The interdisciplinary focus of Northwestern's DR research center
1
8 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation Vol. 4 No. 7 July 1986 The Interdisciplinary Focus of Northwestern5 DR Research Center By Stephen Henry Northwestern University in Chicago has started a Research Center for Dispute Resolution at J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management. The Research Center is a multi-disciplinary project involving faculty and students from the School of Management, College of Arts and Sciences and the Law School, as well as visiting scholars and dispute resolution practitioners from across the country. According to Jeanne Brett, professor of Organization Management at Kellogg and one of the Research Center’s found- ing members, the Research Center is currently running a Problem-Solving Workshop, a research seminar and a research grant program. A recent grant received from the Hewlett Foundation will fund these programs, although the workshop and seminar programs were conducted on an “informal” basis dur- ing the last academic year. The Problem-Solving Workshop, similar to a seminar used at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, involves members of the Northwestern faculty and visiting dispute resolution practitioners. The practitioners tell of their experiences and problems with forms of dispute resolution and the other participants react. Many Views The major emphasis is placed on inter- disciplinary cross-fertilization, says Professor Brett. “The interactions work well,” she says. “Everyone brings his or her own theoretical perspective but we have a very free-flowing interaction.” The Workshop has involved such peo- ple as Dr. William Ury of Harvard’s Nuclear Negotiation Project, Professor Howard Raiffa of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and a hostage negotiator. The research seminar is designed for the communication of research work and results among Northwestern fac- ulty, graduate students and other schol- ars. These sessions also encourage in- terdisciplinary thinking. As North- western Law Prof. Stephen (;oldberg puts it, “these seminars are ii mutual educatiun process” which allow the par- ticipants to lay the foundation for joint interdisciplinary research projects. The Research Center also expects to establish close ties with the Chicago- based American Bar Foundation, which engages in many research projrcts. From a law professor’s perspective, says Professor Goldberg, the activities of the Research Center “offer a good opportunity to get social scientists to do sophisticated research on dispute reso- lution.” Professor Goldberg says that lawyers and law professors also offer an important perspective to the Research Center. “Social scientists sometimes don’t ask the right questions,” he says, and lawyers and law professors can help alleviate this problem by offering “knowledge of the kinds of problems and a very real sense of the context in which disputes occur.” Law students, though not taking part in research activities, will benefit from the Research Center, says Professor Goldberg. They will be invited to hear speakers at the Problem-Solving Work- shops and research seminars. Further, new ideas generated by the Research Center will infuse classes on dispute resolution. Mhi-Trial Serves as Catalyst In Computer Case - The president of a well-known company (whose identity we are not at liberty to disclose) had a gem of an idea several years ago: start up an on-line shared- time computer system that would help pharmacies fill prescriptions. Unfor- tunately, his pet idea flopped. Large start-up problems, possibly including bad programming, doomed the busi- ness. He decided to sue the manufac- turer of a component used in the com- puter system. The manufacturer, a small company, was insured.The insurance company balked at defending the suit, and filed suit in federal district court in Chicago for a ruling that it had no duty to defend. Eventually, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the insurance company bas con- tractually obligated to defend the un- derlying suit. The trial court had also ruled that the insurance company had a duty to indemnify the manufacturer; the court of appeals refused to rule on that issue until after the trial. On remand in 1984, the insurance company balked at anything other than a nominal settlement, said Edna Ep- stein, partner in the Chicago law firm of Sidley & Austin, which was represent- ing the defendant manufacturer. In- deed, the senior claims adjuster, she said, irritated U.S. District Judge Milton 1. Shadur during pretrial confer- ences when the insurance company of- fered a nominal $50,000 in the teeth of Judge Shadur’s declaration that it would take at least $225,000 to settle the case. At that point, key witnesses for the plaintiff and manufacturer had been de- posed, and most relevant documents had been exchanged. “There were not that many surprises left,” Epstein noted. The defense position was essen- tially that damages were not provable, the venture being a new business which had not made any money in the years before the components were installed. Potential profits were thus highly spec- ulative, the defense argued. Mini-Trial Designed To facilitate negotiations, plaintiff and defendant decided last year to stage a mini-trial. The presidents of both plain- (continued on page 15)
-
Upload
stephen-henry -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of The interdisciplinary focus of Northwestern's DR research center
8 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation Vol. 4 No. 7 July 1986
The Interdisciplinary Focus of Northwestern5 DR Research Center By Stephen Henry
Northwestern University in Chicago has started a Research Center for Dispute Resolution at J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management. The Research Center is a multi-disciplinary project involving faculty and students from the School of Management, College of Arts and Sciences and the Law School, as well as visiting scholars and dispute resolution practitioners from across the country.
