Newsletters
 

 


Alternative Resolutions Newsletter
November 1997 Vol. 9, No. 2


CHAIR'S CORNER
by John Phillip Palmer
"Optimistically Responsible"

After my daughter Meredith was born on Friday, September 19, 1997, I had visions of the wonderful life I would have with my precious little girl and the rest of my family. After coming down from the euphoria, I began to think of all the responsibilities of meeting the needs of my family of four. Those responsibilities I accept with joy, but they can be of great concern.

Now I am back at work, and I have the honor and obligation to pen the Chair's Corner for the Newsletter. This year as Chair parallels the recent events in my personal life. I began the year in June, optimistically setting goals to promote the use of ADR, while being rooted in the past accomplishments of the ADR Section and Committee. The responsibilities in meeting the goals to promote the use of ADR are great, but one in which I and the Council have gladly accepted. We are making great strides to meet those goals.

So far so good

The pamphlet "Dispute Resolution, Texas Style" (Second Edition) is published and is being distributed. This 20 page pamphlet contains a bevy of information about ADR. Everyone should have a copy of this pamphlet, and any group that offers information to the public should have at least one pamphlet on reserve so that copies can be made. The Section thanks the Texas Bar Foundation who initially funded the second edition and the State Bar of Texas Litigation Section which has contributed funds so that more copies of the pamphlets can be published. If you would like more information about the pamphlets, contact Marty Leewright at (940) 565-2614 or at P.O. Box 5356, Denton, Texas, 76203 or by Email at Marty@DSA.UNT.edu

On September 12 and 13, the 1997 Fall ADR Conference and Celebration of the tenth anniversary of our Texas ADR Statute "Mastering Mediation for the Third Millennium" was held. Course director extraordinaire Ross Stoddard organized a first-class conference which included Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, the Bexar County Judge Cyndi Taylor Krier and a marquee group of speakers, mediation trainers and facilitators. Included in this issue is a brief report of the conference, and excerpts from Judge Krier's recollection of the promulgation and passage of the ADR statute in 1987.

Where we are going

With the help of former council member Carl Forrester we are developing a web page, and hope to have that page operational by March, 1998.Liz Wally is working with University Of Texas on reducing violence in schools by promoting the use of peer mediation. If you are interested, contact Liz at 4237 Bluff View Road, Dallas, Texas 75209-2809, (214) 902-0240 or by e-mail at: DMSLiz@AOL.com.



Jim Gibson, former council member, is working with the Texas Young Lawyers Association in developing a juvenile victim offender mediation program statewide. Jim will be traveling throughout the state training attorneys and non-attorneys in juvenile victim offender mediation. Contact Jim at Sam Houston State University, P.O. Box 2059, Huntsville, Texas, 77341-2509, (409) 294-1717 or by e-mail at: sls_jwg@shsu.edu if you would like more information or to help.

The Council, with assistance from its past co-chair David Cohen, is looking at possible legislation on ADR, specifically at legislation to strengthen enforceability of mediation agreements, and amending the Texas Arbitration Act to permit arbitration in consumer complaints under $50,000.

The issue of credentialing of mediators is of concern of the Council. At the November 8, 1997 Council meeting, the Council will review the status of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Court Annexed Mediation and determine whether it should approve the proposal on credentialing which was discussed recently at the Conference, and is found in full text in the October 1995 Alternative Resolutions.

The mid-year meeting and program on arbitration will be held on Saturday, February 7, 1998 at the State Bar of Texas Building in Austin. All members of the Section are invited. The Section meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m. and last until 11:30 a.m., and committees will meet from 11:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. The arbitration program will be held from 12:30 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. at a cost of $25.00 for members of the Section, $35.00 for non-members. Lunch will be provided. Look inside this issue of the newsletter for more details.

For those who were wondering, Meredith Nicole Palmer who was born September 19, 1997 at 7:06 a.m. weighed a petite 7 pounds 4 ounces and was 19 inches long. Mother, daughter, and brother Blake are doing well. Father on the other hand....

 

ENCOURAGE COLLEAGUES TO JOIN ADR SECTION

by Marty Leewright

This is a personal challenge to all members of the ADR Section. Think of a colleague or associate who has shown interest in mediation or ADR and invite them to join the ADR Section of the State Bar of Texas. Photocopy the membership application below and mail or fax it to someone you believe will benefit from involvement in the ADR Section. They will appreciate your personal note and thoughtfulness.

BENEFITS OF MEMBERSHIP

Excellent Section Newsletter Alternative Resolutions is published several times each year. Regular features include discussions of Ethical dilemmas in ADR, Mediation and Arbitration law updates, ADR Book Reviews, and Calendar of upcoming ADR events and training around the State.

Keep informed on the latest developments in ADR for both ADR practitioners and those who represent clients in mediation and arbitration processes.

Continuing Legal Education at affordable basic, intermediate and advanced levels through announced conferences, interactive seminars and both non-profit and private training opportunities.

Truly interdisciplinary as the only Section of the State Bar of Texas which invites members who are not attorneys which adds new interaction and alliances in learning.

High cost/benefit ratio as you get all this and more for only $25 membership fees per year!



STATE BAR OF TEXAS
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SECTION

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

MAIL APPLICATION TO:

Paul D. Keeper, Treasurer
ADR Section, State Bar of Texas
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1600
Austin, Texas 78701

I am enclosing $25.00 for membership in the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the State Bar of Texas from June 1997 to June 1998. The membership includes subscription to Alternative Resolutions, the Section's Newsletter. (If you are paying your section dues at the same time you pay your other fees as a member of the State Bar of Texas, you need not return this form.) Please make check payable to: ADR Section, State Bar of Texas.

Name ________________ Public Member ____ Attorney ____

Address ________________ Bar Card Number ________

City ________________ State ____ Zip ________

Business Telephone ____________ Fax ____________

E-Mail ____________



JOIN A COMMITTEE OF THE ADR SECTION

We want and need your involvement in the section. The best way to do so is by becoming involved in one of the committees listed below. The chairs or co-chairs are listed by the committee. If you are interested in being involved in these committees, please return this form to John P. Palmer, Chair, by facsimile at (254) 754-6331 or by mail at P. O. Box 1470, Waco, Texas 76703-1470.

