DOCSLIB.ORG

Basic Adjudication Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Basic Adjudication Guidelines

These materials are provided for general informational purposes only and do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice. You should consult your own legal counsel concerning your particular facts and circumstances and any specific legal questions you may have regarding the issues addressed in these materials. As an independent business owner, you remain solely responsible for recruiting, hiring, training, scheduling, supervising and paying the persons who work in your store and those persons are your employees, and not employees of Domino’s Pizza LLC. By providing these materials, we do not assume any of your responsibilities or duties. You may use these materials, or not, at your discretion.

Adjudication Results Client must set results to Does Not Meet after HireRight review

Adjudication Results

MEETS COMPANY STANDARDS (MEETS COMPANY STANDARDS)

Explanation

The applicant’s background check results do not trigger any of the defined

adjudication criteria, allowing the hiring process to continue for the candidate.

The applicant’s background check results have triggered some questions. Please

review the report details and make the appropriate employment decision.

PENDING/ Pending Potential
Conflict

Once the client sets a report to “Does Not Meet Company Standards”, The FCRA

pre-adverse/adverse letter process should start.

Does Not Meet Company
Standards

Social Security Trace (SSN)

  • Item #
  • Description
  • Recommended Adjudication Status

  • Meets Company standards
  • 1
  • Valid SSN Trace

2345
No data or invalid trace No data age 21 and older No DOB available and No data No data under 21
Pending Pending Pending Meets Company Standards

SSN Validation

  • Item #
  • Description
  • Recommended Adjudication Status

  • Pending
  • 1
  • SSN has not been issued

  • 2
  • SSN belongs to deceased individual. or

Issue date precedes DOB.
Pending

National Sex Offender List

  • Item #
  • Description
  • Recommended Adjudication Status

  • Meets Company Standards
  • 1
  • Name does not appear on list

  • 2
  • Name appears on list
  • Pending- Potential Conflict

National Criminal Search

  • Item #
  • Description

Recommended Adjudication Status Not adjudicated at this step. Results will be adjudicated upon the order of a county criminal and/or statewide criminal search if a hit is returned

  • 1
  • Criminal Match

23
Prohibited Party Match Sex Offender Match

Pending

Pending- Potential Conflict

*National Criminal Search Notes

Sex Offender Hits need to be verified on State Sex Offender registry if National Criminal Search is using a source other than the State Registry in the initial search.

2

Criminal Records

Item # 1

  • Description
  • Recommended Adjudication

Status

  • Meets Company Standards
  • No Record Found or clear record

Court disposition of dismissed Traffic or vehicle code violation ( Except DUI/DWI, refer to Meets Company Standards
23
Meets Company Standards

  • items 5,6 below)
  • (refer to MVR if included)

  • 4
  • Misdemeanor convictions except for the following:

crimes involving weapons, violence, theft (includes petty theft), robbery, burglary, larceny, embezzlement, dishonesty, misappropriation, fraud, forgery or sex crimes Drunk driving or related conviction (one conviction only)
Pending

  • 5
  • Pending

678
Drunk driving or related (more than one conviction) Worthless (bad) check (one conviction or more convictions) Misdemeanor marijuana possession charge of less than 1 ounce over more than two years. (CA law; can apply to other states)
Pending- Potential Conflict Pending Pending

  • 9
  • Possession of marijuana, drugs (controlled substances) and/or Pending

paraphernalia; and possession of less than 1 oz of marijuana in recent 2 years
10 11 12 13 14
Contributing to the delinquency of a minor Unresolved warrant Conviction on a single sex crime Any felony conviction except: those listed below Any felony/misdemeanor conviction involving: weapons, violence, theft (includes petty theft), robbery, burglary, larceny, embezzlement, dishonesty, misappropriation, fraud, forgery or sex crimes
Pending Pending- Potential Conflict Pending- Potential Conflict Pending Pending- Potential Conflict

15 16
Felony or Misdemeanor pending court decision Three or more misdemeanor convictions (incl. Drive w/o license) within the last seven years not including weapons, violence, theft (includes petty theft), robbery, burglary, larceny, embezzlement, dishonesty, misappropriation, fraud, forgery or sex crimes
Pending Pending

