Intellectual property rights

1. Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR)
-AQDAS SHABBIR (ILSR) MANGALAYATAN
UNIVERSITY Aligarh
Why ADR?
• ADR offers a way to settle disputes without needing to
involve the courts, and generally involves bringing in a
neutral and impartial third party.

2. • The term ADR was first formally used in 1976 in Pound
Conference, United States.
• However, there were various processes which were in
existence before this time.
• At the time, courts were finding themselves
overstretched trying to cope with new filings, and there
were concerns that because of this congestion, justice
was not being served.
Why ADR?
• In response to rising court costs, delays and congestion, the need to
facilitate access to justice and to provide more 'effective' forms of
dispute resolution, the phenomenon known as ADR was born.

3. • In 1990, the US Congress enacted the Administrative Dispute
Resolution Act which 'gave federal agencies additional authority to
use ADR in most administrative disputes' and the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act which 'directed regulatory agencies to use
negotiation to develop administrative rules.
• In 1996, both of these laws were re-enacted as part of the Alternative
Dispute Resolution Act - an important piece of legislation which
among other things, authorizes district courts to devise and
implement their own ADR programmes.
• In the European Union, the importance of ADR was recently affirmed
in 2007, when Article 65.2(g) of the Treaty of Lisbon established that
the European Parliament and Council shall adopt measures aimed at
ensuring the development of alternative methods of dispute
settlement.

4. Approaches of ADR
• Decisional approach
The third party can impose a solution upon
the parties in the dispute
• Facilitative approach
The third party acts as a facilitator only,
helping the parties to find their own solution

5. ADR METHODS

6. ADR METHODS
• Negotiation
• Mediation
• Conciliation
• Construction Adjudication
• Arbitration
• MED-ARB/ARB-MED
• Mini-Trial
• Early Neutral Evaluation
• Expert Determination
• Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)
• Private judging
• Summary Jury Trial

7. NEGOTIATION
• Negotiation is the most common dispute resolution
technique.
• Negotiation is a form of interaction between disputing
parties where they can reach a solution to the issues
between them without the involvement of a third
party.
• Difference between Bargaining and Negotiation
 Negotiation describes a competitive win-loss situation
whereas Bargaining describes a cooperative win-win
situation

8.  In Negotiation, one party leaves with a clear advantage
whereas in Bargaining, both the parties are satisfied
with the mutually agreed outcome
NEGOTIATION
• Principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits
developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project:
Separate the people from the problem
Focus on interests, not positions.
 Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what
to do
 Insist that the result be based on some objective
standard.

9. • Negotiation consists of a sequence of proposals (P) and
counterproposals (CP) that continue until agreement is
reached or negotiations break down.

10. NEGOTIATION

12. NEGOTIATION
• Negotiation consists of a sequence of
proposals (P) and counterproposals (CP) that
continue until agreement is reached or
negotiations break down.
• This mechanism involves an interaction
between disputing parties whereby, without
compulsion by a third-party adjudicator, they
endeavor to come to an independent, joint
decision concerning the terms of agreement
on the issues between them.

13. MEDIATION
• Mediation can be defined as the facilitation
by a third party of a negotiated agreement.
• The mediator does not decide the dispute,
but facilitates communication and
problemsolving by the parties.
• A mediator has no decision-making power •
Primary roles of Mediator

14. MEDIATION
 To facilitate dialogue and communication among the
parties in a structured, constructive way
 To help the parties realistically assess their positions
 To be a catalyst for a resolution designed by the
parties
• Mediation may be performed by international
organizations, by states or by individuals.
• Advantages of Mediation
 Speed of the procedure

15. MEDIATION
 Expertise of the mediators
 Confidentiality of the procedure
 Avoidance of procedural obstacles of all sorts
• Procedure of Commercial Mediation
 Signing of a confidentiality agreement
 Outline of the format, given by the mediator, and a confirmation that all
of the parties have the authority to settle
 The mediator then invites both sides to make an opening statement,
which typically will include the facts as they see them and a discussion of
how they have allegedly been damaged by the opposing side

16. MEDIATION
 Once each party has had the opportunity to present its case, the
mediator will summarize the information before hosting joint or private
meetings with the parties.
 Each party then will discuss its position with the mediator - describing its
view of the core issues and what it ultimately seeks as an outcome.
 The mediator should then work to bring about a settlement which
satisfies both parties’ interest.

