All my best, and thanks for sharing
Deborah
Nashville

The proposal that seemed to take shape was that SCMA might consider pitching in to help make up for the court’s lack of funding to administer the program, but might reshape their offering to something like this:

I. True pro bono services could be offered, by a panel of those willing, in cases where someone has filed a pro forma pauperis petition, but that would need to be studied, for example, if an insurer or corporate defendant was involved who could afford to pay for mediation services, how would that be treated?
II. For cases under $50,000, where, perhaps like San Diego and Santa Barbara counties, the plaintiff signs a for stipulating that the case is worth $50,000 or less, then a panel of mediators be formed within SCMA who would be willing to mediate these disputes for a reduced rate (perhaps equaling the former Party Select rate of $150/hour for the first two hours.
III. Cases with more than $50,000 in question could go to a market rate professional panel at SCMA.

Additional factors involved might include educating the public, perhaps providing a 1-page flyer or brochure to litigants apprising them of these services and how to access them, perhaps including the 501(c)3 non-profits who receive DRPA funding and might be able to provide pro bono or sliding scale services in smaller cases. All seemed to agree that a court “push” (referral, suggestion or other prodding) would be very useful, perhaps in combination with a mediation completion date. And the points were made that we had to think about including family law in the process, as well as how we would deal with pre se parties, including marketing to them.

Finally, complications that arise if the court panel goes away would include a sudden absence of ruiles of court governing mediator behavior, ability to enforce minimum mediator training and experience requirements, mediator oversight and discipline, and the ability to poke one’s nose under the tent of confidentiality in the event of such an accusation,which right now is only granted to a court administrator. Presumably, any plan that SCMA contemplates would somehow have to incorporate these rules in an enforceable way.

I think it was a good conversation because the more we talked about it, the more unforeseen challenges (such as those above) came out. This issue is quite a bit more complex than was first thought and will require much more thoughtful discussion. But tonight’s discussion, which was contributed to by most all in attendance, was a very useful first step.

In the end, many expressed their gratitude for the professional and orderly way the discussion took shape. Others laughed and said that given that we are all trained in mediation skills, it’s not surprising. It was a productive night’s discussion, absent any of the conflict that I anticipated, and frankly even tried to stir up at times, without much success! That, I think, was my favorite part of the night.

On top of your game and doing good deeds for society, as always.

I would like to think you and your network of conflict-resolving associates could add some logic and common sense to the debacle that is gun ownership and gun control in America, but I fear that the situation is closer to family law than you might imagine. It is a 320,000,000 person divorce, and the ex’s will be forced to live together. even after the divorce.

By the way, do you ever sleep? Or have you discovered cloning? Your list of websites, blogs, articles, and social media stuff that keeps you busy is staggering to those dinosaurs that inhabit planet Earth. Go get ‘em!

MC

I don’t understand the reason why I cannot join it. Is there anybody getting similar RSS issues? Anyone that knows the solution will you kindly respond? Thanx!!

Keep on the good work.

(http://www.echtscheidingsbemiddelingdenbosch.nl)

However, this case is most interesting if not bizarre.