New book by Dr. Ihab Amro entitled ‘Online Arbitration in Theory and in Practice: A Comparative Study of Cross-Border Commercial Transactions in Common Law and Civil Law Countries’ now available. This book is based on post doctoral research conducted under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Tibor Varady, S.J.D. Harvard Law School.

From the publisher’s website:

“This book presents an overview of online arbitration and electronic contracting worldwide, examining their national and international contexts, and assessing their ongoing relevance. It offers solutions to the salient challenges facing both online arbitration and electronic contracting, dealing first–hand with online arbitration as an online dispute resolution technique for solving both traditional and electronic commerce disputes that may arise out of the breach of contractual obligations in international commercial contracts, while also comparing between common law and civil law countries.

In the theory of law, this book analyses the international legal framework that regulates e–commerce, and its impact on electronic contracting, including Model Laws and International Conventions such as the Model Law on Electronic Commerce of 1996 and the Electronic Communications Convention of 2005. It also investigates whether the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 1980 ‘The CISG’ applies to e–commerce contracts. In addition, it extensively examines the possibility for the enforcement of online arbitration agreements and online arbitral awards under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958.

Regarding the practice of law, the volume examines how national courts apply both national laws and the New York Convention of 1958 when dealing with the enforcement of online arbitration agreements, and whether courts apply the provisions of national laws of arbitration liberally. As such, it encourages the adoption of a more liberal judicial regime in favour of the enforcement of online arbitral awards and online arbitration agreements in national courts.

This book represents a valuable resource for academics, arbitrators, practicing lawyers, corporate counsels, law students, researchers, and professionals who are willing to solve their cross–border commercial disputes through online arbitration.”

Learn more: Online Arbitration in Theory and in Practice

The Pew Trusts just released a new fact sheet on ODR in the courts.  An excerpt:

“Existing digital technologies could provide part of the solution and increase people’s remote access to the courts. In particular, online dispute resolution (ODR) is an electronic tool already in use in the private sector that helps resolve disagreements between consumers and online retailers. Major online retailers and auction sites use ODR to settle more than 60 million disputes a year, with 90 percent of financial cases resolved without the engagement of a judge or mediator. Early research suggests that when applied in a court context, these innovations could make legal processes more efficient and provide hundreds of thousands of Americans with an alternative way to resolve legal issues—especially high-volume cases that clog the courts. However, more study is needed to address concerns raised by some stakeholders about whether and how well the private-sector success of ODR will translate into policy and ultimately the practice of law.”

Read more here.  A PDF version is also available.

from Graham Ross:

Following my work, together with  my colleague Fellow, Professor Pablo Cortes, as a member of the ODR Advisory Group to the Civil Justice Council (the public body, sponsored by the UK Ministry of Justice, responsible for overseeing and co-ordinating the modernisation of the civil justice system in England and Wales)  whose recommendations led to the creation of the Online Civil Money court project in England and Wales, I was later invited by the CJC to join a 6 person Working Party on ADR. The focus was on what steps could be taken to increase the use of ADR within the UK’s justice system.

Our Final Report (available here) was issued on the 4^th December 2018. Apart from in general, I contributed some specific recommendations on both ODR and the EU’s consumer ADR/ODR law with relevant extracts as follows:

“3.16 Apart  from  the  online  dispute  resolution  systems  which  are  being  established within the Court system as part of Court modernisation and  the online solutions court there are a number of online dispute resolution  systems available privately.  Some of these effectively serve as adjuncts  or frameworks for established ADR techniques like mediation.  But some  modern systems embody more artificial intelligence (“AI”) and their  programmes may contribute creative solutions to the resolution of the  problem or use systems such as blind bidding.  An example is the iCan  Smartsettle system. This is a comparatively new but rapidly developing  area.  We discuss elsewhere the need for standards to be set before  stakeholders begin to trust online dispute resolution provided by private  providers as an acceptable form of ADR to be encouraged in the context  of  court  proceedings.    It  seems  inescapable  that  given  the  wide   acceptance of online processes and services in our social and business  lives dispute resolution is bound to develop in this direction.

“4.16.Online dispute resolution may well enjoy greater popularity,even if  provided privately,once people get used to the ODR techniques being  used in the online court.   There is at present, it is thought, a great deal  of unfamiliarity and it is an area which needs standards to be set and in  particular reassurance to be given to potential litigants about the security  and confidentiality of their communications.   “

“5.6…….As we said in out Interim Report, “We can see that if  ODR  techniques become woven into the design of the Court system then the  debate whether or not to compel ADR may simply become obsolete” (IR  2.7)     In general the existence of the Online Court project presents the  opportunity for expansion of its use of ODR techniques especially those  that go beyond simply enabling communications to take place online and  embrace those systems that exploit Artificial Intelligence to empower  litigants to reach settlement more easily. This should enable it to handle  large increases in case load.”