17. CONSTRUCTION ADJUDICATION
• A process where a neutral third party adjudicator (who may
not be a lawyer) has to reach a decision on matters referred to
him by the complaining party.
• It aims to address the cash-flow problems that contractors
often encounter in connection with disputed progress
payments by providing a speedy settlement that is binding on
both parties until the completion of the contract.
• Typically, adjudication looks at matters of “fairness”, rather
than “legality”. Usually, the issue is not one of the parties
breaking the law, but rather of one of the parties
misinterpreting the terms of the contract.

18. CONSTRUCTION ADJUDICATION
• Sometimes it is enough for the adjudicator to simply set out
the correct interpretation of the contract, but most disputes
involve claims for money, or for time extensions to the
contract.
• Once the adjudicator comes to a decision, the parties must act
on it immediately.
• An adjudicator must accept and consider any information
properly submitted by the parties and must make any
information submitted by one party, which the adjudicator
intends to consider, available to the other party’.

19. CONSTRUCTION ADJUDICATION

20. CONSTRUCTION ADJUDICATION
Process of Adjudication
• The adjudication process is started when the party referring
the dispute to adjudication serves a Notice of Intention to
Adjudication.
• The next step is to appoint an adjudicator within seven days
from service of the Notice.
• The Construction Act sets out a very short timetable for
adjudication to be completed, usually 28 days until the
adjudicator release the ultimate decision.

21. ARBITRATION
• Arbitration is a process by which parties obtain a resolution to a
dispute by getting a decision from a neutral, impartial and
independent third party. That decision is final and the parties must
abide by it.
• The process takes place, usually in private and on a confidential basis,
pursuant to an agreement between two or more parties.
• The parties agree to be bound by the decision to be given by the
arbitrator according to law or, if so agreed, other considerations,
after a fair hearing, such decisions being enforceable at law.
• Unlike mediation, the parties to arbitration only consent to the
process itself; the final decision is imposed upon them rather than
being a resolution which they have agreed between themselves.

22. ARBITRATION
• When both parties agree that arbitration is no longer the best
way to resolve their dispute, they may simply ignore their
agreement and process the dispute in another fashion.
• However, when only one party wishes to disavow the
agreement to arbitrate, however, its binding nature becomes
evident.
• An arbitration is not like proceedings in a court of law. There is
simply a group of people seated around a row of tables, in a
room hired for the occasion.
• If it were not for the stacked piles of lever-arch files, the law
books, and the transcript writers; it might look to an outsider
as if a conference or a business meeting was in progress.

23. ARBITRATION
Difference between Arbitration & Litigation
• Arbitration is a creation of contract (private agreement).
• The entire process derives its power and authority from the
fact that two parties have agreed to make use of an
extrajudicial ADR process. They have effectively said "I agree to
be bound by the decision of the arbitrator".
• This is distinct from the power of a court. No party has to say "I
agree to be bound by the decision of the judge". The judge's
power comes from the power of the state.
• However, the relationship between the courts and arbitrations
is often described as a "partnership"' since some judicial
oversight is needed for arbitration to work (Arbitration Act).

24. ARBITRATION
• Arbitrations can be arranged by the parties themselves (ad hoc)
or through institutions that specialize in these services
(institutional).
• Unlike other forms of ADR which require both parties - or at
least their representatives - to participate, arbitrations can
'proceed even without a recalcitrant party present'.

25. ARBITRATION

26. ARBITRATION
Arbitrators
• The Presiding arbitrator have a sole responsibility, to make the
final decision on the dispute.
• Their decision is binding on the parties. However, they have
additional responsibilities to ensure that the proceedings run
smoothly and efficiently and the arbitrator can order parties to
undertake particular actions in furtherance of this.
• Total number of arbitrators are generally odd.
Parties
• Parties to a dispute can be "natural persons" or corporate
entities and public bodies.

27. ARBITRATION
• They are the individual bringing the claim, "the claimant", or
defending the claim, "the defendant" or "the respondent", and
will not necessarily have any knowledge or experience of
Alternative Dispute Resolution processes.
• They may not be bound by any specific professional codes of
conduct.
Advocates
• These are the lawyers or other specialist advocates who
represent the parties in the dispute.
• They will advise their clients, make submissions to the
arbitrator, and communicate with the opposing advocate
about the dispute.