17 18 19 20
Sale or delivery of marijuana and/or controlled substances. Mob action (AKA gang activity) Computer crimes Deferred Adjudication, Probation before Judgment includes final adjudication of dismissed.
Pending- Potential Conflict Pending- Potential Conflict Pending- Potential Conflict Pending

  • 21
  • All others
  • Pending

Criminal Records Notes: 1) Results of criminal records should only be considered for convictions (with the exception of item 20 Deferred Court

Decisions). Court dispositions of dismissed, waived, “nolle prosse”, not guilty should not be considered. The time frame

of reportable history of convictions varies by state and the adjudication of these convictions will apply only as far back as legally reportable.

2) Criminal Note: Any Court Records that are a “Possible” match because all information could not be precisely verified;

will be adjudicated as Pending*

3

Motor Vehicle Reports

  • Item #
  • Description
  • Recommended Adjudication

Status
13

  • Applicant is less than 18 Years Old
  • Pending- Potential Conflict

  • 18 Years old with less than a 2 Year Driving History
  • Pending- Potential Conflict

Pending- Potential Conflict Pending- Potential Conflict Pending- Potential Conflict
569
19 Years or older with less than a 1 Year Driving History License Status is Suspended, Probationary, Expired, Invalid

or Graduated, restricted or International

Suspensions of six months or more within the last year prior to the evaluation. Can be a cumulative total of all suspension time.
10

11
More than Two Traffic or Vehicle Code Violations within the Pending- Potential Conflict Last Two Years More than Three Traffic or Vehicle Code Violations within the Last Three Years
Pending- Potential Conflict
12 13

  • More than One Cited Accident within the Last Three Years.
  • Pending- Potential Conflict

Pending- Potential Conflict

Combination of 2 or more violations and 1 or more cited accidents in the last 2 years.

14 15

  • Reckless Driving charge in last 3 years
  • Pending- Potential Conflict

  • Pending- Potential Conflict
  • Drunk driving or related charge(or a driving suspension as a

result of a DUI related charge) in last 3 years
16

17 18 19
Being Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance in last 3 Pending- Potential Conflict years

  • Refusing to take a required alcohol test in last 3 years
  • Pending- Potential Conflict

Leaving the Scene of an accident / Hit and Run in last 3 years Pending- Potential Conflict Using a vehicle to commit a felony / Vehicular Homicide in last 3 years
Pending- Potential Conflict
20 21 2
Speed Contest / Racing in last 3 years Fleeing and Eluding the Police in last 3 years 18 Years requires a 2 Year Driving History (2 years from date Meets Company Standards of adjudication) with no breaks over six months (permit time accepted)
Pending- Potential Conflict Pending- Potential Conflict

  • 4
  • 19 Years or older requires a 1 Year Driving History (1 year

from date of evaluation) with no breaks over six months.
Meets Company Standards
22 7
MVR does not contain sufficient data to verify driving history Pending

  • No Record Found
  • Pending

  • 8
  • Clear Record ( or violation(s) or combination of violations

not mentioned in MVR Standards )
Meets Company Standards

MVR Notes:

1) Results of driving records will be adjudicated for both charges and convictions

2) Violations to be counted in the MVR standard include all moving violations and also any cell phone or seat belt violation.
3) Secondary violations on the same stop are not counted. ( ie only one violation per stop is to be counted )

4

Recommended publications
  • How to Prepare for an Adjudication - Tactics, Strategies, Planning and Panic

