This case involves a divorce between Patricia and Howard. Interviews were conducted with the judge overseeing the Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR), Patricia and her attorney and Howard's attorney.

About JDR

Parties may choose to participate in non-binding JDR or binding JDR (BJDR). In BJDR, the judge makes final decisions about the case if the parties do not come to an agreement, much like a mediation-arbitration process: the judge as mediator becomes an arbitrator and rules on the case. In non-binding JDR, the case goes to another judge for a trial if the parties do not come to an agreement, much like a traditional mediation process. One procedural downside to BJDR is that it cannot be appealed; an issue less important in divorce than in other types of cases. The judge in this case reported that he sees more parties choose BJDR than JDR because they want the case to be done after the process. In contrast, the two attorneys in this case both prefer non-binding JDR noting that the process may be more relaxed and less like a trial.

The judge in this case reported that about eight out of ten cases that engage in JDR are resolved. In his experience, one of the main reasons has to do with efficiency: every aspect of the case is resolved within two days of meetings, or the judge and parties agree to another date for resolution. He also attributes some of JDR's success to elements of the process that do not exist in litigation, such as encouraging both parties to step back, take a breath and truly listen to each other. When he prevents parties from interrupting each other, he noted, they may realize what they are hearing from the other side actually works for them. He also asks parties if an apology will help to move things forward. Another strategy he recently developed in divorce cases is to allow couples to get divorced immediately and then hammer out the remaining issues in JDR. The relief of the divorce can create a more conciliatory tone for the rest of the JDR. These components are not available in traditional litigation settings but can be instrumental in contributing to a cooperative resolution of a case.