Yes, I want to help. I have indicated below the committee or committees of which I want to be involved:

_____Legislation Credentialing/ _____Training

(Cohen & Jackson) (Duvall & Wright)

_____Marketing / _____Internet CLE Committee

(Jackson-Marketing & Forrester-Internet) (Stoddard)

_____Organizational / _____Liaison Coordination Mediation

(Coselli & Labenz-Hough) (Estes)

_____Arbitration _____Publications

(Keeper & Wolff) (Leewright)

_____Strategic Planning

(Keeper & Lancaster)

Other Forms of ADR

_____ 1. Family Law (Duvall)

_____ 2. Government (Summer & Hart)

_____ 3. School & University (Wally)

_____ 4. Criminal Justice (Gibson)

_____ 5. International (Rodriguez)

PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND RETURN AND RETURN:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

PHONE: FAX:

E-MAIL:



ETHICAL PUZZLER

by Tom Reavely

*Tom Reavley is a mediator in Austin, Texas.

[This column is the sixth in a series that will address hypothetical ethical problems mediators may face. If you would like to propose an ethical puzzler for future issues, please send it to Tom Reavley, 1301 West 25th Street, Suite 525, Austin, Texas 78705.]

At the end of a mediation the parties have reached an oral agreement and desire to reduce it to writing. They request the mediator to draft a deal point memorandum for signing. Is it appropriate for the mediator to perform this function? Would the answer change if the parties wanted the mediator to draft the definitive formal settlement agreement during the mediation? (Assume that the mediator has obtained the parties' agreement in writing at the outset of the mediation that if he prepares a draft agreement, that each party should have his attorney independently review and approve the settlement agreement, and the attorneys agree to make such an independent review.)

Sid Stahl (Dallas): In my view it is most appropriate for an attorney-mediator to assist in preparation of a formal mediated Settlement Agreement. One might even argue that a mediator is obligated to assist once having undertaken the mediation. The whole purpose of mediation is to assist the parties in resolving their dispute--and their dispute is not resolved (at least within the context of Court-annexed mediation) until there is a valid, binding and enforceable settlement agreement.

Non-attorney or community mediators must be cautioned, however, that the drafting of a Settlement Agreement is frequently viewed as engaging in the practice of law. Thus, a non-attorney mediator should avoid that activity or run the risk of being viewed as engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Whether the mediator should draft only a "deal point" memorandum creates a more significant ethical dilemma. Such a memorandum falls far short of being a valid, binding and enforceable Settlement Agreement as contemplated by the ADR Statute. I am of the view that the mediator should assist in drafting such a memorandum only if the mediator is certain that all parties know that it is only a deal point memorandum and does not purport to be a binding agreement.

Bud Silverberg (Dallas): If the parties have attorneys present at the mediation, the attorneys should draft the deal point memorandum ("Memorandum"). If the attorneys are present at the mediation, but for some valid reason they are unable to draft the Memorandum, the mediator may do so, provided the Memorandum is submitted to the attorneys for their review, revision, and approval before it is signed by the parties. If the parties do not have attorneys with them at the mediation (as occasionally happens in family and other mediations), the mediator may draft the Memorandum, provided it contains a provision that the memorandum is subject to the review and approval of the parties' attorneys. The Memorandum should contain signature lines for the attorneys to evidence their review and approval.

If the parties want the mediator to draft the definitive formal settlement agreement ("Agreement") under the assumption stated in this hypothetical, the mediator should refuse to do so if the parties' attorneys are present at the mediation. Instead, the attorneys themselves should draft the Agreement. If the attorneys are not present, the mediator may draft the Agreement, provided it contains a provision that the Agreement is subject to the review and approval of the parties' attorneys. I would insist on this wording being in the Agreement even though the parties and their attorneys had previously agreed for the mediator to prepare the Agreement under your assumption. The Agreement should also contain signature lines for the attorneys to evidence their review and approval.

Mike Schless (Austin): This puzzler raises an issue that has been the subject of intense debate and even litigation involving Texas mediators. The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (UPL) filed suit in Dallas against a mediator who is not an attorney, claiming among other things that the drafting of any form of settlement document reflecting the agreement of the parties reached in a mediation constituted the unauthorized practice of law. Assuming for the sake of this debate that when attorneys serve as mediators they are not practicing law, it would also be inappropriate (unethical if not unlawful) for an attorney-mediator to draft any form of agreement for the parties in a mediation. On the other hand, most if not all reputable mediation training programs teach agreement writing as an integral part of the mediation process. Indeed, the Texas mediation Trainer Roundtable standards for the forty hour training curriculum requires a section on that subject.

I am of the view that reducing the mediated agreement of the parties to some written form is an integral part of the mediation process. When parties are represented by attorneys who are present throughout the mediation, my practice is to bring at least the attorneys, if not the parties as well, into my office where we collectively reduce to writing on my computer, a draft of a document I usually refer to as a memorandum of understanding. Sometimes I am the principal author with input from the attorneys; sometimes I serve only as the scrivener taking dictation from the attorneys and producing their words on the computer. Sometimes (especially if it is late or if there is a faster typist in the crowd, at least one of which is almost always the case) I will not even serve as scribe. In any event, a document is produced which the attorneys agree upon and then review with the parties. Frequently someone will catch a typo, remember an omitted provision, or suggest better language. Once everyone has had their say and the language is acceptable, the parties and counsel sign the agreement. Rarely is this document intended to be the final settlement agreement; rather, it is intended as a guide for the drafting of the final document(s) necessary to give effect to the agreement of the parties. It is, however, suitable for use as a Rule 11 agreement if the attorneys choose to use the magic words, and in the case of family law disputes, usually contains the requisite language for enforceability as set out in Section 153.007 of the Texas Family Code.

If the parties are represented by counsel, but the lawyers are not attending the mediation, I will draft the memorandum of understanding, but with the same opportunities for input and review of the parties as set out above. However, I will not invite the parties to sign the document until they have had the opportunity to review it with their own counsel. In fact, I make it clear at the outset of the mediation that no agreements will be signed until the parties have had that opportunity.

In my private practice, I do not mediate with parties who do not have attorneys. When I mediate as a volunteer at the Travis County Dispute Resolution Center, however, it is often the case that neither party is represented by counsel. In those situations I generally draft the agreement, but again with sentence by sentence input and review by the parties.

I have never drafted the judgment, decree, dismissal order, release, title transfer or other similar documents which are generally needed to give effect to the mediated agreement of the parties. It is difficult for me to imagine a circumstance under which I would do so in my role as the mediator. I am not certain that I can formulate a rationale for the distinction between the mediator drafting any of these documents on the one hand, and a memorandum of understanding which is suitable for use as a Rule 11 Agreement or agreement under Texas Family Code, Section 153.007, on the other hand. Maybe it just does not pass my own personal smell test. The former do seem to me to be the work of advocates, however, while the latter are part of the mediation process over which I believe the mediator has oversight responsibility.

