Law

Report on the Difficulties Faced by the Visually Impaired Students in the Evaluation Patterns Adopted by the National Law Universities

Guest post by Ananya Agrawal and Yathansh*

Ananya Agrawal and Yathansh co-authored a piece on challenges faced by Visually Impaired Students in National Law Universities in India, suggesting specific policy changes and reforms that promise to overhaul the overall experience in legal education.

Their paper, an empirical study, has been published in the prestigious Journal of Indian Law and Society Volume 10 (Special Issue), which focused on the theme of “Reforms in Legal Education in memory of Prof. NR Madhava Menon“.

Their report is dedicated to Prof. Madhava Menon, the father of modern legal education in India. Prof. Menon is the Founder Vice-Chancellor of National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata.

Read the full paper here: https://jils.co.in/wp-

*The authors were students of the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata, India and Associate Editors of the Journal of Indian Law and Society. Ananya is also the Founder and Editor-in-chief of Ex Curia International.

Theories of Change: a valuable new contribution to Dispute Resolution field made freely available

John Lande, University of Missouri School of Law, Isidor Loeb Professor Emeritus has painstakingly solicited, collected and organized the book in to an interesteing, far-reaching, and thought provoking book that asks each of us in the field to consider what we might be doing better. He has collected a series of essays from over fifty professionals in the field, taking on this assessment of what the future of our field may hold.

Feel free to share this book with others who you think might be interested. John has graciously invited all of us to do this, and has made it a free download. Here is the link to this valuable resource to add to your collection, Theories of Change for the Dispute Resolution Movement: Actionable Ideas to Revitalize Our Movement.

Image 2-7-20 at 8.32 AM

Students are the future of our field, and this may attract them to our community. So  the book should be shared widely with them as well.

The book is the result of the Theory of Change Symposium, organized by John in 2019. Here’s a post with an index of all the contributions to this symposium.

Included are several pieces describing important techniques to improve dispute resolution practice.  Rosa Abdelnour describes the importance of dealing with emotions in mediation, which may seem obvious, but it bears repeating as many mediators act as if emotions are irrelevant.  Noah Hanft argues that when businesses negotiate contracts, they should put the subject of developing good relationships on the agenda as an intrinsic part of the negotiation from the outset.  In one piece, Michaela Keet, Heather Heavin, and John Lande recommend that practitioners explicitly help parties consider valuable but hard-to-quantify intangible costs of engaging in the litigation process.  In another piece, they recommend a “planned early two-stage mediation” (PETSM) process to improve the quality of parties’ decision-making.  Laurel Tuvim Amaya describes the benefits of participating in reflective practice groups that challenge practitioners to seriously analyze difficult problems in their cases.

Some pieces take on “big picture” issues in our field.  Charlie Irvine urges us to take seriously substantive justice – not just procedural justice or other goals of dispute resolution.  Grande Lum describes why negotiation is especially important to deal with the major social divisions.  Rachel Viscomi suggests that we can use online resources to help bridge deep differences in our society.  Woody Mosten describes several ways that mediation trainings can improve the quality of mediation and include more peacemaking in our work.  Chris Draper envisions possible future uses of technology to promote collaborative justice in dispute resolution.  Lara Fowler suggests ways that the dispute resolution community can help address the existential threat to our planet of climate change.

Two pieces are reminders to take advantage of the Stone Soup Project, geared to faculty resources. The Stone Soup website has everything faculty need to give students great learning experiences through encounters with the real world.  Another piece describes how, with a little bit of extra effort, speakers at educational programs can generate new knowledge by systematically tapping the experiences and perspectives of audience members.

This book has lots of ideas, but no specific plans or suggestions to take any actions. This is left up to the reader to consider and inplement. John does suggest that members of the ADR community would most likely need to undertake some collaborative actions in order to implement the collective suggested changes.