28. ARBITRATION
• Advocates are likely to be qualified lawyers, and therefore will
be governed by specific professional codes of conduct.
Advisers
• In addition to advocates, parties may instruct specialist
advisors to help them construct or defend their claim.
• This is often true where a case involves particular issues such
as taxation or technical engineering problems .
Witnesses
• A witness is an individual that presents evidence to the arbitrator.
• Their role is to provide the arbitrator with additional information that will
assist them in making their decision. These witnesses may either be
witnesses of fact, or expert witnesses, who are witnesses of opinion.

29. ARBITRATION
The Public
• Unlike court proceedings, arbitration proceedings are generally private and
confidential. Privacy entails strangers being excluded from the hearings
unless consented to by parties (hearing in camera) and confidentiality
broadly entails the prevention of disclosure to persons not involved in the
arbitration including the existence of the arbitration, the documents
produced and the Award.
• This will frequently be governed by the terms of the arbitration agreement.
Domestic Arbitration
• Domestic Arbitration presents a dispute that is related to only
one jurisdiction: while the disputing parties may be from
different jurisdiction, the arbitral seat, substantive and
procedural laws are all from the one jurisdiction.

30. ARBITRATION
• International Commercial Arbitration
The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial
Arbitration as amended by the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law on 07 July 2006 defines International
Commercial Arbitration at Articles (3) and (4) as follows:
• International Commercial Arbitration (CONT…)
 "(3) An arbitration is international if:
 a) the parties to an arbitration agreement have, at the time of the
conclusion of that agreement, their places of business in different states:
or
 b) one of the following places is situated outside the State in which the
parties have their places of business:

31. ARBITRATION
(i) the place of arbitration if determined in, or pursuant to, the arbitration
agreement;
(ii) any place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial
relationship is to be performed or the place with which the subject-matter of
the dispute is most closely connected; or
c) the parties have expressly agreed that the subject -matter of the
arbitration agreement related to more than one country."
• International Commercial Arbitration (CONT…)
 (4) For the purposes of paragraph (3) of this article:
 (a) if a party has more than one place of business , the place of business is
that which has the closest relationship to the arbitration agreement;
 (b) if a party does not have a place of business, reference is to be made ot
his habitual residence."

32. ARBITRATION
• 156 countries have adopted the New York Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Through
this they have agreed to 'recognize arbitral awards [from other
states] as binding and enforce them in accordance with [their] rules
of procedure', parties can have confidence that their awards will be
enforced almost anywhere in the world.

33. MED-ARB / ARB-MED
• MED-ARB / ARB-MED is a hybrid process which combines the
use of both mediation and arbitration.
• MED-ARB recognizes that mediation may not resolve all the
issues between the parties but limits the arbitration solely to
the intractable disputes, thereby bringing a cost and time
saving to the parties.
• If no agreement is reached the mediator will then change roles
and become an arbitrator empowered to impose a binding
decision on the parties

34. MED-ARB / ARB-MED
• Since he or she is already well-acquainted with the facts and
thus does not have the same learning curve as an appointee
coming fresh to the dispute.
• Critics review on Med-Arb
 Critics have argued that MED-ARB does not encourage parties
to be honest about their situation due to a fear that
confidential information disclosed in good faith could
ultimately be used against them in the arbitration stage.
 However, parties are not fooled by the fact that they know
that the med-arbiter has the authority to make the decision if
the parties fail to work out their own arrangement.

35. MED-ARB / ARB-MED
 It is precisely that knowledge that is the incentive for the
parties to reach their own agreement'
• To overcome this criticism, some have started to reverse the
process by turning it into ARB-MED.
• The most effective way to disarm a possible challenge to one's
ability to maintain impartiality is to switch the order of those
functions by having the arbitrator prepare a final award
before informing the parties .
• Once he is fully vacated of his duties and office as an
arbitrator and that they both agreed, he would be prepared to
attempt to mediate the dispute between them.

36. MED-ARB / ARB-MED
• If the mediation fails then and then only arbitration proceeds
& the award (which had already been prepared before) is
made binding to the parties.
• To overcome this criticism, some have started to reverse the
process by turning it into ARB-MED.
• The most effective way to disarm a possible challenge to one's
ability to maintain impartiality is to switch the order of those
functions by having the arbitrator prepare a final award
before informing the parties .