The practice I have described above is consistent with that of many of my colleagues in Austin. However, I have discussed this process with several mediators in other cities (most notably Dallas where the UPL lawsuit was filed), both attorneys and non-attorneys, who believe that this practice is at least suspect if not outright unethical. One even told me that once the parties have reached an oral understanding, he leaves it to the lawyers to do the drafting and does not get involved even when there is a disagreement between counsel as to the terms of the agreement. My sense is that in those situations, the mediation is not complete because there is still a dispute to be resolved.

In summary, I believe a written agreement is an essential element of the mediation process and that it is not unethical for the mediator to have a hand in drafting the document as long as the parties make the final decision as to the acceptability of the language, and as long as they have the opportunity to review it with counsel, if they so choose, before signing on the dotted line. I do not believe the mediator should draft a document which is intended to be the final document filed with the court.

Comment: The following discussion suggests a wide range of mediator views on our subject. In practice perhaps most mediators will follow the preferences of the attorneys representing the parties to the mediation in deciding the mediator's role in preparing the documentation.

NETWORKING CORNER

by David Cohen

If you need expertise concerning a knotty problem, want to attend a mediation as a co-mediator and need to find a mentor mediator, or perhaps are looking for help in drafting an arbitration agreement, mediation settlement or other form, submit your request and we'll call upon Section member's expertise for you. Please limit your request to no more than four (4) single-spaced typed lines. There will be no charge for this important service to our section members; however, we reserve the right to determine which requests may be published.

A NETWORKING REQUEST:

Bill Kashouty of Lindale, Texas writes:

"I have been a mediator for over 1-1/2 years (trained at AA White) and have yet to mediate a case pro bono during Smith County's Settlement weeks. I would like to do some co-mediating for experience and would appreciate it if you could find me a mentor mediator in or around Tyler, Texas."

Please mail responses to:

Bill Kashouty
Mediation Services
558 Hide Away Lane East
Lindale, Texas 75771-5242
(903) 882-9854

UPCOMING CLE PLANNED

What: Arbitration in the ADR Practice
Where: State Bar Center, Austin, Texas
When: February 7, 1998; 12:30-4:00 p.m. (following ADR Section Mid-Year Meeting.)
Cost: $15.00 (includes lunch)
Topics: Arbitration in marketing your ADR practice, arbitration case law & statutory update; advantages of arbitration; comparing arbitration mediation and litigation; American Arbitration Association (AAA) procedures and rules, i.e., Commercial, Construction, Employment, Expedited; where arbitration is being utilized, trends,Texas and U.S. Arbitration Acts.
Note: Topics tentative at this time. Watch for further information.)

NOMINATIONS BEING ACCEPTED FOR
FRANK G. EVANS AWARD

The Justice Frank G. Evans Award Committee of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the State Bar of Texas is accepting nominations for the annual Justice Frank G. Evans Award to be presented at the State Bar Convention in 1998. The Evans Award was created by the ADR Section as a living tribute to Justice Frank G. Evans, prominent forefather of the Texas ADR movement. A maximum of two Awards may be presented annually at the Section's Spring business meeting.

The Evans Award was created to recognize persons who have performed outstanding efforts in promoting or furthering the use of research of alternative dispute resolution methods in Texas, and who are recognized leaders in ADR.

Click here to obtain the Nomination Form and Nomination Guidelines. To submit a Nomination, mail the completed form to:

Michael J. Whellan, Chair
Evans Award Committee
c/o Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody
515 Congress Ave., Suite 2300
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 480-5734 FAX (512) 478-1976

NOMINATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY MARCH 1, 1998.

UPCOMING MEETINGS & EVENTS

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1998

ADR Council Meeting & Section Mid-Year Meeting
ADR Council Meeting: 9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
Section Meeting & Continuing Education: 10:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Texas Law Center, State Bar of Texas,
15th & Colorado, Austin, TX.

SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 1998

ADR Section Council Meeting
Texas Law Center, State Bar of Texas,
15th & Colorado, Austin, TX.
10:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1998

Section Annual Meeting
Corpus Christi
Times to be announced.

NOMINATING COMMITTEE DEADLINES

MARCH 12, 1998 Formation of nominating committee (90 days prior to annual meeting).

MAY 12, 1998 Notice to Section of nominees (30 days prior to annual meeting).

NOTE: If you, or someone you know would like to be considered by the Nominating

Committee to serve on the State Bar of Texas ADR Council, please forward your name and other relevant information by March 12, 1998 to: Suzanne Duvall, 8235 Douglas Ave., Suite 330 L.B. 61, Dallas, Texas 75225.

Comprehensive Family Mediation Dallas; Part A [24 hrs]: January 23-25, 1998; Part B [40 hrs]: February 21-23 & March 21-22, 1998; Dr. Lynelle Yingling & the Honorable Dee Miller; 1-800-354-1248 or 972-771-9985

Family Mediation Course Center for Community Cooperation, Dallas; November 14 & 15, December 5 & 6, 1997 & January 17, 1998; Dispute Mediation Service, Inc.; (214) 754-0022

24 Hour Advanced Training: Divorce & Child Custody (Family) Mediation Training Houston; November 12-14, 1997; University of Houston College of Business Administration's A.A. White Dispute Resolution Institute (713) 743-4933

40 Hour Basic Mediation Training Houston; December 1-5, 1997; University of Houston College of Business Administration's A.A. White Dispute Resolution Institute; (713) 743-4933

1998 Annual Conference - Reinventing Mediation: New Directions in A Dynamic Profession Austin; February 27-28, 1998; Omni Austin Southpark Hotel; Texas Association of Mediators (TAM); (512) 480-5711



THE 1997 FALL ADR CONFERENCE ON MASTERING
MEDIATION: A HUGE SUCCESS

by Caliph Johnson

According to Ross W. Stoddard, III, Conference Director and Program Moderator, the 1997 Fall ADR Conference, entitled "Mastering Mediation for the Third Millennium," was designed to be an enjoyable, educational and collegial experience. It was to celebrate where ADR has been and where it is going, through a fast-paced, lively, interactive program of various ADR topics. The program was also designed to pose practical problems and ethical dilemmas, along with offering new and exciting communication skills and marketing approaches.

