LOTF2011 | May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruning
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

LOTF2011 | May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruning

on

  • 1,081 views

Law of the Future 2011 ...

Law of the Future 2011
23 & 24 June 2011, Peace Palace, The Hague, The Netherlands

Title: JURIPAX: Technology for early dispute resolution
By: May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruning

Workshop: Online Dispute Resolution

www.lawofthefuture.org

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,081
Views on SlideShare
1,081
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Geographic diversity Preference for non-legal proceedings Preference for non-face-to-face Physical and budget constraints Resolution of low-value disputes Enhanced preparation of high value and complex disputes Circumstances of urgent (legal) problems and justice needs
  • Tekstueel, dus (bijna) geen spraak. ( Skype/videoconferencing heeft andere mogelijkheden waar we nu niet verder op in gaan Asynchroon, dus niet tegelijk chatten Partijen kunnen elkaar via de tool niet rechtstreeks mailen. Partijen sturen een bericht aan de bemiddelaar, bemiddelaar stuurt dit in beginsel door, tenzij: Het bericht als vertrouwelijk is aangemerkt De bemiddelaar inschat dat het nodig is eerst met de afzender te caucussen over wat hij/zij wil bereiken In de volgende sheets volgen wat screenshots van deze software

LOTF2011 | May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruning LOTF2011 | May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruning Presentation Transcript

