Abstract
For the reasons in my comments below, Jordan Hicks’s note entitled Judicial-ish Efficiency: An Analysis of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs in Delaware Superior Court is a tour de force. Its content and methodology suggest a fresh approach to thinking about court-annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) in general and court-annexed mandatory nonbinding arbitration programs in particular. The meticulous analysis of three different eras (1978–2008, 2008–2018, and 2018–present) of the program, with a focus on judicial efficiency (speed, failure rate, and prejudicial concerns), provides an important template for how this work might be expanded to look at programs in other courts in different jurisdictions. Whether this approach can be incorporated in the analysis of ADR efficacy on a broader level is the topic of this comment.
Recommended Citation
Benjamin G. Davis, Comment: Court ADR Analytics, 81 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 379 (2024).Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol81/iss1/8