The Conference accomplished that and so much more. To some, it was a reunion, with opportunities to rekindle acquaintances and friendships from both recent and distant pasts. In some respects it was a convocation of sorts, bringing together participants from such diverse disciplines as law, psychology, sociology, divinity, anthropology, history, accounting and others. It served as a forum for participants to provide feedback and to impact upon currently important and urgent ADR issues. Finally, it served as an excellent vehicle for boosting the new Council Chair's goal for the 1997-98 year, "keeping our rich past in mind and using it as a spring board, the Council and the Section must continue to be a leader in the field of alternative dispute resolution."

The conference assembled a talented and experienced faculty from among the brightest and busiest mediation and communication experts in the country (who happen to be in this State). Their charge was to ensure that participants got solid, practical information and enjoyable educational experiences which could be used immediately, while allowing ample opportunity for intense and effective interaction and dialogue among participants and faculty. The stellar faculty included:

Texas Supreme Court Justice, Priscilla R. Owen; Honorable Cyndi Taylor Krier, County Judge of Bexar County, the former State Senator who, in 1987, sponsored the legislation which became our Texas ADR Statute; U.T. Professor Kimberlee Kovach; St. Mary's Professor Wayne Scott; Karl Slaikeu, Ph.D., President of Chorda Conflict Management, Inc.; Jill Rhea, Ph.D., Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the U. Of North Texas; Mac Fulfer, J.D., who has developed expertise in the art of face reading; and mediators/trainers: Eric Galton, Jeffery Abrams, Gary McGowan, Cecilia Morgan, Tommy Proctor, Bud Silverberg, Jennifer Tull, Courtenay Bass, Suzanne Duvall, Kathy Fragnoli, Rena Silverberg, Sid Stahl, Barry McClenahan, and Trey Bergman; Ross Stoddard, Moderator and Conference Director, John Palmer, Council Chair, John Coselli, Jr., Chair-elect and a pacesetting presenter.

The unseasonably cool morning began at the registration table, where volunteers frantically distributed hellos, hand shakes, hugs, name tags, course materials and binders. The spirit of collegiality began there. Then, on to the continental breakfast.

The tone and tempo of the Conference was set by Ross Stoddard's infectious energy, exuberance and enthusiasm. Then came greetings and welcomes from John Palmer, Chair, SBT ADR Section; Kimberlee K. Kovach, Chair, ABA ADR Section; and Grant Seabolt, Jr., Chair, DBA ADR Section. For the remainder of the two days, we looked back to the past; forward through crystal balls into the future; inward to our own communicative skills; and at each other through channels of gender and faces. We laughed a lot. Sprinkled throughout the Conference, there was a hearty mixture of collegiality. Last but not least, there was 13.5 hours of MCLE (including 3.75 Ethics hours). It was a resounding success in many ways. Congratulations!



CASE LAW & LEGISLATION UPDATE

By: John A. Coselli, Jr.

This is a column designed to keep members of the Section informed about cases and legislation affecting ADR. This column will appear in future issues of "Alternative Resolutions." If you are aware of any case law or legislation which affects ADR please fax a copy of the case or legislation and/or the relevant citations to John A. Coselli, Jr. His fax number is (713) 659-3267. John is an attorney-mediator and arbitrator in Houston, and can be contacted at (713) 659-6494.

Case: Burlington Northern Railroad, et al. vs. TUCO, lnc., et al. (Tex. 6/20/97).

Case History: On appeal to Texas Supreme Court from Case No. 07-95-0010-CV in the Seventh District Court of Appeals in Potter County, reported at 912 S.W, 2D 311.

Disposition: Texas Supreme Court modified the judgement of the Seventh District Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court. Supreme Court Opinion was pronounced on June 20, 1997.

ADR Issue Involved: Arbitrator conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court announced new rules for Texas regarding the selection and disqualification of arbitrators.

Facts: Burlington entered into coal purchase and shipping contracts with TUCO. The parties disputed over distribution of profits. The contracts required arbitration to resolve disputes. The disputes were heard by a panel of three arbitrators. Each party selected one arbitrator and the two arbitrators selected a third "neutral" arbitrator. TUCO was dissatisfied with the award and alleged the third arbitrator was biased and partial. During the arbitration Burlington's arbitrator's law firm had referred a case to the third arbitrator, which he did not disclose to TUCO. The trial court granted Burlington's motion for summary judgement.

The Court of Appeals held that the third arbitrator chosen by the party selected arbitrators may not be partial, and that the undisclosed referral of the case to the jointly chosen third arbitrator by the law firm of Burlington's arbitrator raised a fact issue of partiality. The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgement of the trial court and remanded the case for trial.Opinion: The Supreme Court observed that the Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires that an arbitration award shall be vacated where "there was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as neutral..."

The Court held that a prospective neutral arbitrator selected by the parties exhibits evident partiality if he or she does not disclose facts which might, to an objective observer, create a reasonable impression of the arbitrator's partiality. Such evident partiality is established by the nondisclosure itself, regardless of whether the nondisclosed information necessarily establishes partiality or bias. This duty of disclosure does not apply to party appointed arbitrators who are not intended to be neutral.The disclosure requirement applies to conflicts arising both before and during the arbitration proceedings. A party may disqualify a neutral arbitrator during the course of the arbitration based on a new conflict which might reasonably affect the arbitrator's impartiality.The Court found that the neutral arbitrator's failure to disclose the referral of the case to him by the non-neutral co-arbitrator's law firm established evident partiality as a matter of law.The Supreme Court modified the judgement of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to vacate the arbitration award and refer the dispute for further arbitration under the agreement of the parties.

Coselli's Comment: Perception is reality, as a matter of law.

Case: Digna Spinks v. Grafton Alonzo Spinks, 939 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st Dist,] 1997).

Case History: On appeal from Cause No. 93-02189 in the 309th District Court, Harris County, Texas.

Disposition: Trial court's rendition of a final decree of divorce based on a Rule 11 settlement agreement entered into after a court-ordered mediation was reversed and the remanded. Appellate opinion rendered on January 30, 1997.

ADR Issue Involved: Enforcement of mediated settlement agreements in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.

Facts: The trial court ordered the parties to mediate in this divorce case. The parties, their attorneys and the mediator signed a "Rule 11 Agreement" at mediation containing provisions for custody, property division, child support, alimony and health and life insurance. The agreement also contained a statement in a separate paragraph that the parties stipulated and agreed that the agreement was not subject to revocation. However, that statement was not underlined. Digna Spinks repudiated the agreement. The trial court rendered a decree of divorce based on the mediated settlement agreement.

