Reason to Read:
To understand how Cybercourts operated by the United States and Foreign Governments are being used and how proprietary forums are beginning to emerge as another alternative to on-line dispute resolution.

Article Summary:
Cybercourt is seen as an option to resolve disputes arising from the uniqueness of on-line conflict as well as provide alternative means to resolve off-line conflicts. The author discusses the present day usage of technology in litigation, such as the digital evidence presentation system used by the US District Court of Puerto Rico (click here to view a video clip of the technology), and the on-line filing permitted by the Federal Court of Australia (click here for further information). The Michigan House of Representatives announced the creation of an official Cybercourt to be launched in October 2002. While the system has not been launched yet, plans are still proceeding and can be read at michigancybercourt.net. In addition to government supported litigation technology, proprietary forums are emerging, such as i-courthouse.com. I-courthouse is a system where individuals submit their cases anonymously and volunteer jurors review the evidence before issuing a verdict.

The author builds upon the technology already in place in the United States and overseas and suggests that a futuristic International Cybercourt Central be formed to address the unique issues facing internet commerce and to more efficiently settle cases involving litigants from different jurisdictions. Issues such as evidence & testimony presentation, jurisdictional boundaries, forum selection, choice of laws and constitutional rights of parties are discussed in depth by the author.

Reason to Read:
To gain a familiarity with the newer types of ADR available on the internet and an understanding of the issues surrounding on-line ADR systems.

Article Summary:
This article provides a summary of the most common types of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) available on the internet relating to internet commerce. It describes settlement sites such as cybersettle.com and clicknsettle.com; subscription mediation sites such as squaretrade.com and ilevel.com; and the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Process (UDRP), offered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), implemented to resolve disputes concerning web addresses and trademark infringements.

Following this overview, is an outline of some of the issues that arise not only in internet commerce but also within any system intended to resolve disputes involving commerce. These issues include: (1) increasing consumer confidence (a concept similar to brand loyalty); (2) resolving jurisdictional and enforcing judicial awards; and (3) placing binding dispute clauses within the “terms and conditions” areas on web pages. Finally, the article discusses some of the drawbacks to online dispute resolution, such as: (1) lack of face to face discourse between parties; (2) difficulty ensuring that the "neutral" is truly neutral; (3) collection of service fees; (4) lack of a record if the parties fail to settle; and (5) the need for confidentiality in the dispute resolution process.

Reason to Read:
To compare traditional ADR to the newer on-line Dispute Resolution techniques and to assess the advantages and disadvantages inherent in newer on-line processes. The suggestion of implementing an on-line courthouse is discussed.

Article Summary:
The article focuses on how the internet can be used to resolve disputes arising from internet commerce. The traditional dispute resolution methods (mediation, arbitration and hybrids) are summarized followed by a discussion of the various online techniques.

The author compares the "old style" dispute resolution systems (face to face) to the newer online versions. The advantages of online dispute resolution systems include (1) convenience; (2) low-cost, (3) legitimacy to the online users, and (4) avoidance of jurisdictional issues while the disadvantages include (1) lack of accessibility for those without internet access, (2) nonexistence of human contact, (3) lack of reliable confidentiality and security; and (4) difficulty enforcing agreements.

The author proposes a proposal for the growth of online dispute resolution systems. Rather than leaving ODR to the haphazard expansion of the internet and internet services, the author suggests that a centralized framework, similar to a courthouse, be implemented.

Reason to Read:
With technological changes occurring, what will happen to the courthouse we know today? How will lawyering skills continue to evolve to ensure client’s needs are met in the most efficient manner? This article discusses these issues and more.

Article Summary:
In certain situations, ADR techniques provide clients with better results than the traditional dispute process. Even though alternative means are available, Americans still believe the traditional courtroom stands for fairness, truth and justice. Although the traditional dispute process is important to individuals seeking resolution of their dispute, more and more dispute resolution is moving to alternative methods, including internet resolution.

But can the internet provide litigants with a favorable result in all circumstances? The author of this article believes that internet dispute resolution is limited by its own construction. As human beings, litigants seek face-to-face resolution of their disputes. On-line dispute resolution processes are unable to fulfill this face-to-face requirement. Therefore, the author does not believe on-line dispute resolution is likely to overtake traditional dispute resolution and off-line ADR techniques.

That being said, the author does recognize the shift to off-line ADR techniques and wonders what will happen if a majority of litigants desire resolution of their conflicts through ADR processes. The author discusses this question and concludes that if a majority of litigants shift to ADR, the traditional dispute resolution process will perish. The author does not believe any dispute resolution system can survive without the continuation of the primary rights-based dispute resolution system. Without the primary system, the author sees societal and economic instability occurring.

So what will happen as more an more litigants move to resolve their disputes using on-line and off-line ADR techniques? The author speculates that the role of the courthouse will change. Not only will the courthouse resolve disputes using traditional techniques, but also the courthouse will begin to employ the very ADR techniques that were causing litigants to seek alternative forums. The courthouse dispute resolution process will practice both traditional litigation along side of non-adversarial collaborative techniques. If this change occurs, lawyers need to be skilled not only in traditional litigation techniques, but also in non-traditional techniques as counselors, healers and preachers.

• Digital Evidence Presentation

  The District Court of Puerto Rico has begun using a digital evidence presentation system to enhance trial preparation. Click link to see a demonstration of this technology.

