Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Top Ten Things Not to Do in Mediation
Mediation is widely used these days. Federal court mediation programs have been in place since the 1990s; the Supreme Court's Commercial Division has a thriving Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program; there are court annexed mediation programs for specific areas — matrimonial, family, criminal court community disputes, landlord/tenant, and small claims court, to name a few. Agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and quasi-governmental entities like the United States Postal Service have longstanding mediation programs, as do self-regulating organizations like the National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange.
Beyond those programs, there is a growing use of private professional mediation. Corporations with pre-dispute ADR clauses, insurers with inter-company agreements, and attorneys with cases on an ad hoc basis are regularly turning to mediators to help them resolve their disputes and save their clients the cost, disruption and aggravation of protracted litigation.
Given this burgeoning use of mediation, it is likely that most litigators, and many legal dealmakers, will find themselves representing clients in this process. It is thus imperative to understand the mediation process, its goals and possibilities, and to be effective in that process, understanding what works and what can abort the process and its positive possibilities. It is just as important to understand what not to do in the mediation process. Here is a non-comprehensive list of 10 choices counsel or parties might make that reduce the likelihood of arriving at a mutually acceptable resolution through mediation.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?