ADR Committee Meeting Minutes
Jan. 8, 2004
 
David Harwi, co-chair, opened the meeting by explaining that, since this is the first meeting of a new program year, it is appropriate to devote it to discussing what the Committee members would like the Committee to be doing during this year.
 
Mr. Harwi pointed out that during the year just ended, the Committee had focused its attention primarily on attempting to find ways to effectively educate the public in general and specific potential users of ADR services in particular about the benefits of using ADR and to dispel the myths that may prevent its use (such as concerns by some litigation counsel that they will lose fees as a result of not going to trial). We talked about the frustrations in attempting to find a champion for our cause among the appellate state judiciary, particularly within the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the interest of that Court and the Governor�s office in developing some form of ADR (they�re looking primarily at the Rush Hospital model of �mediation�) to help resolve the medical malpractice crises short of litigation. The group agreed that we should continue to explore all possible avenues to market ADR, including enlisting graduate students in marketing or business to help (possible through Professor Ed Shils), approaching local trade groups that utilize or might consider utilizing ADR (such as homebuilders, architects and general contractors) for presentations to their members.
 
In this context, Mr. Rosenstein mentioned that he had been approached by some of the senior staff of the Association for Conflict Resolution about reinstating a Delaware Valley Chapter of that organization, since the prior SPIDR chapter had been dormant since SPIDR merged into ACR several years ago. After some discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Rosenstein should poll the other ADR organizations with a presence in the Delaware Valley to determine whether there is sufficient interest in this idea to warrant exploring further its pros and cons. At the next meeting he will report back to the committee on his findings.
 
The meeting attendees then turned their attention to possible topics and/or speakers for programs during the balance of the year. Suggestions included: Court-annexed ADR programs in Pennsylvania, looking primarily at those in which Good Shepherd is involved (contact, Cheryl Cutrona); the impact of government sponsored ADR programs in New Jersey on expanding use of ADR throughout the state (contact, Fran Snyder); ADR in the Commerce Court (contact, Gabe Bevilacqua or Judge Gene Cohen); expanding fee-paying court-annexed mediation, whether or not on the Rush Model, in Pennsylvania (contact, former Justice Wm. Lamb or Justice Max Baer, who will be receiving PCM�s award in Philly on May 7);  educating the next generation of lawyers about ADR (contact, Professor Doug Frenkel); and the role of private mediators in litigation (contact, Judge Wm. Manfredi). The committee co-chairs will follow up with these suggestions and encourage Committee members to submit more.
 
The meeting was then adjourned.