• Michigan State Cybercourt

  Michigan House of Representatives announced creation of an official cybercourt to be launched in October 2002. While this technology has not yet been launched, information about the project is provided at a website.

• On-Line Filing

  Federal Courts of Australia have implemented e-filing.

• www.i-courthouse.com

  I-courthouse is a system where individuals submit their cases anonymously and volunteer jurors review the evidence before issuing a verdict. This is a complete litigation system with opening and closing statements, presentation of evidence and witness testimony. Anyone can submit a case or request to be a juror. There is no cost to submit a case or to serve as a juror. However, attorneys are charged $ 189 for the JurySmart feature, which permits the case to be conducted in front of a mock jury.

• www.odrnews.com/services
• www/ombuds.org/center/onlineadr

• www.adr.org

  Sponsored by the American Arbitration Association. This site provides an array of information about ADR techniques.

• www.bbb.org

  Provides guidance to consumers concerning traditional and on-line purchasing. BBB offers a dispute resolution service that is described in detail at this website.

• www.mediate.com

  Primarily an outlet for the submission of articles and literature pertaining to various areas of the law, mainly encompassing mediation and dispute resolution. The site is a home for fostering ideas on how technology can be utilized, in both a practical and an educational sense, to various areas of the law.
  
  Articles of Particular Interest Pertaining to ODR:

  • Colin Rule, Introduction to Online Dispute Resolution for Business, June 2002 (book review).
  • Dan DeStephen and John Helie, OnLine Dispute Resolution: Implications for the ADR Profession, June 2000 (discussing how the Internet can be integrated into the practice of law and exploring the emerging opportunities of online conflict resolution).

• www.odrnews.com

  An on-line resource to discover developments in ODR processes. The site contains interesting articles that are intriguing whether or not a visitor is interested in ODR. As an example, for information on how the public can voice opinions concerning open federal regulations see Cindy Skrzycki, U.S. Opens Online Portal to Rulemaking Web Site Invites Wider Participation in the Regulatory Process, Wash. Post, Jan. 23, 2003. See also, http://www.regulations.gov/ for a catalog of open federal regulations and information on how the public can comment on these regulations.
  
  Provides links to several varieties of online dispute resolution projects, many of which do not require the assistance of an attorney.

• www.ombuds.org

  Operated by the Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution . Focus of site is to support technology and its use in the management of conflict. The site has links to useful articles, publications and on-line dispute resolution projects.

• www.problemsolvingcourts.com

  Sponsored by the Center for Problem Solving Courts. Focuses on providing information to better educate, train and assist state and regional organizations interested in reforming the judicial process.
  
  The Center encourages the use of alternative processes in courts dealing with drug and DUI offenses, domestic violence, and homeless and mentally ill individuals.

• www.clicknsettle.com

  Provides services such as video-conferenced hearings, in-person or written arbitration and mediation, mock jury trials and web enhanced case management, reporting and tracking
  
  Offers a variety of methods for resolving differences, including arbitration, mediation, expert evaluation and negotiation. To use the service, each party pays an hourly rate ranging from $50/hour for cases less than $10,000 to $100/hour for cases in excess of $50,000, for a minimum of 2 hours. All three techniques use the same pricing structure and allow both sides to submit statements of facts and positions. The arbitration option simply chooses between the two sides, while the other two options take a more conciliatory approach to achieving resolution..

• (a/k/a) Virtual Magistrate

  Operated by Chicago-Kent Law School, Virtual Magistrate is an arbitration site that focuses on resolving disputes arising from on-line activity. Matters that may be resolved include spamming, defamation, inappropriate messages; contract, tort or property issues involving on-line issues and other on-line treatment issues.

• www.squaretrade.com

  A subscription-based service focusing on Internet commerce transactions.
  
  The company specializes in helping consumers recognize reputable sellers by allowing good sellers to use the Square Trade Seal. The company also provides interactive mediation and arbitration services to resolve disputes resulting from on-line transactions.
  
  Squaretrade partners with industry leaders such as ebay, Verisign, PayPal and California Association of Realtors.

Limited to Insurance Dispute Resolution.

Requires the use of an attorney.

How it works: Insurer submits a maximum settlement figure and the claimant submits a minimum settlement demand. If the bids between the insurance company and claimant are within 20% of each other, a settlement is reached. It a settlement is not reached, both sides have two additional rounds in which to adjust their figures in an attempt to settle.

Fees: If the case settles, the fee charged is determined by the settling amount. A fee of $100 for settlements less than $5,000, $150 for settlements up to $10,000 and $200 for settlements in excess of $10,000.

• www.resolvemydispute.com

  This is a hybrid site that provides both traditional ADR techniques using on-line technology and passive bidding settlement resolution.
  
  The site offers three types of services to customers.

  1. MARS ADR: Full service negotiation, mediation or arbitration, or combination, using technology to submit evidence, collect testimony and discuss resolution with clients. This option is open to all types of disputes with costs ranging from $150 to $650.
  2. SuperSettle: This is a blind bidding settlement process. Used primarily to settle insurance disputes. The cost is typically $100 per party.
  3. Fair & Square: Clients are offered on-line mediation services to settle e-commerce disputes. The cost is $100 for settlements less than $1,000 or 15% of the settlement amount. A $150 deposit (shared by both parties) is required.