    How to Prepare for an Adjudication - Tactics, Strategies, Planning and Panic

    HOW TO PREPARE FOR AN ADJUDICATION - TACTICS, STRATEGIES, PLANNING AND PANIC Karen Groulx, Partner Dentons Canada LLP 77 King Street West, Suite 400 Toronto-Dominion Centre Toronto, ON M5K 0A1 42165803_2|NATDOCS How to Prepare for an Adjudication – Tactics, Strategies, Planning and Panic Construction dispute interim adjudication has been introduced in the new Construction Act1 and will apply as of October 1, 2019 to all public and private sector construction contracts entered into on or after October 1, 2019, except with respect to those contracts or subcontracts that were the subject of a procurement process relating to the improvement at issue prior to October 1, 2019. (A procurement process is commenced at the earliest of the making of a request for qualifications, request for quotation, request for proposals, or a call for tenders.2 )The Act provides for adjudication as a cost effective, flexible, and swift means of enforcing the prompt payment regime set out in the Act, which will take effect as of the same date as interim adjudication. Parties to a construction contact or subcontract will not be able to contract out of the prompt payment or adjudication provisions set out in the Act. The UK Experience As noted in the report entitled Striking the Balance: An Expert Review of Ontario’s Construction Lien Act3 which led to the introduction of prompt payment and adjudication through amendments made to the Act, the phrase “pay now, argue later” has been used to describe adjudication under the Construction Act (UK).4 This description is equally applicable to adjudication under the new Act.
  • Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?

    Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?

    EQUITY IN THE AMERICAN COURTS AND IN THE WORLD COURT: DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? I. INTRODUCTION Equity, as a legal concept, has enjoyed sustained acceptance by lawyers throughout history. It has been present in the law of ancient civilizations' and continues to exist in modem legal systems.2 But equity is no longer a concept confined exclusively to local or national adjudication. Today, equity shows itself to be a vital part of international law.' The International Court of Justice--"the most visible, and perhaps hegemonic, tribunal in the sphere of public international law" 4-has made a significant contribution to the delimitation,5 development of equity. Particularly in cases involving maritime 6 equity has frequently been applied by the Court to adjudicate disputes. Equity is prominent in national legal systems and has become increas- ingly important in international law. It is useful, perhaps essential, for the international lawyer to have a proper understanding of it. Yet the meaning of equity remains elusive. "A lawyer asked to define 'equity' will not have an easy time of it; the defimition of equity, let alone the term's application in the field of international law, is notoriously uncertain, though its use is rife."7 Through a comparative analysis, this note seeks to provide a more precise understanding of the legal concept of equity as it relates to two distinct systems oflaw: the American and the international. To compare the equity administered by the American courts with that administered by the World Court, this note 1. See sources cited infra notes 10, 22.
  • How to Prepare for an Adjudication Tactics, Strategies, Planning and Panic

    How to Prepare for an Adjudication Tactics, Strategies, Planning and Panic

    How to prepare for an adjudication Tactics, strategies, planning and panic By: Karen Groulx, Partner Introduction On October 1, 2019, the construction dispute adjudication provisions of the new Construction Act1 took effect. Adjudication applies to all public and private sector construction contracts entered into on or after October 1, 2019.2 On the same date, the prompt payment regime come into force, with adjudication being used as a cost effective, flexible, and swift means of enforcing the prompt payment regime. (For more on the prompt payment regime, see my previous article on the amendments to the Construction Act.) These new regimes are mandatory, as parties may not contract out of either procedure. A predominant feature of the new adjudication Despite the challenges that will come with these new procedure is the pace at which both payment for practices, there are steps that parties may take to services and work and the settlement of certain prepare for adjudication, either as the party initiating disputes will happen. The phrase “pay now, argue later” the adjudication process (the “Requesting Party”) or will be applicable to adjudication under the new Act, as as the party responding to the dispute (the the emphasis shifts to ensuring parties are paid within “Responding Party”). strict deadlines. 1 RSO 1990, c C.30, PART II.1, ss 13.1-13.23 [Act]. See also Adjudications Under Part II.1 of the Act, O Reg 306/18, O Reg 109/19 [Adjudications Reg]. 2 This excludes contracts or subcontracts that result from procurement processes initiated before October 1, 2019.
  • Common Law Rules and Constitutional Double Standards: Some Notes on Adjudication*

    Common Law Rules and Constitutional Double Standards: Some Notes on Adjudication*