37. MED-ARB / ARB-MED
• Once he is fully vacated of his duties and office as an
arbitrator and that they both agreed, he would be prepared to
attempt to mediate the dispute between them.
• If the parties are not able to resolve their dispute during the
mediation phase, however, the decision of the neutral third
party, made in the arbitration, is released and they are bound
by it.
• However, there can be an argument that as both the
arbitrator and mediator role is played by the neutral person;
there may be possibility that he/she may influence the
mediation process in line with the arbitration award prepared
by him.

38. MED-ARB / ARB-MED
• Therefore, another way of conducting MED-ARB or ARB-MED
involves different neutrals fulfilling the roles of mediator and
arbitrator.
• When the parties' desire a private method of dispute
resolution combining the 'consensuality' of mediation with
the 'finality' of arbitration; MED-ARB is both a logical and
appropriate choice.

39. MED-ARB / ARB-MED

40. Conciliation
• Conciliation has played an important role in resolving disputes
during the European and American industrial eras.
• Conciliation first appeared in English law, in the Conciliation
Act, 1896.
• In 1913, In the US, Congress expressly authorized the
Department of Labour to establish 'commissions of
conciliation' to help resolve disputes outside of the court
system.
• Difference between Conciliation and Mediation

41. Conciliation
 In conciliation, the third party suggests a solution, more formal
than mediation. However, a conciliator lacks any authority to
impose a solution or procedure on the parties but rather helps
them negotiate with each other. Thus, decision is not binding
to the parties. Whereas,
 In Mediation the third party facilitates the parties in dispute
achieving their own solution. Can involve separate meetings
between the third party and each party. He does not directly
give any solution.
• The role of the conciliator is to assist the parties to agree on a
process by which they will attempt to resolve their dispute.

42. Conciliation
• A conciliator will not normally involve himself or herself with
the substantive issues of the dispute other than perhaps to
identify and daily the real issues of fact and law.
• Conciliation gives flexibility to the parties as they are entitled
to craft their own rules, select the conciliator of their choice,
and decide when to abandon the process altogether.
• Conciliation is a non-adversarial mechanism, and it allows the
parties to preserve their relationship.

43. Conciliation

44. Mini-Trial
• Despite using the word trial, a Mini-Trial is not really a trial at
all but a carefully structured and refined method that enables
the parties in a dispute to settle the core issues.
• This emphasis on identifying the dispute's substance rather
than being hindered by procedural issues is a defining attribute
of the Mini-Trial.
• Following a brief period of discovery, it consists of a short
hearing (not more than two or three days) and a period of
negotiation (not more than fifteen days).
• The procedures followed for the Mini-Trial hearing are devised
by the parties.

45. Mini-Trial
• The key characteristic of the Mini-Trial is its ability to provide
information directly to the parties so that they can evaluate
relative strengths and weaknesses of each side and enter into
well-informed, focused settlement discussions.
• The presence of the parties (senior executives) with the power
and desire to settle the dispute is essential to its success.
• The Mini-Trial has been an ‘appropriate mechanism' in cases
involving complex questions of law and fact such as patent law,
product liability, unfair competition, antitrust and contract
cases which often lead to protracted and very costly litigation.

46. Mini-Trial
• Mini-Trials are typically conducted after pre-trial discovery is
under way because the issues need to be sufficiently developed
in order for the hearing to be meaningful.
• In determining when to propose a Mini-Trial, parties should
base their decision on a cost/benefit analysis of the value of
obtaining additional information.
• Ultimately, in Mini-Trial the parties can resolve a dispute
themselves in an informal proceeding in which lawyers and
experts for each side give summary presentations of their best
cases to a jointly selected neutral advisor.

47. Mini-Trial
• If the parties cannot reach an agreement the neutral advisor
provides an incentive to settle by indicating what a likely trial
outcome would be'.
• The reason the Mini-Trial is such a useful technique is that the
presentation of the evidence is not made to a person with the
authority to issue a binding judgment, but to the parties
themselves.

48. Mini-Trial

49. Early Neutral Evaluation
• In the early 1980s, the US District Court for the Northern
District of California became concerned about improving its
attorneys pre-trial practices and case management.
• The Court argued that it was at the formative stages of
litigation where the most time and money could be saved, and
that more direct communication would have the most
beneficial effects in limiting the scope of many disputes.
• As a result of the Court's efforts, the practice of Early Neutral
Evaluation (ENE) was developed.