5.12  More important are the Consumer ADR Regulations  and the Online ADR Regulations, the which will be preserved as part of  UK law.  Anything involving EU Institutions is more difficult.  Agreement  is likely to need to be reached with the EU to permit the EU’s ODR Portal  to continue to operate by referring to UK consumers to UK approved ADR  providers as at present.  Failing this an independent UK Portal will need  to be created.

7.10(4)  Private initiatives in relation to ODR should be applauded and  promoted and, we hope, accepted by the Courts once appropriate  standards are in place;

7.21 We referred in our interim report to the need for some standards to be  set for the seemingly huge variety of techniques available within ODR if  it is to gain wider recognition as a privately available ADR service rather  than just an aspect of the digital court. We think the respects in which  standards  may  be  required  are  most  obviously  confidentiality  and  security.  Where there is an evaluative or advisory component in the  online inter‐action then clearly issues of accuracy and quality could arise.    We wonder whether it will be advisable to offer the public a link to a  private ODR provider (on the Alternatives website) until standards are  established and the provider commits to follow them. It is recognised  that  the  newly  formed  International  Council  for  Online  Dispute  Resolution (www.icodr.org) is developing global standards for ODR and  already has a set of principles on its website.  As the ICODR comprises the  body of universally acknowledged leading experts in the field, it would be  unwelcome for those less knowledgeable and less experienced to seek to  develop standards of their own.

8.3 The Dispute Resolution techniques most likely to be deployed at the  outset of the dispute are consumer conciliations and ombudsman services  provided under the schemes that were reviewed in our interim report.   We remain of the view that careful consideration needs to be given to the  scope of the consumer ADR Directive and to the position that, outside  statutory schemes, suppliers of services in England and Wales are at  present able to do no more than to cite the theoretical possibility of  conciliation conducted by a particular body and are under no obligation  in any given case actually to use those ADR systems even where the  consumer wishes to do so.

8.4. In  fact  as  matters  stand  there  is  evidence  that  even  the  existing  requirements of the Consumer ADR and ODR Regulations are being  ignored and flouted to an extraordinary extent.  Steps clearly need to be  taken by way of enforcement to ensure that at least that step is being  taken.

9.18. Online dispute resolution in all its many forms must establish a set of  standards in order to gain further acceptance.

9.19. There  should  be  a  review  of  the  operation  of  the  Consumer  ADR  Regulations to ensure that the existing rules are complied with and careful  thought should be given to their further reinforcement, so as to increase  the use of consumer conciliation in this area.

Read the full report here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/CJC-ADRWG-Report-FINAL-Dec-2018.pdf

The ODR Melbourne meeting has just kicked off.  Review the program for the meeting here.  About the meeting:

“The Sir Zelman Cowen Centre at Victoria University is convening the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): The State of the Art Symposium on 21-22 November 2018 in Melbourne.

The symposium will:

• provide an intensive and experiential learning opportunity for strategic decision makers in Australia interested in ODR as a mechanism for improving efficiency and access to justice through technology
• showcase, and critically review, the variety of ODR approaches and technologies being adopted nationally and internationally
• create a network of practitioners and policy makers with a specialist interest in developing ODR in Australia.

Australian policy makers, judicial officers, court and tribunal administrators and complaint handling agencies are invited to engage with leading international experts to learn about ODR solutions being adopted nationally and across the globe.”

The conference is also hosting an ODR playground where the latest technology and platform will be available for demo and experimentation.  Speakers and bios are available here.

Portable, a user experience design firm based in Melbourne, has just put out a summary of it’s ODR design project.  From the announcement:

“As the population grows, social infrastructure such as the court system struggles with overwhelming loads, all in the face of funding cuts. To relieve some of this burden, Portable is combining best-practice user-experience design with modern technologies to help people solve more issues themselves.

Online dispute resolution represents a major opportunity. It provides an extra step at which parties can try to reach an agreement between themselves and, by doing so, is helping jurisdictions around the world prevent more matters reaching court.

Portable is passionate about improving people’s experience of justice, and our online dispute resolution technology, dubbed Settle (settletech.com.au), sits among our broader work to innovate in this space – such as our YourCase technology being piloted for applicants of family violence intervention orders, and our Courtsight ticketing and wayfinding solution implemented in Shepparton Law Courts – to transform the before, during and after-court experience for people.

