About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

13 Alaska B. Rag 1 (1989)

handle is hein.barjournals/askabar0013 and id is 1 raw text is: Fawily mediation works: 60% success rate By DREW PETERSON ittle white lies, big whopper lies and statistics. We are all familiar with the differences between such prevarications and their respective places on the conti- nuum of truthfulness. I must confess to being uncomfortable in attempt- ing to demonstrate the effectiveness of family mediation with statistics. Yet a growing number of people are believers in the advantages of family mediation over the traditional litiga- tion approach to family legal dis- putes. Statistics are only part of the reason why. Probably the best known study concerning the effectiveness of fam- ily mediation comes from the Denver Custody Mediation Project. Reported in the Winter, 1984 issue of the Fam- ily Law Quarterly (17 FLQ 497), the Denver study involved phone inter- views three and six months after final court orders had been entered with 235 individuals who were in- volved in mediation, 13-3 individuals who were offered but rejected media- tion as an alternative, and 89 indi- viduals in a control group. The medi- ation services in question were offered free of charge through court system referrals, and involved lawyer-mental health professional male-female teams of mediators. Conclusions ofthe researchers from the Denver study included the follow- ing: OK\\ L-N OK FOLK5 1-4OW DO YOU WANT IT?- a ou percent of the mediation par- ticipants were successful in reaching an at January-February, 1989 did r ation another 60 percent come to agreements before their final court hearings. Thus over 80 percent of those exposed to mediation reached their own agreements outside of court. This compared with almost half of the group not exposed to mediation who let the court determine their dispute. e Successful mediation clients were more likely to feel they could resolve subsequent problems without resort- ingto court(70 percent vs. 30 percent). * 92 percent of successful media- tion participants were satisfied with the process. Even 61 percent of those involved with an unsuccessful medi- ation effort would recommend the process to a friend. * Over85percentoftheindividuals involved in successful mediation re- ported that their ex-spouses were gen- erally complying with the terms of their agreement. In contrast, 30-40 percent of remaining groups reported that serious problems had already arisen with the final court orders within three months after they had been entered. o Successful mediation correlated with a better relationship among ex- spouses. When asked to evaluate how Continued on Page 11 Federal court implements pro bono program By JOHN D. ROBERTS U.S. MAGISTRATE S purred by a continuing in- crease in federal litigation by pro se litigants, the federal district court, with assistance of the Alaska Pro Bono program, has insti- tuted a pro bono project to assist implementation of the federal In For ma pauperis Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915. The project is designed to screen pro se cases and to provide for the ap- pointment of counsel with little or no cost to the litigant. At the request of the court Seth Eames, coordinator for the program, -eviewed similar pograms in other localities, including New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles and Chicago. According to Mr. Rlames, the Alaska program incorporates the best ideas and procedures from each of those programs. The court has adopted nine rules govery-ing procedures for the appointmem, of attorneys in pro se civil actions. Not all requests for court-appointed counsel will be grant- ed. The court will continue to screen such requests. Criteria include con- sideration of the merits of the action, efforts of plaintiff to secure counsel, and financial means toretain counsel. Prior to being sent to a volunteer attorney, cases may be referred by the court to the Alaska Pro Bono programs (APBPs) district court pan- el for screening. The screening panel created by the APBP will consist of three attorneys who shall make a recommendation concerning the ap- pointment of counsel to the judicial officer assigned to the action. Mem- bers of the screening panel are expect- ed to serve at least one calendar year, and they will not be asked to repres- ent parties in the U.S. District Court as long as they are serving on a screw-ning panel. The Clerk will maintain current income guidelines which will match those of Alaska Legal Services Cor- poration and APBP and will be based on 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines as regularly amended. Only those applicants meet- ing or falling below those guidelines shall be entitled to an appointed attorney through the new rules.Pro se applicants not meeting these eco- nomic guidelines may still be ap- pointed counsel from the panel as determined by the court. The new 'rules discuss some of the factors to be taken into account in making this determination. To date, the APBP has a list of 55 volunteers who have agreed to accept cases under these new rules. An attor- Continued on Page 5 Alaska Bar Association P.O. Box 100279 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 USi. PAl Puid PAssNalog.Alai

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most