    The Yale Law Journal Volume 83, Number 2, December 1973 Common Law Rules and Constitutional Double Standards: Some Notes on Adjudication* Harry H. Wellingtont TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Common Law Rules page A. An Introduction to Principles and Policies 222 B. Strong Duties, Weak Duties, and their Remedial Conseq uences 229 C. Policies and Principles as Sources of Law in a Democracy 235 D. The Retroactive and Prospective Application of Decisional Law 254 E. Principles and Policies in Statutory Interpretation 262 II. Constitutional Double Standards F, Common Law Perspectives on Judicial Review 265 G. Substantive Due Process: Background 272 H. Substantive Due Process: Economic Regulation 280 I. Substantive Due Process: Contraception 285 J. Substantive Due Process: Abortion 297 * These notes arc dedicated to the memory of Henry M. Hart, Jr. Readers who know his and Albert M. Sacks's unpublished coursebook, Tie LECAL PROCELs: BASIC PROBLEMS IN TlE MAKING AND APPLICATION OF LAW (tent. cd. 1958), will recognize that many of the cases I use as examples in Part I figure prominently in that work. And while my point of view is indeed different from what I take to be the perspectives presented in The Legal Process, it is a point of view that has evolved trom my having taught from their book. f Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law, Yale University. HeinOnline -- 83 Yale L.J. 221 1973-1974 The Yale Law Journal Vol. 83: 221, 1973 I. Common Law Rules A. An Introduction to Principles and Policies Lawyers are not especially concerned, in the arguments they make or the explanations they give, to distinguish principles from poli- cies.
  • Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Program Report

    Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Program Report

    Online Dispute Resolution Pilot Program Report Recommendations from the Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup of the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability and the Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy January 2021 Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup Members The Honorable William F. Stone, Circuit Judge, First Judicial Circuit, Chair Mr. Matthew Benefiel, Trial Court Administrator, Ninth Judicial Circuit The Honorable Gina Beovides, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit Ms. Heather Blanton, Human Resources Manager, Twelfth Judicial Circuit Mr. Eric Dunlap, Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator The Honorable Stephen Everett, Circuit Judge, Second Judicial Circuit Dr. Oscar Franco, Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator Mr. W. Jay Hunston, Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator Ms. Jeanne Potthoff, ADR Director, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit The Honorable William Roby, Circuit Judge, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Mr. Christopher Shulman, Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator Staff Support Provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator Lindsay Hafford, Senior Court Operations Consultant Judith Ivester, Court Operations Consultant Kimberly Kosch, Senior Court Operations Consultant Victor McKay, Court Operations Consultant Susan Marvin, Chief of Alternative Dispute Resolution Hengel Reina, Senior Court Analyst II Page 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction
  • Adjudication: a Quick Guide

    Adjudication: a Quick Guide

    Adjudication: a quick guide What is adjudication? Adjudication is a statutory dispute resolution procedure introduced by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (Act), to provide a quicker and cheaper method by which certain construction disputes could be resolved. A party to a construction contract (as defined in the Act) has a statutory right to refer a crystallised dispute to adjudication at any time. Parties are free to agree their own adjudication procedure within their contract (contractual adjudication). If they have not, or their procedure does not satisfy the statutory requirements, the whole of The Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended) (Scheme) will apply. The below provides a very brief overview of adjudication. Do I have the right to adjudicate? Does my contract include an express right If the contract does not include an express right to adjudicate to adjudicate? NO (whether or not the contract concerns construction • The contractual procedure must satisfy the statutory operations): there is no right to contractual adjudication. requirements. If not, the whole of the Scheme will However, a party might be able to use the statutory procedure be implied. YES (the Scheme), if they have a construction contract under the Act. • The contractual procedure must be followed. ASK Has my dispute crystallised? • Has a claim been made regarding this dispute? • Was it in writing? Do I have a construction contract under the Act? • Did it set out what is being sought and the basis YES for the claim? • Is a party carrying out construction operations with a non-residential party? • Has the claim been rejected by the other party (either expressly or by implication)? • Contract can be oral or in writing if entered into after NO 1 October 2011 (England/Wales).
  • A Guide to the Federal Magistrate Judges System