Opinion: The Court of Appeals observed that §l53.0071 (d)(1) of the Texas Family Code provides that in suits affecting the parent-child relationship, a mediated settlement agreement is binding and not subject to revocation if the agreement:

1. provides in a separate paragraph an underlined statement that the agreement is not subject to revocation;

2. is signed by each party to the agreement; and

3. is signed by the party's attorneys, if any, who are present at the time the agreement is signed.

The Court held that the mediated settlement agreement was not binding and enforceable in this case by the trial court because the separate paragraph in the agreement which stated that the agreement was not revocable, was not underlined as required by §153.0071 (d)(1) of the Texas Family Code, and the agreement was repudiated by a party to the agreement.

The trial court's judgement was reversed and remanded.

Coselli's Comment: The devil is in the details. Don't forget the details!

Case: Woon Hur, et al. v. City of Mesquite, et al., 893 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. App. -Amarillo, 1995, no writ).

Case History: On appeal from the 95th District Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Disposition: The trial court's take nothing judgement for the defendants was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

ADR Issue Involved: Standards and duties of impartial third parties in ADR proceedings and the enforcement of mediated settlement agreements. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §154.053(c).

Facts: The Hurs sued the City of Mesquite and others for personal injuries arising out of an auto-pedestrian accident. The parties were ordered to mediation where the Hurs allege the City made an oral agreement to settle the case for $129,000. The Hurs alleged the City breached the agreement to settle the case and that the City representative at mediation misrepresented to the Hurs and the mediator that he had the authority to settle the case for $I29,000. The Trial court sustained the defendant's special exceptions and dismissed the Hurs breach of contract and breach of implied warranty of authority claims for failure to state a cause of action.

On appeal, the City claimed that §154.053(c) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code precluded the Hurs from bringing a breach of contract claim arising out of the mediation. Section 154.053(c) provides as follows: "Unless the parties agree otherwise, all matters, including the conduct and demeanor of the parties and their counsel during the settlement process, are confidential and may never be disclosed to anyone, including the appointing court."The Court of Appeals held that §154.053(c) does not prevent a party from bringing suit for breach of contract arising out of mediation, but speaks only to the standards and duties imposed on impartial third parties who participate in ADR proceedings. The Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the breach of contract and breach of implied because the Hurs were not afforded an opportunity to amend their petition.

Coselli's Comment: Is this an exception to confidentiality? Should we be telling the parties in mediation that the process is confidential unless a party breaches an agreement reached at mediation?

Case: Cad Bauer v. Javier Jasso, et al., 946 S.W,2d 552 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997, no writ).

Case History: On appeal from the 107th District Court, Cameron County.

Disposition: Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's summary judgement for the Plaintiff (Jasso). Appellate opinion rendered May 15, 1997.

ADR Issue Involved: Enforcement of a mediated settlement agreement reached during a mediation which was ordered by the Court of Appeals while the case was on appeal.

Facts: Landowners (Jasso) brought a trespass action against adjoining landowner (Bauer). The trial court granted the Jasso's motion for summary judgment and Bauer appealed. The Court of Appeals referred the parties to mediation and the parties signed an agreement at mediation that Bauer would dismiss his appeal and pay Jasso $2,500. Jasso accused Bauer of breaching the settlement agreement by failing to pay the $2,500. Bauer considered the settlement agreement to be binding and asked the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Opinion: Enforcement of a disputed settlement agreement, even if reached while the action is on appeal, must be determined in a breach of contract action under normal rules of pleading and evidence. Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S,W.2d 656 (Tex. 1996).

Case: Reynaldo Montanaro, et al v. Fransico Montanaro, et al., 946 S.W.2d 428 (Tex, App. -- Corpus Christi, 1997, no writ).

Case History: On appeal from the 197th District Court, Cameron County, Texas.

Disposition: The trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's action to enforce a mediated settlement agreement was reversed and remanded. Appellate opinion rendered April 10, 1997.

ADR Issue Involved: Enforcement of mediated settlement agreements where some terms of the agreement are undefined.

Facts: Plaintiffs sued for accounting and dissolution of their business partnership, for fraud and breach of fiduciary duties. At a court ordered mediation the parties signed a settlement agreement which provided as follows:

1. lump sum payment of $6,000 to be paid to plaintiff by July 24,1992;

2. monthly payments of $750 to be paid to plaintiff for 10 years beginning August 15, 1992;

3. monthly payments of $800 to be paid to plaintiff for 6 ½ , years beginning August 15, 1992;

4. the periodic payments were to be secured with a promissory note; and

5. the parties were to sign a mutual release.

The $6,000 lump sum was paid and a release was signed. A dispute arose over terms of the promissory note, which were not covered in the settlement agreement. The plaintiffs amended their petition to state a cause of action for breach of the settlement agreement, which the trial court dismissed. The trial court concluded that the settlement agreement left material terms to be later agreed upon and did not constitute an enforceable compromise. The plaintiffs appealed.

Opinion: The Court of Appeals held that the essential and material terms of the settlement agreement had been agreed to by the parties, the terms of the agreement were definite enough to enforce the agreement. Additional terms of the note regarding overdue, or post-maturity, interest and acceleration upon default were not necessary to enable the parties to comply with the terms of the note and the settlement agreement, and would apply only after a default in the payment of the note. Post-maturity interest may be implied by extending pre-maturity interest or by application of interest statutory at a rate of 6%.

The trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's action to enforce the agreement was reversed and remanded.

Coselli's Comment: Take a little extra time in mediation to fully document all of the terms of the agreement. It can save the parties future disagreements and the cost of an appeal.



NEWSLETTER SUBMISSION DATES FOR UPCOMING ISSUES OF

ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTIONS

Issue Submission Date Publication Date
Spring Dec. 15, 1997 January 23, 1998
Summer March 23, 1998 April 27, 1998

Click here for publications policies.

Mail or Fax Articles To:
Robyn G. Pietsch
A.A. White Dispute Resolution Institute
University of Houston, 325 Melcher Hall
College of Business Administration
Houston, Texas 77204-6283
(713) 743-4933
Fax (713) 743-4934

ADR Hits the Airwaves
Insurance Broadcast System Debuts with ADR Programming
by Glenn Koch

The rapid growth of the cable-television industry has led to the proliferation of specialized networks appealing to just about every niche. There's the Cartoon Network, the Golf Channel, even a network that runs nothing but documentaries on wild animals. What's next, a network on insurance? Programming on ADR?