  • ODR workshop – Law of the Future Conference, Den Hague, June 24 2011 May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruning – mbk@juripax.com
  • What is Juripax?
    • An independent, international technology and service provider with offices in the Netherlands and Germany
    • Juripax’ solutions for Online Dispute Resolution (ODR):
        • Suited for claim-handling and dispute-resolution practices
        • Built on the concept of adding advanced Web 2.0 technology to:
          • research-based concepts
          • practical experience
        • Dedicated prep & intake solutions for a variety of disputes like
          • employment
          • divorce
          • small claims/e-commerce
          • personal injury
        • Provided as an ASP solution
          • Web-based, on demand, fee per case
          • no need to invest in /deploy software
        • Training institute
  • Juripax’ vision and mission
      • Modern technology and innovation is the key to continued access to justice
      • The Internet as a global public resource should also be able to provide disputants with tools for self-help and self-determination
      • Juripax’ goal is to be a leading provider of ODR models that enhance efficiency in judicial and dispute-resolution processes and create economic value for the public benefit
  • What has been achieved?
    • Prove the case for ODR - in terms of effectiveness and efficiency
    • Development and implementation of process-driven software
        • 80% – generic
        • 20% – dispute-type specific and customizable/customized
    • Multilingual capability and cross-cultural competence
    • Industry-standard level ref. confidentiality and data security
    • ODR-training: 1. system 2. dynamics of online negotiation and mediation (accredited by Legal Aids Board and Dutch Mediation Institute)
    • Integration of user feedback loops and submission to scientific research
    • 5000 cases processed
  • Juripax’s main areas of operation
    • Complaint handling and assisted (direct) negotiation
      • (semi) governmental  exclusive co-operation with Dutch Complaints Review Board
      • organization for distance sellers
      • Several Industry sector organization
      • commercial
      • telecom providers – customer disputes (customer service)
    • two-tier service in 1) facilitating the handling of complaints and – if disputes cannot be prevented – 2) to assist parties to effectively resolve these
    • Traditional disputes – family and workplace
      • Fully online of hybrid - primary use in the preparation of traditional or judicial proceedings
      • Legal aid board – file divorces and resolve issues online
      • Judicial and mediation services providers – workplace and family law
    •  
  • Findings and Statistics
    • Rating factors Degree of Satisfaction
    • Settlement rate(s) 80%
    • Satisfaction with the outcome/agreement 75%
    • Opportunity to express views and interests 80%
    • Quality and competence of the mediator 80%
    • The overall quality and “appropriateness”
    • of the process 80 %
    • The user-friendliness of the platform 8,5 (score 1-10)
    • Likelihood that agreement will hold 70%
    • Likelihood that users will use online
    • mediation again/recommend to others 80%
    • Efficiency : compared to the average length of a face-to-face procedure, savings in time and costs of 30% to 40% are feasible
  • The future of ODR? or A future for ODR?
  • Interoperability
    • “ To make solutions to disputes more accessible we need to make ODR platforms open and participatory”
    • http://juripax.com/en/vision.html
  • Engineered to run on cell phones (PDA support)
  • ODR - suitability and applicable areas
    • Address grievances and complaints at an early stage (avoid these escalating into disputes)
      • “ effective complaints handling is more important than effective third-party dispute resolution” (ABA Taskforce, 2002)
    • Conflicts that are not outside the norm as they are extremely appropriate to benefit from the “power” of the Internet
    • In cases of power imbalances (e.g. hierarchical relationships): to reduce power (im)balances and positively influence the "enabling"/"empowering"-factor
    • In highly escalated circumstances and conflicts: to normalize / bring structure to the (perceived) chaos
    • In cases where the complexity and the value of the subject matter sufficiently justify an effective preparation (to maximize the effectiveness of the subsequent proceedings)
    • As an “add-on”, efficiency enhancing tool for traditional procedures
  • Opportunities
    • find ways to bypass existing ‘redress’ mechanism  focus on areas were ODR is not a ‘threat’ and/or for which there are no offline equivalents
    • focus on increased added-value along the chain (questions  issues  complaints  disputes)
      • apply ODR as a default to solve cases within the norm and apply more costly (human) and legal resources only if these are really needed (80/20%)
      • focus on enhanced intelligence and automation (reducing the role of human factor)
      • achieve critical mass  needed 1. to obtain “credibility” amongst the public, as an appropriate alternative 2. to achieve a viable business model (recurring fees, scalability)
  • Commercial goals vs Public Benefit
    • Commercial interest
    • Viable business model and ‘credibility’
      • critical mass needed
    • obtaining ‘legitimacy’
      • how to engender ‘trust’, as long the public associates ADR/ODR with ‘the law’?
    • liability issues
      • separating 3 rd , 4th and 5th party
      • complex contractual relationships
    • lack of clear guidelines/ regulation
      • ‘ information society- ‘or ‘ODR ‘provider ?
      • data retention
      • Adhere to distance selling directive?
      • accreditation of ODR-providers
    • Public interest
    • due process requirements
      • Impartiality, predictability, transparency, affordability etc.
    • protection of consumers
      • consumer wants appropriate redress at no or at the lowest costs
    • forum shopping possibility/interoperability
      • escalate to other out-of court or/and court redress mech.
      • availability of appellate process
      • communication in native language
      • “ Internationalization” of conflict and / or settlement agreement (jurisdictional issues, enforceability etc. )
  • Viable business model
    • find (innovative) alternatives for funding/’restructure’ current funding schemes for disputes involving consumers
    • How to realize appropriate redress at no or at the lowest costs?
      • the Internet is increasingly giving consumers more and more power.
      • Is it likely that this trend will ultimately result in consumers organizing themselves (empowering, self-determination etc.) and have them take a share in the cost?
      • legal protection insurers?
      • separate ODR-technology and ODR-services provider
        • Engaging ODR-technology providers through RFP  as an add-on to current and new services provider
      • role of the government?
  • Commercial involvement?
    • “ Commercial involvement in the development of ODR is a prerequisite for establishing the right balance between commercial goals and public benefit”
    • http://juripax.com/en/vision.html
  • Learn more…..
    • Watch our video
      • link: http://www.juripax.com
    • Sign up for a free trial
      • link: https://live.juripax.com/php/userguide/userguide.php?lgset=en&directlink=235
    • Contact us at
      • [email_address]
      • www.juripax.com
      • + 31623308359
  • Questions?