According to Jeanne Brett, professor of Organization Management at Kellogg and one of the Research Center’s found- ing members, the Research Center is currently running a Problem-Solving Workshop, a research seminar and a research grant program. A recent grant received from the Hewlett Foundation will fund these programs, although the workshop and seminar programs were conducted on an “informal” basis dur- ing the last academic year.
The Problem-Solving Workshop, similar to a seminar used at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, involves members of the Northwestern faculty and visiting dispute resolution practitioners. The practitioners tell of their experiences and problems with forms of dispute resolution and the other participants react.
Many Views The major emphasis is placed on inter- disciplinary cross-fertilization, says Professor Brett. “The interactions work well,” she says. “Everyone brings his or her own theoretical perspective but we have a very free-flowing interaction.” The Workshop has involved such peo- ple as Dr. William Ury of Harvard’s Nuclear Negotiation Project, Professor Howard Raiffa of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and a hostage negotiator.
The research seminar is designed for the communication of research work and results among Northwestern fac- ulty, graduate students and other schol- ars. These sessions also encourage in-
terdisciplinary thinking. A s North- western Law Prof. Stephen (;oldberg puts it, “these seminars are ii mutual educatiun process” which allow the par- ticipants to lay the foundation for joint interdisciplinary research projects. The Research Center also expects to establish close ties with the Chicago- based American Bar Foundation, which engages in many research projrcts.
From a law professor’s perspective, says Professor Goldberg, the activities of the Research Center “offer a good opportunity to get social scientists to do sophisticated research on dispute reso- lution.” Professor Goldberg says that lawyers and law professors also offer an
important perspective to the Research Center. “Social scientists sometimes don’t ask the right questions,” he says, and lawyers and law professors can help alleviate this problem by offering “knowledge of the kinds of problems and a very real sense of the context in which disputes occur.”
Law students, though not taking part in research activities, will benefit from the Research Center, says Professor Goldberg. They will be invited to hear speakers at the Problem-Solving Work- shops and research seminars. Further, new ideas generated by the Research Center will infuse classes on dispute resolution.
Mhi-Trial Serves as Catalyst In Computer Case
-
The president of a well-known company (whose identity we are not at liberty to disclose) had a gem of an idea several years ago: start up an on-line shared- time computer system that would help pharmacies fill prescriptions. Unfor- tunately, his pet idea flopped. Large start-up problems, possibly including bad programming, doomed the busi- ness. He decided to sue the manufac- turer of a component used in the com- puter system.
The manufacturer, a small company, was insured.The insurance company balked at defending the suit, and filed suit in federal district court in Chicago for a ruling that i t had no duty to defend. Eventually, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the insurance company bas con- tractually obligated to defend the un- derlying suit. The trial court had also ruled that the insurance company had a duty to indemnify the manufacturer; the court of appeals refused to rule on that issue until after the trial.
On remand in 1984, the insurance company balked at anything other than a nominal settlement, said Edna Ep- stein, partner in the Chicago law firm of
Sidley & Austin, which was represent- ing the defendant manufacturer. In- deed, the senior claims adjuster, she said, irritated U.S. District Judge Milton 1. Shadur during pretrial confer- ences when the insurance company of- fered a nominal $50,000 in the teeth of Judge Shadur’s declaration that it would take at least $225,000 to settle the case.
At that point, key witnesses for the plaintiff and manufacturer had been de- posed, and most relevant documents had been exchanged. “There were not that many surprises left,” Epstein noted. The defense position was essen- tially that damages were not provable, the venture being a new business which had not made any money in the years before the components were installed. Potential profits were thus highly spec- ulative, the defense argued.
Mini-Trial Designed To facilitate negotiations, plaintiff and defendant decided last year to stage a mini-trial. The presidents of both plain- (continued on page 15)