50. Early Neutral Evaluation
• Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) can be defined as 'an early, frank
and thoughtful' evaluation of the relative positions of the
parties, as well as an evaluation of the overall value of the case.
• Process
 The evaluator is a neutral, very experienced and specialist
private practitioner (a neutral expert).
 The evaluation delivered is entirely confidential and is based on
a consideration of the parties' written evaluation statements
and oral presentations.
 It is delivered verbally to the parties and their legal
representative, and aims to offer a realistic view of what might

51. Early Neutral Evaluation
happen if a case is fully prepared and tried. By doing so, it is
hoped that the parties will wish to avoid the complexities and
costs of a trial, and engage in successful negotiation.
 Even if the dispute is about to go to trail, ENE can still be
attempted as a means to prevent the trail going ahead.
• Confidential Meetings
 In an ENE, disputing parties meet confidentially with a neutral expert to
identify the issues in a dispute, assess the merits of the claims, and
explore any options for settlement of the dispute.
 Sessions normally last around two hours.
 The evaluator identifies the issues on which the parties agree and also
identifies the issues in dispute.

52. Early Neutral Evaluation
• Communication
All participants have access to the information and communications that
the neutral expert receives before he or she prepares the evaluation, to
any questions they have asked and answers they have received, and every
part is present for substantive presentations.

53. Early Neutral Evaluation

54. Expert Determination
• Traditionally, the role of an expert is that of assessment,
valuation, and certification.
For example, an expert may be asked:
 to value a house or a block of flats
 to assess the price of shares in a private company or a professional
partnership
 to certify the sum payable for work done by a building or engineering
contractor.
• However, the work of the expert extends beyond this
traditional role into that of a 'decision-maker', not just
bringing expert evidence and opinion to a dispute, but going
further and providing a determination of the dispute.

55. Expert Determination
• Expert Determination (ED) is a process whereby two parties
agree to submit an issue to a third party for determination.
• It is mainly used in disputes which revolve around a technical
area which require an expert to give an opinion on a specific
issue or issues.
• It can be expensive and time-consuming to bring technical
disputes to court, and so ED can often bring disputes to a close
much more efficiently.
• The expert could be a lawyer, accountant or person from
another appropriate professional discipline who is required to
resolve the dispute.

56. Expert Determination
• The parties agree that the decision of the expert is to be final
and binding.
• The scope of the dispute is limited to questions of fact and in
most cases extend to questions of law or involve mixed
questions of law and fact.
• Thus once the question of fact is determined, the expert's role
ends immediately.
• Experts must act with impartiality, must have no vested
interest in the outcome of the dispute and must not be biased
in any way towards or against either party.

57. Expert Determination
• If the expert becomes aware of any circumstance which might
reasonably be considered to affect his ability to act impartially
and disinterestedly, he must inform the parties' immediately.
• Appointment of Expert
 The appointment of an expert is generally in the hands of the parties, and
it is up to them to ensure a suitable expert is appointed.
 It is a matter of private contract between the parties, and the criterion for
determining the suitability of an expert to decide issues depends on the
wording of the contract and discussions between the parties.

58. Expert Determination
• Expert determination is not subject to a legislative framework,
and the authority of the independent expert is dependent on
the parties.
• The expert can consider any information which he decides is
relevant to the determination of the issue since the rules of law
on admissibility of evidence do not apply.

59. Expert Determination

60. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)
• Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) refers to the use of ADR
mechanisms through the Internet as a means]to resolve
commercial disputes that arise from online transactions.
• It is believed that ODR was technologically developed in the US
and Canada.
• ADR moved dispute resolution "out of court", ODR moves even
further away from court-to cyberspace.
• The first decision to be rendered after online proceedings was
made in 1996. The case concerned an advertisement

61. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)
'[promoting] the availability of millions of email addresses' for
sale. Since then, a plethora of ODR 'services [have arisen]
within the Internet community'
• Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) refers to the use of ADR
mechanisms through the Internet as a means]to resolve
commercial disputes that arise from online transactions.
• It is believed that ODR was technologically developed in the US
and Canada.
• ADR moved dispute resolution "out of court", ODR moves even
further away from court-to cyberspace.

62. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)
• The first decision to be rendered after online proceedings was
made in 1996. The case concerned an advertisement
promoting the availability of millions of email addresses for
sale. Since then, a plethora of ODR services have arisen within
the Internet community.
• The population of Internet users is growing every day, and the
increasing development of online interaction between Internet
users will inevitably result in more disputes.
• People will increasingly enter into electronic contracts and
perform their duties without ever exchanging a sheet of paper.

63. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)
• Therefore, ODR can be a practical and effective alternative to
traditional court systems.
• The Founding idea of ODR is online versions of almost all offline
dispute resolution processes.
i.e. mediation, conciliation, arbitration etc.
• Although it was traditionally developed as a means to resolve
online related disputes, ODR can be used to resolve a wide
variety of disputes.
• In those cases where parties are at a distance or when the need
is for a cheaper and faster mechanism for resolving their

64. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)
disputes the use of online technology appears to be more
appropriate since it avoids the physical limitations of many ADR
forms.
• While online systems provide several technological
advantages, they may raise many issues related to how to
ensure enforcement of online decisions .
• Despite this, judicial enforcement of these decisions has
increased during the last few years.

65. Private Judging
• Private Judging (PJ) was first developed in 1976 when two
attorneys decided to use a provision of California's Civil Code
to resolve a complex commercial dispute.
• Legally known as a 'general order of reference', the statutory
framework behind PJ establishes that after consent by all
parties and an order from the presiding judge of a public court,
the parties may appoint a private decision-maker, usually a
retired judge, who hears the parties' arguments and then
issues a binding opinion.
• These private judges are vested with the authority of public
judges and are subject to the same legal constraints, and issue
judgments that are directly appealable.

66. Private Judging
• PJ is a procedure whereby litigants bypass the traditional routes
(and protracted costs) of litigation by sharing the cost of
privately "renting" a judge to hear their case. Any decision is
binding on both parties.
• Unlike binding arbitration, however, the decision has the same
legal weight as that of a decision by a state trial court meaning
it can be appealed.
• However, because the parties are able to choose who will be
the judge in their case - typically someone who has
'experience and expertise in the subject matter of the dispute'
- the judge's ruling is generally unlikely to be appealed.

67. Private Judging
• The private trial can be held at any convenient time and place,
and the parties are under no obligation to admit the general
public.
• Despite the seemingly informal nature of the proceeding,
private judges conduct hearings under the same procedure and
with the same formality as traditional judges.
• The Evidence Code applies to private judging and private
judges may not disregard previous legal decisions impacting
the case.
• Although PJ shares certain similarities with the traditional
litigation system, the proceedings are conducted out of public
view and the result is confidential, making it an ideal

68. Private Judging
mechanism for parties seeking a quiet resolution to their
dispute.

69. Private Judging

70. Summary Jury Trial
• The Summary Jury Trial (SJT) was developed by Judge Thomas
Lambros of the US District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio in 1980.
• The Summary Jury Trial is 'a procedure in which attorneys
present a summary of their cases to an "advisory jury".
• It is designed to encourage litigants to settle their disputes by
illustrating how a trial jury might evaluate the case. The jury's
"verdict" is non-binding'; however, 'the jurors are not usually
told this explicitly'.

71. Summary Jury Trial
• To minimize the parties' expenses in both cost and time, the
Summary Jury Trial is greatly abbreviated when compared with
a traditional trial.
• It can be completed in a day or less. Typically, six mock jurors
are chosen to hear the parties case summaries.
• Since the mock jurors are drawn from the same pool as
prospective jurors in a real trial, parties participating in a SJT
can be confident that the jury's verdict is a likely reflection of
the verdict a real jury would reach.
• Because the mock jury's verdict is non-binding, however, the
SJT in no way affects parties' right to a full trial if one or both

72. Summary Jury Trial
parties feel the result of the jurors' deliberation is grossly
inequitable, the entire matter can be forgotten.
• After the verdict has been announced, a short conference is
necessary to discuss the verdict and to establish a timetable for
settlement negotiations
• At least two weeks should be allowed for parties and their
counsel to consider the results.
• SJT has been successfully employed in the US federal system to
help parties avoid the need for a real jury trial.

73. Summary Jury Trial