    A Guide to the Federal Magistrate Judges System

    A GUIDE TO THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE JUDGES SYSTEM Peter G. McCabe A White Paper Prepared at the Request of the Federal Bar Association Hon. Michael J. Newman, United States Magistrate Judge Chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Magistrate Judge Task Force (2013-14) President of the Federal Bar Association (2016-17) Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpí, Jr., United States District Judge President of the Federal Bar Association & Creator of the FBA’s Magistrate Judge Task Force (2013-14) August 2014 Updated October 2016 Introduction In the United States District Courts, there are two types of federal judges: United States District Judges (confirmed by the Senate with life tenure); and United States Magistrate Judges (appointed through a merit selection process for renewable, eight year terms). Although their precise duties may change from district to district, Magistrate Judges often conduct mediations, resolve discovery disputes, and decide a wide variety of motions; determine whether criminal defendants will be detained or released on a bond; appoint counsel for such defendants (and, in the misdemeanor context, hold trials and sentence defendants); and make recommendations regarding whether a party should win a case on summary judgment, whether a Social Security claimant should receive a disability award, whether a habeas petitioner should prevail, and whether a case merits dismissal. When both sides to a civil case consent, Magistrate Judges hear the entire dispute, rule on all motions, and preside at trial. There are now 531 full-time Magistrate Judges in the United States District Courts. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in 2013, Magistrate Judges disposed of a total of 1,179,358 matters.1 The importance of Magistrate Judges to the day-to-day workings of the federal trial courts cannot be overstated.
  • Key Elements of Successful Adjudication Partnerships by Jane Nady Sigmon and M

    Key Elements of Successful Adjudication Partnerships by Jane Nady Sigmon and M

    NT OF ME J T US U.S. Department of Justice R T A I P C E E D B O J C S F A Office of Justice Programs V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR Bureau of Justice Assistance JUSTICE Nancy E. Gist, Director Key Elements of Successful Adjudication Partnerships by Jane Nady Sigmon and M. Elaine Nugent, American Prosecutors Research Institute John Goerdt, National Center for State Courts Scott Wallace, National Legal Aid and Defender Association Local and state criminal justice systems are under (APRI) for a cooperative effort with the National Cen- constant pressure to operate more efficiently and ter for State Courts (NCSC) and the National Legal effectively without diminishing the quality of their Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) to research services. Criminal justice professionals face com- and document existing partnerships. plex problems which impact more than one agency, This bulletin provides general information about and consequently the problems cannot be resolved adjudication partnerships and describes critical easily by a single agency. Additionally, creating a elements that lead to successful partnerships, as cooperative partnership with independent agencies observed in a variety of partnerships operating in that function in a normally adversarial system such jurisdictions across the country. as the adjudication process can be a difficult task for many jurisdictions. What Is an Adjudication Partnership? Notwithstanding fundamental obstacles, adjudication An adjudication partnership is a formal or informal col- partnerships are proliferating in jurisdictions through- laborative effort in which representatives from key jus- out the United States as criminal justice professionals tice system agencies join together in multiagency task seek new and more effective solutions to complex forces, steering committees, or planning groups to: problems such as backlogged dockets, crowded jails, ❑ Identify problems.
  • Consequences of Juvenile Adjudication

    Consequences of Juvenile Adjudication

    The Consequences of Adjudication Sanctions Beyond the Sentence for Juveniles Under Colorado Law 2019 Edition Mark David Evans Lead Deputy State Public Defender Disclaimer This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An error or omission in this publication does not give rise to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, or to a claim for a disciplinary proceeding against either the Colorado State Public Defender or any employee of the Colorado State Public Defender. The laws of the federal government, other jurisdictions, and other political subdivisions of this state may impose additional sanctions and disqualifications that are not listed in this publication. This publication was finalized in November 2019. Subsequent changes to the law are not included. Acknowledgements Many thanks to The Honorable James Casebolt, The Honorable Karen Ashby, Kim Dvorchak, Melissa Michaelis, and Priscilla Gartner for their input and insight on the original edition. Leslie Pesch and Alicia Thomas provided invaluable and much appreciated support for this update. This publication would not have been possible without the foundation provided by the Colorado Juvenile Defense Manual, authored primarily by Diana Richett, Esq., and sponsored by the Colorado Juvenile Defender Center and the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel. The cover photo was graciously provided by Kat Pritchard. The Consequences of Adjudication Sanctions Beyond the Sentence for Juveniles Under Colorado Law 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................
  • ADR: the New Equity