You bet! The Insurance Broadcast System, a satellite-delivered broadcasting network, recently debuted, delivering specialized insurance programming directly to your place of business. Included in its initial programming is a weekly series on ADR applications in the insurance industry entitled "Alternative Dispute Resolution."

Robert E. Meade, the American Arbitration Association's Vice President, Program Development, was involved in the production of several shows in the ADR series, and believes the exposure can be beneficial in turning more insurance companies toward the path of ADR. "It's a chance for people at the insurance-claims level and even in the legal departments to learn more about the nuts and bolts of ADR," Meade said.

The series covers a wide range of topics concerning all applications of ADR. For instance, a show entitled "Employment ADR: Underwriting the Risk" explored the different things insurers look for in underwriting a company's dispute-resolution policy. Joseph P. Monteleone, Senior Vice President and Claims Counsel of Reliance National Insurance Company, a guest on the program, offered that when evaluating whether to underwrite a particular company, Reliance doesn't require mandatory ADR programs, but does have a preference for companies that encourage their employees to use ADR, particularly mediation. As is common practice, Reliance will forgive a percentage of the insured's deductible (in this case, 50%) in exchange for an agreement to mediate. So if an insured has a $100,000 policy with a $25,000 deductible, Reliance will absorb up to $12,500 in costs if the parties agree to mediation.

Meanwhile, Paul J. Siegel, Esq., of Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, advised that companies can make themselves more "insurable" by re-examining their dispute-resolution processes. "You need a handbook that sets forth your company's policy in a rather clear, easy-to-follow language," Siegel explained. "You need to train your supervisors about what is sexual harassment and discrimination ... [and you must] train your employees about your resolution process."

Michael P. Maloney, senior vice president, general counsel and secretary of Orion Capital Corporation, an insurance holding company, is host of the ADR series. "There are many areas in which ADR has application for insurers ---professional liability disputes, disaster relief and mass tort claims are only a few examples," Maloney said. Future programs in the series are expected to address these and other topics.

The IBS network, which made its debut on June 16, operates four days per week (Monday through Thursday), from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. (ET), and consists of two hours of original programming each day. The half-hour series on ADR appears each Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and, as is the case with all other IBS programming, is repeated several times throughout the day.

IBS is available by subscription only. For the price of $595 per month, customers received a computer dish and a decoder, as well as access to all programming. Many companies have found the service to be of invaluable assistance in educating and training employees. In fact, IBS claims its subscriber base already boasts some of the world's leading insurance groups. IBS is actually composed of two entities: The Property-Casualty Television Network (PCTN), which occupies the Monday and Wednesday slots, and The Life/Health Television Network (LHTN), which airs on Tuesday and Thursday. In addition to the many informative programs on its schedule, IBS also features four half-hour news segments per day, reporting the latest insurance news from around the world.

Dennis Richard, chairman and chief executive officer of IBS, sums up this latest innovation with a proud review of his creation: "This is worldwide, quality television presented to the insurance industry."

For further information about IBS, contact Andrew M. Witt, vice president, marketing and sales, at 1-888-918-3300.

Glenn Koch is an editor for Claims Forum, a publication of the American Arbitration Association. Printed with permission from the American Arbitration Association.

A PERSPECTIVE ON THE ADR STATUTE

Editor's Note: The following is an edited version of the remarks made by County Judge Cindi Taylor Krier at the 1997 Fall ADR Conference & Celebration of the 10th Anniversary of the Texas ADR Statute, Friday September 12, 1997.

I am delighted to have been asked to join in this celebration of the 10th Anniversary of the passage of the Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Act. I cannot think of a better way to commemorate that milestone than here with you -- some of you -- who were responsible for its passage, all of you -- who are responsible for its successful implementation.

It is hard to believe that the Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Act passed 10 years ago! Instead of measuring that span in terms of years, I would rather think in terms of the hundreds of thousands of disputes which have been resolved through ADR over the past decade. Knowing the breadth of cases I have seen resolved, I know that you, and ADR, have: saved millions and millions of dollars; saved invaluable time; salvaged business and family relationships; made for better neighbors; and, I am confident, by diffusing violence, have saved lives.

Certainly, in working to pass this Legislation, I had high hopes it would be more than another law, inscribed in a statute book and left on library shelves... that it would be used! Thanks to folks like you it has exceeded all expectations!

Looking back 10 years, trying to remember all that transpired in the legislative process,

I find it is almost as hard to retrace the history now as it was to project the future of ADR then. As with any successful piece of legislation, the passage of the Texas ADR Act was the result of the efforts of many people. I came to some conclusions which I have found have applicability for this issue, and others:

First, while I can remember frustrations as the ADR bill moved through the Legislature --- some more clearly than others -- they aren't nearly as mammoth in the rear view mirror.

Second, most of the things feared and argued by opponents, haven't materialized. That proverbial camel's nose under the tent didn't disrupt things, but let in fresh air.

Listening to this morning's speakers, I got carried away -- imagining that if I could get this excited hearing all you have done in 10 years with the rights, the powers granted by this Act, just think how those who were around when our Declaration of Independence or Constitution was approved would feel today seeing what has been built on the framework they constructed. This afternoon's reception will honor similar forefathers of ADR: Our Thomas Jefferson, Dean Ed Sherman, who drafted much of the basic bill. Our George Washington, Judge Frank Evans, who, just as Washington, advocated for what once was perceived as a radical idea until it became accepted; who led troops into battle for change; who was involved in writing the key document; and then served as our first leader to make sure everything got off to the right start. Judge Evans has been there inspiring the rest of us every step of the way!

Please know that every one of you who served on one of the Bar's ADR committees; who researched issues; who drafted, and redrafted, bill language; who called or wrote a legislator asking for a vote for the bill; who testified in support of the legislation; who wrote articles about dispute resolution; who has taught an ADR course; who has conducted ADR sessions; has played a significant role, made a difference in our being where we are today.

The legislative history of SB 1436, which became the ADR Act, can be traced back before its passage in 1987, and before I was elected to the Senate in 1984. The American Bar Association created a special committee in 1980 to investigate the use of what was then called "alternative processes" to resolve legal disputes.

Frank Evans was a founding member of that ABA Committee, & spent years exploring and advocating ADR with the committee across the country, and bringing back the best ideas to Texas.

As is often the case with legislative proposals, the initial idea for ADR legislation did not come from the Legislature, but to it. In this case, the legislative seeds were planted by the then new State Bar of Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, appointed by State Bar President Franklin Jones and chaired by Frank Evans. Prompted by the Committee's urging, in 1983 the State took the first step toward embracing the concept of ADR when the Legislature adopted a statute authorizing counties to establish dispute resolution centers. The legislation provided for local funding of ADR efforts by commissioners courts through collection of fees on civil cases filed in the county. That measure was sponsored by then Senator and later Supreme Court Justice Oscar Mauzy.

