The Multi-Door Courthouse Approach

The Multi-door Courthouse Approach: A Look Across the Threshold By Lisa Azzato (Published in the Suffolk Lawyer, December 2006. Notations regarding the author’s prior practice have been omitted from this document.)

What is a multi-door courthouse? No, it is not a courthouse with many doors, but is instead a means of directing cases filed in court to various “dispute resolution doors” or options. Parties are referred to different dispute resolution options in an effort to select that option which best suit the needs of their particular dispute. The dispute resolution options include court annexed mediation, case evaluation, early neutral evaluation, arbitration, and the continuation of litigation. In the multi-door courthouse system, trained intake workers inform the parties of the various alternative dispute resolution programs available and direct the parties towards the most appropriate process or series of processes based on factors such as the relationship of the parties, the amount in controversy, and the type of relief sought. The goal of the multi-door courthouse is to streamline the court process and afford parties various options to resolve their disputes beyond the standard option of litigation. Multi-door courthouse programs have been in place in several states for many years and have proven an effective means of channeling cases to alternate options for dispute resolution to meet the specific needs of a case. This article will focus of the multi-door courthouse model successfully employed by the courts of Dekalb County, Georgia as an example of how the multi-door courthouse process works.

Georgia is a leader in the application of court annexed alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”). The effective application of court annexed ADR is due in large part to the cooperation and collaboration of judges and lawyers through the Supreme Court of

Georgia and the State Bar of Georgia in working towards the development of a statewide plan for court annexed ADR. This collaborative effort was implemented through the creation of a task force in 1990 and the subsequent creation of the Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution.1 The Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution is the body appointed by the Georgia Supreme Court to make policy and develop court annexed

ADR programs in Georgia. Among the policies developed are the requirements of specified training and qualifications for neutrals in court annexed ADR programs and the adoption of rules, ethics and statutes governing the process of court annexed ADR.2

Although only three counties in Georgia offered ADR through the courts in 1990, by 2005 Georgia courts offered ADR in 96 counties and referred more than 31,800 cases to ADR.3 Our model county, Dekalb County, Georgia, started its multi-door courthouse program in 1990. The Dekalb County Multi-door Courthouse Dispute Resolution Center offers mediation, binding and non-binding arbitration, early neutral evaluation and case evaluation. Cases are sent to the multi-door courthouse program on a case by case basis.

State courts, which are the lower trial courts in Georgia, also require all cases that have filed a jury demand to consider ADR options and consult with the multi-door courthouse program’s staff prior to being placed on a trial calendar. The types of cases currently handled by the Dekalb County Dispute Resolution Center include general civil, domestic, probate, and juvenile deprivation cases.4 Cases excluded from the Dekalb County Multi- door Courthouse program include appeals from rulings of administrative agencies, forfeiture of seized property, habeas corpus and extraordinary writ proceedings, bond validations, and declaratory and injunctive relief cases.5

Cases referred to the Multi-door Courthouse program are screened by the Dekalb

County Dispute Resolution Center’s staff for determination of an appropriate dispute resolution option. An intake conference is held with the litigants and/or their counsel by the Dispute Resolution Center’s staff and the options of dispute resolution are discussed, including a continuation of litigation. The parties select a dispute resolution process within 15 days of their intake conference. If a court annexed ADR process is selected, the dispute resolution option is commenced within 45 days of the intake conference, unless the time is extended by the assigned judge. The assigned judge is kept apprised of the status of any case proceeding through the Dispute Resolution Center. Once the parties agree on the form of dispute resolution to be utilized, the neutral mediator, arbitrator, early neutral evaluator or case evaluator is appointed by the Dispute

Resolution Center’s staff. The Dispute Resolution Center’s staff appoints neutrals on a case-by-case basis based on the background and experience of the neutral which best matches the case issues. (Parties who choose to pursue private dispute resolution may select their own neutral at their own cost.)

Neutrals participating in the Dekalb County Multi-door Courthouse program, as with other court annexed programs in Georgia, are required to undergo substantial training by a state approved provider and to be registered with the Georgia Office of

Dispute Resolution as well as having satisfied other observation and continuing legal education requirements in ADR. The Dekalb County Multi-door Courthouse program compensates the participating neutrals directly for the services provided up to a specified maximum number of hours which varies based on the dispute resolution option selected.

Thereafter, the parties may contract directly with the neutral at their private rate up to

$150 per hour.6 Attorneys for parties regularly participate in the various dispute resolution programs offered through the Dekalb County Multi-door Courthouse program. In

Georgia, a concerted effort was made to educate members of the bar on ADR processes in order to foster understanding and participation in court annexed ADR programs.

Georgia attorneys are required to take continuing legal education credits in alternative dispute resolution in order to be familiar with the benefits of ADR and the specific options available through ADR. 7 Additionally, the Rules and Regulations of the State

Bar of Georgia were amended to include an ethical consideration imposing a duty on lawyers to advise clients as to “the various forms of dispute resolution which might constitute reasonable alternatives to litigation.” 8

From the genesis of court annexed ADR in Georgia more than 15 years ago and through the collaborative efforts of judges, lawyers and neutrals, the effective implementation of ADR in the courts has been realized. Of those cases referred to mediation in Georgia in fiscal year 2005, 68% were fully resolved through the mediation process alone.9 Court annexed ADR and the multi-door courthouse approach is a concept that merits consideration in its possible application to our own court system and in the benefits of developing a court annexed dispute resolution system through the cooperative efforts of the legal community.

[Note: Prior contact and practice information have been omitted. The author may now be contacted at [email protected]. Practice information can be found at www.azzatolaw.com ] 1 FY 2005 Annual Report, Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution, p.1. 2 See, www.godr.org for information on the Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution, neutral training and neutral registration requirements. 3 FY 2005 Annual Report, Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution, p.1. 4 FY 2005 Annual Report, Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution,. at p. 73-1. 5 Id. 6 Id. at p. 74-1. (The neutral is paid $125 for the first 2 hours of time and $50 per hour thereafter for up to a total of 4 ½ hours for civil cases, 6 ½ hours for domestic cases, 2.5 hours for magistrate court cases, and 3.5 hours for arbitrations.) 7 Georgia Supreme Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules, Article VIII, Education, www2.state.ga.us/courts/adr/adrrules.htm 8 Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia, Ethical Consideration 7-5. 9 FY 2005 Annual Report, Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution, p.1.