John kindly synthesized the many suggestions in the book into the following broad recommendations:

        • Develop clearer common language of dispute resolution
        • Redefine what we do and who we are
        • Integrate technology into all our work
        • Develop best practice standards
        • Redesign teaching and training curricula
        • Develop and implement a research agenda
        • Develop a searchable dispute resolution bibliographic database
        • Engage the major issues of our times with realistic plans and expectations
        • Attract “all hands on deck”
        • Unbundle and prioritize our lives

As you will see, there’s quite a range of people speaking with very different voices. They are Rosa Abdelnour, Ava Abramowitz, Jim Alfini, Cynthia Alkon, Laurie Amaya, Lisa Amsler, Peter Benner, Debra Berman, Russ Bleemer, Michael Buenger, Alyson Carrel, Sarah Cole, Ben Cook, Chris Draper, Noam Ebner, Deb Eisenberg, Brian Farkas, Lara Fowler, Doug Frenkel, Steve Goldberg, Rebekah Gordon, Michael Green, Jill Gross, Chris Guthrie, Noah Hanft, Heather Heavin, David Henry, Howard Herman, Chris Honeyman, Charlie Irvine, Barney Jordaan, Jane Juliano, Michaela Keet, Randy Kiser, Russell Korobkin, Heather Kulp, John Lande, Michael Lang, Lela Love, Grande Lum, Andrew Mamo, Scott Maravilla, Woody Mosten, Jackie Nolan-Haley, Lydia Nussbaum, Rebecca Price, Nancy Rogers, Colin Rule, Amy Schmitz, Linda Seely, Donna Shestowsky, Jean Sternlight, Donna Stienstra, Tom Valenti, Rachel Viscomi, Nancy Welsh, Roselle Wissler, Doug Yarn.

Finally, if you don’t already subscribe to the Indisputably blog, I encourage you to do so. It is intended to link Dispute Resolution Scholarship, Education, and Practice.  There, you will find a range of interesting posts about various aspects of dispute resolution.

Guest Post from Janene Tuniz: In Mediation Competitions: To Compete as a Mediator, Don’t Compete

76740566643093_1793720410773829_3189786036515373056_o

Competing as a mediator in a moot competition is a conundrum. What’s unique about selecting this particular puzzle is that you never meet your fellow competitors. You enter each session with fresh faces to your left and right and a row of important people in front of you, ready to judge your performance. Instead, unlike when you enter as a negotiator, it’s just you. There is no way to gauge how you are doing in comparison to the other mediators in the rooms next door and there is no way to know for sure if you are acting in the right way or saying the right things. You also only have some pieces of the picture, making it difficult to really know what’s going on from the onset. You may be tempted to speak loudly or ensure that your presence is felt but I assure you, that’s not the way.

Although I have never been in a real commercial mediation, I imagine there are ways in which a competition and real life are fundamentally different. For instance, in real life there is real money, real problems and ordinarily a real urgency to reach a settlement. In such instances people don’t necessarily behave in the way that we would like or need them to in order to find a party-driven solution. They may use positional bargaining or withhold information and they may not be sincerely seeking to re-establish trust and open communication. In the CDRC Mediation and Negotiation Competition it’s totally different. There may be some semblance of mistrust but since competitors are judged on their trust building and communication skills they are prepped to use information strategically and with all their might, share and identify real interests.

 

There are, however, many ways in which a competition and real life are exactly the same. At CDRC this year I learnt that it is in these areas the role of the mediator is paramount. To put it simply, like in real life, participants of a mediation competition are nervous and unsure. After training for months, it all culminates in that moment, face to face with the other party, ready to negotiate. The tension in the room before the timer starts is palpable and as a mediator, that’s your moment. What’s perplexing about that moment, however, is the fact that while you are in it, you are not competing.

 

I know it sounds contradictory to enter a competition to be an anti-competitive at the pinnacle moment, but since there are no other “opponents” in the room you are not contending against anyone else. Your job in that moment is not to outshine the negotiators by saying the most impressive things or flamboyantly flaunting the rules and regulations, check-listing through caucus guidelines or confidentiality requirements. It’s important to cover these things, of course, but as the mediator you need to do it in such a way that you address the tension in the room. You alleviate worries and make sure that those who are in direct competition, trust the process and trust you. The moment you open your mouth to speak, you need to settle nerves and establish certainty.