Building on this success from the 1983 legislative session, during the 1983-84 interim, the State Bar ADR Committee, convinced then Wichita Falls Senator Ray Farrabee to chair a joint House-Senate interim committee which examined ADR efforts sprouting up in other states and in the federal judicial system, and recommended two bills to the 69th Legislature in 1985. Senator Farrabee came to that session of the Legislature as a ranking Senator with hundreds of major bills he was to carry. I came as a rookie.

Soon after I was appointed by Lieutenant Governor Bill Hobby to the Senate Jurisprudence Committee, Senator Farrabee shared with me his interim committee report and the two bills which had been drafted: one on arbitration, one on mediation. He told me he was convinced that ADR legislation was needed in Texas, but because it represented such a marked change from the adversarial judicial process then favored in our state, that it needed to be a priority of the sponsor because it would take time to educate the rest of the Senate. He would serve as a co-sponsor, he promised, if I would file the bills and take the lead. Meeting one-on-one first with members of the Jurisprudence Committee, and then the full Senate, both bills easily passed the Senate in 1985. I thought we were on the fast track...until I was reminded of another important civics lesson: Texas has a BI-cameral Legislature. The arbitration and mediation bills both died in a House Committee that first session.

It is a proven and true legislative adage that most major legislative changes take more than one session to pass. The arbitration bill and the mediation bill, which had been so carefully drafted in explicit detail to make the new process clear had ended up raising questions about many of those details. But no one gave up. Instead, the troops rallied.

Led by Judge Evans and Ed Sherman, the State Bar's ADR Committee with judges, attorneys,law school representatives, ADR and DRC professionals, and public members worked during the next interim listening to concerns, reexamining approaches in other jurisdictions, and redrafting (and redrafting and redrafting) the legislation.

They came back in 1987 with a far more general, far more flexible single omnibus piece of legislation -- simple and easier to understand, purged of the detail and controversy that had hampered passage in 1985. I shall be candid with you, the strategy, as I remember it, was based on another legislative truism: It is easier to amend a statute than create a new one. So the conventional wisdom was that if we could pass a simple, basic bill in 1987, we could come back and amend it in subsequent sessions.

The biggest revelation for me in doing research for this presentation --especially doing legal research on the 3 sessions since I left the Legislature to become Bexar County Judge -- was finding out that, in the 10 years since passage, only one legislative change has been made: the 1993 addition of Section 154.055 providing qualified immunity for the impartial third parties appointed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution under the Act.

The lack of need for multiple legislative changes through the years, I think is a tribute to the vision of leaders like Judge Evans and his colleagues on the Committee; to the skills of bill drafters like Dean Sherman and those who assisted him; to practitioners who have proven that, as in so many areas, detailed governmental regulations aren't always necessary -- that most issues that arise in the ADR process can best be dealt with by participants on a case-by-case basis.

Despite our best efforts, some controversial issues did emerge prior to passage of the bill, and had to be dealt with .... In true chicken-and-egg fashion, several mediation sessions were needed to resolve the differences. Setting a model for resolving disputes without heated courtroom battles, these issues were addressed, for the most part, without fiery legislative confrontations, either. Among the substantive legislative disputes I recall were differences over issues which -- after hearing this morning's speakers -- I gather are being debated again. Issues such as whether ADR should be permissive or mandatory. The most zealous advocates believed so strongly in ADR that they were convinced everyone would like it if exposed to it, and that the outcome of ADR sessions should be binding. Opponents raised constitutional red flags and ... threatened litigation.

A compromise was reached: Judges could order participation in the ADR process, but could not force acceptance of the outcome. You can see this compromise reflected in language throughout the Act:

* "voluntary" settlement processes; "voluntary" settlement of citizens' disputes;

* the right to reasonably object to a referral;

* "A mediator may not impose his own judgment." "The advisory opinion" in a mini-trial "is not binding" unless the parties agree. "The advisory opinion" from a moderated settlement confer conference or summary jury trial "is not binding." Arbitration is nonbinding" unless the parties stipulate in advance that the award will be binding.

* Also note the emphasis on "encouraging and assisting a settlement" and stressing that one may not "compel or coerce."

There also were differences over issues involving: who could serve as impartial third parties, and what qualifications should be mandated. These were the issues where the alliance of supporters of the legislation almost dissolved. Then, as now, some wanted tougher qualifications. Others wanted less. Turf battles emerged. Some attorneys wanted only attorneys to be allowed to conduct ADR-sessions. Some representatives of DRCs, which had been pioneers in handling most of the early ADR cases in our State, felt threatened by new settlers moving in to their territory. Some social workers and family-law advocates insisted on different qualifications for cases affecting the parent-child relationship.

Solomon-like, the language of the Act was crafted to save the baby by setting basic requirements for adequate training which could be conducted by DRCs, or others; which could be waived by the judge in particular cases; which recognized some specific skills were needed in cases involving the parent-child relationship; and which broadly encouraged almost everyone to offer ADR services--public and private; for profit and non profit, or any combination believing that the marketplace, the courts and the parties could best determine who should be used.

Finally, and probably the most threatening to passage of the bill, was opposition from some in the Plaintiffs' bar. I remember a debate I had with Joe Jamail before a Texas Bar Foundation forum at the State Judicial Conference in Corpus Christi soon after passage of the bill.

It was his passionate attack against the new Texas ADR Act, and his charges that it, and I, would bring down both the Texas and United States Constitutions, that led me to utter in jest the words someone apparently remembered and used again in the program for the title of this speech. ("Oh My Gosh, What Have I Done? I Thought the Bill was About Mediation!") At the time, I took great comfort in Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court John Hill's rebuttal that "ADR does not deny rights; it adds options." Years later, I was pleased to hear through the grapevine that even Joe Jamail had come around and was using ADR. Last week, I ran into Joe at a University of Texas lunch and asked him about his ADR experience -- hoping to capture some profound quote to share with you. Well, for those who know, and know of, Joe, he did give me a colorful quote --while making it clear those reports of his conversion weren't true: "Cyndi, dear, he said," "I'd rather have a boil on my ass than use ADR." Well, you can't please all of the people all of the time with legislation ... or ADR....I do think that passage of SB 1436, despite the opposition of Joe Jamail and other powerful trial lawyers, was probably attributable to a legislative axiom borrowed from the military: To win a war, you can only fight battles on so many fronts and tort reform battles drew most of their fire that session.

