ADR. For legislators, I recommend increasing ADR-specific funding for the Land Court. For attorneys, I suggest ensuring that all of their clients fully understand how ADR can improve their prospects, and bringing their clients with them to case management conferences or a similar court-tracked meeting. And lastly, for mediators, I recommend providing in-court screening of cases for the possibility of mediation and establishing long-term professional relationships with judges. Thesis