Kim Ciesinski of Schwartz & Ciesinski writes: The collaborative process offers an alternative answer to a growing dissatisfaction experienced by both the public and the professionals who toil in this area of the law. Through use of the collaborative process, the divorce professional and the client experience is impacted in a positive manner across the board.
Robert Lewin and Andrew S. Lewner of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan discuss a rule proposed by the Administrative Board of the New York State Courts for the New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division. If adopted, the Proposed Rule might provide parties an avenue to maintain the confidentiality of arbitration awards in connection with confirmation or vacatur motions.
Noah Hanft of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution writes: Diverse neutrals need experience to show quality, build their reputations and earn their selections—but, in order to gain that all important experience and develop their skills, they first need to get selected.
Caroline Antonacci of JAMS writes: As often parties need to maintain relationships after the immediate conflict is resolved, mediation can provide the parties a framework for resolving future conflicts that may arise. Mediation should be seriously considered as the optimal forum choice for resolving interpersonal disputes.
Presenting from a mediator’s point of view, Susan Hernandez of NAM discusses a few suggestions that would serve parties well when they are preparing for a mediation.
Henry Weisburg, Christopher Ryan and Daniel Purisch of Shearman & Sterling discuss the Second Circuit’s 2016 decision in ‘Brown v. Lockheed Martin’, which provides guidance as to how the principles established in ‘Daimler’ should be applied to business registration statutes and illustrates why New York courts should not be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over an award debtor solely on the basis of business registration.