Governor Bill Clements signed the bill on June 20th, 1987, and having been approved by the votes of more than 2/3rds of both the House and Senate, the Act took immediate effect. That was more the beginning than the end of the story.The State Bar continued its efforts by educating Texas judges, lawyers and the public about these new tools. A Handbook was prepared by the State Bar and Young Lawyers ADR Committees and funded by the Bar Foundation. The State Judicial Conference, Texas Bar Foundation and law schools sponsored seminars. Colleen McHugh, who had been a member of the State Bar ADR Committee during passage and who later became State Bar President and a law partner of mine, succeeded Judge Evans as ADR Committee Chair and continued the Bar's advocacy and educational programs.

The Texas Bar Journal devoted almost its entire January 1988 issue to ADR and the Act. All that was left was for folks like you, and me, to put it to work. And, we did! Ten years later, there still are some naysayers. But far more folks have been participants, beneficiaries, advocates. The results are measurable, and impressive. 10 years ago, when this bill passed, I thought "the WEB" was something good bills got tangled up in when they died in the House. Last week, I searched the worldwide web and had 126,780 hits on "alternative dispute resolution."

In this era of "results-based governing", how reaffirming it was to surf the web and read article after article offering evidence of the results we promised in passing this legislation:

1. A higher degree of user satisfaction from clients who participate in ADR than for those who go through trials -- based upon clearer understandings, less intimidation, more of a sense of control of the process, greater perceptions of fairness - all reported by clients.

2. Better compliance with outcomes and less re-litigation.

3. Better use of limited judicial resources by reducing case disposition times and offering relief for overcrowded dockets.

4. More efficient handling of attorney work loads with new tools to service clients.

5. Increased productivity in courtrooms and law offices.

6. Savings of time and money for lawyers, litigants, judges, taxpayers and consumers.

7. And, a reduction in the trauma that can result from the legal process especially that felt by children, and adults in the wake of divorce.Just as you who have been serving as mediators deserve credit for those results and for ADR's progress in our state over the past decade, you all bear responsibility for where ADR goes from here. Ten years ago, I ended an ADR speech by saying I was convinced of ADR's potential, but wasn't as sure what its impact would be. For, both then and now, the success of ADR is not rooted in the words of the legislation itself, but in those who choose to use it. Most, I think, have used it well. I encourage you, and others, to continue to o so.

ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTIONS
PUBLICATION POLICIES

Requirements for Articles

1. Articles must be submitted for publication no later than 6 weeks prior to publication. The deadline for each issue will be published in the preceding issue.

2. The article must address some aspect of alternative dispute resolution, negotiation, mediation, or conflict management. Promotional pieces are not appropriate for the newsletter.

3. If possible, the writer should submit a diskette on MS Word or WordPerfect 5.0 Or 5.1), a double spaced typed hard copy, and some biographical information.

4. The length of the article is flexible: 1500-3500 words are recommended. Lengthy articles may be serialized upon author's approval.

5. The article may have been published previously or submitted to other publications, provided the author has the right to submit the article to Alternative Resolutions for publication.

6. All quotations, titles, names and dates should be double checked for accuracy.

Selection of Article

1. The newsletter editor reserves the right to accept or reject articles for publication.

2. In the event of a decision not to publish, materials received will not be returned.

Preparation for Publishing

1. The editor reserves the right to edit articles for spelling, grammar, punctuation and format without consulting the author.

2. Any changes which affect the content, intent or point of view of an article, shall be made only with approval of the author.

Future Publishing Right

Authors reserve all their rights with respect to their article in the newsletter, except that the State Bar of Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Section obtains the rights to publish the article in the newsletter and in any State Bar publication.

1997-98 Editorial Board
Caliph Johnson, Chair
Paul D. Keeper
Marty Leewright
Michael Whellan

Policy for Listing of Training Programs in Alternative Resolutions

Example of Listing:
Commercial Mediation
Ozona June 21, 22, 23, 1996 Acme Mediation (444) 444-4444

Policy to Appear in the Newsletter

1. The listing service is available to any Section member wishing to publicize a training program which is related to the practice of ADR and is offered in Texas.

2. The listing will be limited to the following information: the title of the training, training dates, training location, sponsoring organization and phone number to be called for more information.

3. There will be a $15 charge for each training listed. Checks should be made out to State Bar of Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Section.

4. To be included in an issue, the information must be received by the deadline listed in the prior newsletter issue.

5. The newsletter will publish only those training programs offered within six months of the newsletter publication date.



ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SECTION
OFFICERS AND COUNCIL

Officers:
Mr. John P. Palmer, Chair
Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, P.C.
Texas Center, Ninth & Washington
P.O. Box 1470
Waco, Texas 76703-1470
(254) 755-4100
Fax: (254) 754-6331

Mr. John A. Coselli, Jr., Chair-Elect
Carl, Lee, Fisher & Coselli
P.O. Box 2712
Houston, Texas 77252-2712
(713) 659-6494
Fax: (713) 659-3267

Mr. Paul D. Keeper, Treasurer
100 Congress Ave., Suite 1600
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 472-5997
Fax: (512) 472-5248

Mr. Michael J. Whellan, Secretary
Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody
515 Congress Ave., Suite 2300
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 480-5734
FAX (512) 478-1976

Immediate Past Chair:
Ms. Suzanne Mann Duvall (Dallas)

News Letter Editor
Ms. Robyn G. Pietsch (Houston)

Family Law Section Liaison
Ms. Jennifer Tull (Austin)

Council:
Mr. Gary D. Condra (Lubbock)
Mr. John L. Estes (Dallas)
Hon. Joseph H. Hart (Austin)
Ms. Mary Elizabeth Jackson (Tyler)
Mr. Caliph Johnson (Houston)
Ms. Ellen H. Lancaster (Kenney)
Ms. Marlene Labenz-Hough (San Antonio)
Mr. Marty B. Leewright (Denton)
Mr. Michael H. Loftin (Amarillo)
Mr. Luciano A. Rodriguez (Laredo)
Mr. Ross W. Stoddard, III (Irving)
Ms. Liz Stewart Wally (Dallas)
Hon. Carolyn Wright

Views expressed in Alternative Resolutions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors, the State Bar of Texas or the ADR Section. © State Bar of Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Section, 1997-1998. The individual authors reserve the rights with respect to their works included in this Newsletter. The State Bar of Texas ADR Section reserves all rights to this Newsletter.