    ADR: the New Equity

    Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Boyd Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2005 ADR: The New Equity Thomas O. Main University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Main, Thomas O., "ADR: The New Equity" (2005). Scholarly Works. 739. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/739 This Article is brought to you by the Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Boyd Law, an institutional repository administered by the Wiener-Rogers Law Library at the William S. Boyd School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ADR: THE NEW EQUITY Thomas 0. Main * The course of justice is like the alternation of the seasons. There is the hope and inspiration of spring and the achievement and reward of summer, and there is the descent and sacrifice of autumn and the moral and intellectual destitution of winter, and the changes in our jurisprudence will come accordingly in spite of us, however much we may be the appointed instruments in their consummation. I I. INTRODUCTION The proliferation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has transformed the administration of civil justice. As both a rival and a complement to formal adjudication, ADR presents an alternative forum for most disputes. ADR offers a system with procedural flexibility, a broad range of remedial options, and a focus on individualized justice. ADR performs convenient and useful works that cannot be done, or cannot easily be done, through formal adjudication. And in every case in which one of the various modes of ADR offers a process or reaches a result that differs materially from those of the formal courts, there is in fact a rival system.
  • The Case Against Equity in American Contract Law

    The Case Against Equity in American Contract Law

    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2020 The Case Against Equity in American Contract Law Jody S. Kraus Columbia Law School, [email protected] Robert E. Scott Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Contracts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Legal Remedies Commons Recommended Citation Jody S. Kraus & Robert E. Scott, The Case Against Equity in American Contract Law, 93 S. CAL. L. REV. 1323 (2020). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2537 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CASE AGAINST EQUITY IN AMERICAN CONTRACT LAW JODY P. KRAUS* & ROBERT E. SCOTT† The American common law of contracts appears to direct courts to decide contract disputes by considering two opposing points of view: the ex ante perspective of the parties’ intent at the time of formation, and the ex post perspective of justice and fairness to the parties at the time of adjudication. Despite the black letter authority for both perspectives, the ex post perspective cannot withstand scrutiny. Contract doctrines taking the ex post perspective—such as the penalty, just compensation, and forfeiture doctrines—were created by equity in the early common law to police against abuses of the then prevalent penal bond. However, when the industrial revolution pushed courts to accommodate fully executory agreements, and parties abandoned the use of penal bonds, the exclusively ex ante focus of the new contract law that emerged rendered the ex post doctrines obsolete.
  • Strengthening Online Dispute Resolution Justice

    Strengthening Online Dispute Resolution Justice

    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 63 New Directions in Domestic and International Dispute Resolution 2020 Strengthening Online Dispute Resolution Justice Noam Ebner Creighton University Elayne E. Greenberg St. John’s School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Noam Ebner and Elayne E. Greenberg, Strengthening Online Dispute Resolution Justice, 63 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 065 (2020), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol63/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STRENGTHENING ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION JUSTICE Noam Ebner* Elayne E. Greenberg** Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. —Albert Einstein1 INTRODUCTION This article adopts a systems-design approach to focus courts and lawyers on the unexamined: how involving lawyers in the design, development and implementation of court-annexed2 online dispute resolution (ODR) programs, will strengthen their justice outcomes. The phrase “ODR programs” refers to the new menu of processes for dispute resolution and litigation offered online by courts. * Professor of Negotiation and Conflict Resolution in the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies at Creighton University. ** Assistant Dean of Dispute Resolution, Professor of Legal Practice and Director of the Hugh L. Carey Center at St. John’s School of Law.