The power of our online dispute resolution technology is already being seen through projects with several different jurisdictions, including family law, work disputes, and small claims tribunals such as VCAT.”

read more here.

“An internet-based court that runs 24/7 was set up in Beijing on Sunday where internet-related cases in the city will be tried online in the future.

Now, like convenience stores, courts will stay open perpetually and plaintiffs can file cases anytime.

The Beijing Internet Court has been given the jurisdiction to handle internet-related cases that should be tried by a primary-level people’s court in Beijing regarding disputes with online shopping, service contracts, lending and copyrights, the Xinhua News Agency reported on Sunday.

People can “file a case online instead of going to the court with paper-based material,” Li Jingwei, deputy president of the court told the China Central Television (CCTV) on Sunday.

People involved in a lawsuit can also receive evidence material sent by the other party, Li added.

The appearance of such a court also indicates a new model of social governance system, Qin An, head of the Institute of the China Cyberspace Strategy told the Global Times on Sunday.

Citizens can log onto the litigation service platform to file cases or submit related material “at any time, without worrying  about time,” said She Guiqing, another deputy president of the Beijing Internet Court.

Cases would be heard online through videocall if conditions allowed, China News Service reported.”

Read more: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1118968.shtml

“The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) is engaging with Pew Charitable Trusts to explore and examine various Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) implementations with the end goal of making ODR, a digital space where parties can convene to work out a resolution to their dispute or case, useful and successful.

To that end, NCSC is interested in knowing whether your state/jurisdiction has started an ODR effort. If so, what case type(s) does your effort focus on and where are you in the implementation lifecycle (e.g., forming an exploratory group, looking at commercial solutions, building your own, implementing a vendor solution, or already using an ODR solution and for how long)? Are you interested and willing to have NCSC and Pew engaged in helping your ODR effort at no cost to you?

NCSC can offer technical assistance, as well as process mapping help and evaluation for a handful of efforts. Even if you have already implemented an ODR solution, we are keen to know what went well and how you are using ODR. Responses should be directed to Shelley Spacek Miller, sspacek@ncsc.org or 757-259-1538, and include follow-up contact information.”

In celebration of the anniversary of last year’s conference on “Equal Access to Information & Justice – Online Dispute Resolution – ODR 2017” held in Paris, a special webpage in the ICC Dispute Resolution Library has been created and is publicly available: http://library.iccwbo.org/eai.htm

The page provides access to video-recordings of all panels, the powerpoints, the bios and the programme distributed in the delegate bags.

Thanks to the ICC and Mirèze Philippe for making this valuable resource available to everyone free of charge.

Read more here.

Thanks to Mike Lind for sharing a link the new white paper “The Digitalisation of Tribunals: What we know and what we need to know.”

The report is co-authored by Professor Robert Thomas (Professor of Public Law, University of Manchester) and Dr Joe  Tomlinson (Lecturer in Public Law, University of Sheffield, and Research Director, Public Law Project).

From the Introduction:

“There is a global movement toward digital justice. In the UK, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) are implementing a wide-ranging court reform and digitalisation programme across the justice system. The digitalisation of administrative tribunals is a key part of that agenda. In global terms, the reforms being carried out by HMCTS are pioneering and are on an unprecedented scale. While there is clear ambition on display, much of the detail of how the new system will work are still being worked out.

This report covers four distinct questions:

• what is the context for the introduction of online tribunals?
• what do we know about what online tribunal procedures will look like?
• what are the key issues going forward?
• how do developments in the UK fit within wider international developments?

The digitalisation of tribunals can be understood as occurring within four related though discrete
contexts:

• reforms to administrative justice and changes to tribunals;
• advances in e-government;
• developments in online dispute resolution (ODR); and
• the development of the Transforming Our Justice System proposals.”

Click here for the full report.

A new article on the ABA website shares performance details from the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal shared at the 2018 mid-year meeting in Vancouver.  From the article:

“The early results are encouraging, according to the developers and operators, who spoke at a panel discussion Saturday at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Vancouver. So far, the system has handled nearly 14,000 small-claims cases. Roughly 85 percent of the 700 cases resolved to date were settled. Only 12 went to decision at the tribunal.

More important, the online tribunal has made it much simpler for ordinary citizens to access the justice system with small disputes. Lawyers are generally prohibited from participating. Users fill out simple, easy-to-follow, step-by-step questionnaires online…”

The article shares quotes from Shannon Salter and Darin Thompson from the CRT and the BC Ministry of Justice.

Read more here.