Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alternative Dispute Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judicial Council hears ADR report showing rise in in-person sessions, proposes statewide practitioner roster
Summary
The Judicial Council reviewed an FY2023 ADR data summary showing increased in-person day-of-trial mediation usage, high participant satisfaction, and a proposed statewide practitioner application process under Md. Rule 17-207 to centralize qualifications and CEU tracking.
Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader convened the Maryland Judicial Council on Sept. 25, 2024, where the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Committee presented its Fiscal Year 2023 findings and proposed procedural changes.
Judge John S. Nugent, chair of the ADR Committee, said the committee's most recent data show “a significant increase in both circuit court and District Court in person day-of-trial ADR use in 2023,” and noted the courts were still recovering from pandemic effects in 2022. The committee reported that survey respondents rated ADR sessions very highly and that remote sessions produced similar outcomes overall in circuit court civil, non‑domestic cases while family‑law agreements were notably more likely when mediation occurred in person.
The committee described efforts to formalize best practices. A Workgroup on Best Practices in Court‑Connected ADR will be chaired by senior judge Nathan Braverman and will address guidance on recommending in‑person versus remote mediation, fee schedules, consistency of orders, and whether mediation statements should be required. Cynthia Jurrius of MACRO said a statewide list of family law mediation fees is being compiled for future consideration.
Judge Nugent also outlined a proposed change to streamline practitioner qualification under Md. Rule 17‑207: rather than applying to individual courts, ADR practitioners would apply directly to the Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO), which would qualify applicants and track continuing education units while courts retain appointment discretion. Jurrius reported the Rules Committee approved the Title 17 change unanimously and that the Supreme Court would review it in October.
District Court ADR managers reported nearly 3,500 public inquiries to the District Court ADR Office in FY24; of 326 pre‑trial ADR cases 64% reached agreement, and over half of 633 day‑of‑trial cases resulted in agreements. The report also noted more than 4,300 volunteer hours donated to day‑of‑trial mediation and described planned mediator training and an October 30 volunteer appreciation and training day.
Why it matters: ADR can reduce trial burdens and delay; a statewide practitioner application and better data collection may standardize mediator qualifications and make services more consistent across Maryland courts.
What’s next: the proposed Rule 17‑207 change was forwarded for Supreme Court review and the ADR Best Practices Workgroup will begin its work to issue recommendations.