66766342_1792288687583668_3107737631287410688_o.jpg

Trusting the mediation process is something that happens automatically in a competition but getting parties to trust you is something different. Sitting at the head of the table it’s a challenge to take a step back and guide the process instead of leading it, but it is the best way to create an environment of trust. I found the training sessions prior to the competition to be incredibly useful in highlighting this fact. I remember writing down that I should listen for (and respond to) emotions in Tom Valenti’s session entitled “Mediator Tools and Behaviors.” Being able to gauge what people in the room are feeling and validating those feelings is a fundamental step towards developing that trust. I’m not saying that every emotion should be brought under the spot light and observed by everyone at the table, but as the mediator it is imperative that you are able to note changes in body language or tone and react appropriately.

 

It’s impossible to note how people are feeling without being present. Active listening and sincere, honest feedback are imperative in this regard. Summarizing and telling the facts back to the parties in a neutral way is also a great way to show progress and create consensus but proceed with caution – it’s also risky business. Personally, I’m guilty of putting a positive spin on just about everything anyone at the mediation table says. While reframing is a good tool, using it too frequently can quickly backfire if it’s the wrong moment or if the parties are angry and frustrated.

 

Competing as a mediator is riddle worth riddling. It involves a multitude of different skill sets and an ability to know when you are needed and when you are not. It’s also something that to a large extent is based on self-confidence. I learnt so much at the CDRC competition but the message that resonated most was the importance of being true to yourself. There are so many styles and ways of mediating that it’s easy to fit a mould but once you do, it’s difficult to have the flexibility and reactiveness that’s required of you when mediating. Make a concerted effort to be the best version of yourself when you are sitting in the mediator’s seat. If you don’t feel like the best version of you that day, there are a range of things you can do to get to that point – you can give Sabine Walsh and Aled Davies a call for power stance tips and loud clapping tactics.

 

One thing I can say for sure, or rather, one piece of advice I could give to future competitors in the mediator category is that you shouldn’t compete. Obviously don’t treat the mediation like a ping pong match, acting only as an observer (remember to listen for and respond to emotions) but don’t treat it like a competition and don’t treat the people in the room as your competitors. How do you do that in practice? It’s puzzling, I know.

 

*Janene Tuniz is an LL.M Sustainable Development candidate and mediator in the making. She won first prize in Mediation at the CDRC Mediation and Negotiation Competition in 2019 and is the Co-founder and Communications Director of Diciassette which is part of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. She is also the Content Manager and Executive Editor for online publication, The Sustainable Development Watch and is currently completing an internship at the United Nations in Nairobi.

Guest Post : 7th NLIU INADR International Law School Mediation Tournament 2018 – A competition full of learning, many trophies to encourage better performance, and for us, a memory and victory to cherish forever!

I would take moment of deep breathing before I begin with the story of our team just like we did before every round during the tournament. Before being titled the “Overall Winners” and “Best Mediator Team” (for those who need to know, the two main titles) of 7th NLIU INADR International Law School Mediation Tournament, we were just another law students curious enough to learn, more than win. Being first time participants in a competition (I had mooted before in Antitrust Law but Rohan and Sanjhi were participating in a competition for the first time), we expected to learn from other students senior in experience to us but the titles we won debunked our own wrong beliefs.team picture

Institute of Law, Nirma University Team: Twinkle Malukani (3rd year), Rohan Bangia (2nd year) and Sanjhi Agarwal (2nd year)

The journey began with giving intra-murals in Nirma University and secure a good rank to forming a team and believing each other, which very well laid our foundation for team work. We talked and met beyond professional reasons and bonded well which really made our relationship improve. Now this is exactly how Mediation and Negotiation works, securing relationship and Getting a Yes! Now that we started working together on the problem, we initially couldn’t figure out how to prepare. We read a book “Getting to Yes” by Roger Fisher and William Ury and understood what exactly Negotiation and Mediation means, to be very correct “Principled Negotiation” both in practical day-to-day life and tournament understanding of course resembles it with some variations. Apart from reading the book, we watched many tutorial videos and mock sessions and videos of other competitions to understand better.

