Oral submissions are public. As a rule, two cases are heard each day, starting at 10 a.m. Each case has one hour for arguments. Meanwhile, lawyers for each side have half an hour to present their best case to the judges. However, most of the time is spent answering questions from the judges. Judges tend to view oral arguments not as a forum for lawyers to rehash the merits of the case as it is in their pleadings, but to answer any questions that judges may have asked themselves in reading their pleadings. In the case of interstate or foreign commerce, the U.S. Arbitration Act of 1925 makes the agreement legally enforceable, and most states have similar laws for agreements not covered by federal law. When a tribunal is asked to review a decision, it can only hear complaints about fundamental procedural fairness or the conduct of the adjudicator, but not about the merits of the case. The New York State Unified Court System provides parties with access to free or discounted mediation and other alternative dispute resolution services in general family, civil and commercial disputes. These services are available at numerous courthouses and community dispute resolution centers in nearly all 62 boroughs of New York State. In 1982, IBM claimed that Fujitsu had illegally copied software from IBM`s mainframe operating system.
The two reached an agreement in 1983, but there have been repeated disputes, largely because of the technological complexity and legal uncertainty of many issues. In 1985, IBM requested arbitration under the 1983 agreement. Two arbitrators were selected to form a committee, one a law professor with experience in dispute resolution and the other a retired IT industry manager. The arbitrators soon realized that without innovative thinking, the trial would find itself stuck in the same quagmire of technical details and blame that blocked the previously negotiated resolution. They refused to hear more specific complaints. Instead, they issued an injunction requiring Fujitsu to submit a full statement of accounts for the use of programs covered by the 1983 agreement and required both companies to participate in mediation proceedings covering programs not included in the previous agreement. ADR often saves money and speeds up processing. In mediation, the parties play an important role in resolving their own disputes. This often leads to creative solutions, more sustainable results, greater satisfaction, and better relationships. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) refers to the different ways in which people can resolve disputes without going to court. Common alternative dispute resolution procedures include mediation, arbitration and neutral assessment. These processes tend to be confidential, less formal, and less stressful than traditional court proceedings.
In any case, as we shall see, some ADR mechanisms work better than others. But they both have characteristics in common: they are all attempts to save time and money on law and management, and they all try to remove at least part of the benefit of the opposite attitude. The theory behind ADR is that resolving disputes as painlessly as possible requires good communication, good communication requires a certain level of trust, and the opposing system of dispute resolution encourages mistrust, distortion and hostility. Building trust is at the heart of the design of many ADR techniques. The high cost of dispute resolution has several causes, but the most important is the mindset established and nurtured by the opposing system. The essence of this system is that opposing counsel have the responsibility to present every piece of evidence and present any legal arguments that could potentially benefit their clients. Preliminary investigations and other judicial proceedings should spare no effort in the search for relevant evidence. Through training, temperament, professional duty, and often client expectations, lawyers tend to take full advantage of these procedures and hold on as long as there is hope. Indeed, every lawyer has the duty to be as diligent a lawyer as possible, even – sometimes mostly – to the detriment of discovering the truth and resolving conflicts to the satisfaction of both parties.