However, there is a reason why NLIU INADR is the best tournament in Asia and how it is different from other Negotiation-Mediation Tournament worldwide. It requires all 3 team members do all 3 roles of Client, Counsel (Negotiators) and Mediator in first three Preliminary Rounds. Now that is tricky but a lot of learning. We three made sure to make each other understand each role that we “thought” we were best at and it turned out that NLIU INADR taught us all three roles really well, especially because after very first preliminary round, there is scope for improvement because you listen to your own role’s feedback and then of others too in the room. Now it depends on how you internalize the feedback and suggestions of the judges after every round. The team, even if new to such competition, but internalizes the feedbacks better takes the title. During the tournament, the judges not only pointed out what we did incorrect but also mentioned what we should continue doing, those being our strengths (like Mr. Valenti, Mr. Rogula, Mr. Ellis and many other judges did). It is in best interest of participants to listen carefully and internalize the feedbacks, not only for this competition and other ADR competitions, but also when they actually go out as professional mediators and negotiate in daily life or for professionally cracking a deal.

This tournament taught us the right gesture and correct words in the right moment, to think twice before speaking, to speak only when necessary, to listen actively, be polite even when one wants to let off the steam, to do as negotiators what benefits you but doesn’t harm the other side, to be unbiased and so on. All this learning did not exclude the fun we all had dancing at the cultural night and interactions during training sessions and lunch breaks. NLIU INADR Tournament 2018 is what we will cherish to have been a part of and having performed great for which we extend our gratitude to amazing judges, NLIU tutorials, training sessions, Nirma University and mutually to each other, as a team! We will cherish not only the winning titles but the whole journey and 3 days of learning. Success is not a one-time thing, it is not a fluke. It is not just about the trophies, Learning and Improving and Growing as a person is a victory in itself.

-Twinkle Malukani, Rohan Bangia and Sanjhi Agarwal

Institute of Law, Nirma University Team: Twinkle Malukani (3rd year), Rohan Bangia (2nd year) and Sanjhi Agarwal (2nd year)

A week of ADR events in Sao Paolo, Brazil

Monday started with a radio interview highlighting the events of the upcoming Mediation Congress in Sao Paolo. Alexander Palermo Simoes and I were featured on Ana Pretel’s weekly radio show covering interesting legal topics. You can listen to the show here:

From there we paid a visit to The IV Pan American Arbitration Congress, hosted by CAM-CCBC on 23 to 24 October 2017 in Sao Paulo saw close to 500 attendees listen and participate in a broad range of panels dealing the unique problems associated with arbitration in the region. While focusing on Pan-American countries, the event draws global participation and showcases comparisons of practices with an eye toward sharing best practices in international arbitration. CAM_CCBC, under the leadership of Carlos Forbes, as organizer of the event has demonstrated a commitment to improving the quality of arbitration services,
and making Sao, Paolo Brazil, a hub for international arbitration in South America and the region. aFOTO-MARCOS-MESQUITA--45

Immediately following the Pan American Congress, on October 25th, was the first ever International Mediation Congress in Brazil — Congresso Internacional de Mediação Empresarial – GEMEP I CBAr held at AASP – Associação dos Advogados de São Paulo. The organizing committee – Alexandre P. Simões, Claudia Frankel Grosman and Patricia Freitas Fuoco created a sold out event of stellar debates, workshops and networking events that highlighted the growth of mediation in Brazil under the 2015 law.22815150_10155027876923443_5943122743707166741_n

The following days were highlighted by the “VIII Competição Brasileira de Arbitragem e Mediação Empresarial da CAMARB” – a mediation and arbitration competition in partnership with Mackenzie Presbyterian University. Participation by 57 arbitration teams, 18 mediation teams, 80 assessors, 250 arbitrators and approximately 400 listeners resulted in the biggest event of its kind in Latin America! 22886002_1944929519165165_4585326340301035114_n

Here is a link to the CAMARB Competition website: LINK

Here is a link to a newspaper story “Brazil hosts greater arbitration and mediation competition in Latin America” describing the tournament : LINK