Tracking and cataloguing alternative dispute resolution blogs has been one of my ongoing projects. When I first began blogging in January 2005, only a few active ADR blogs existed.

Today there are enough of us to warrant our own directory.

The World Directory of Alternative Dispute Resolution Blogs, located at www.adrblogs.com (and also at www.mediationblogs.com) lists blogs alphabetically, by country, and by category, including:

• General Alternative Dispute Resolution Blogs
• ADR-Friendly Blogs
• ADR Marketing Blogs
• Arbitration Blogs
• Conflict Resolution & Peace Blogs
• Mediation Blogs
• Negotiation Blogs
• Online Dispute Resolution Blogs
• Restorative Justice Blogs

My purpose in creating and launching the Directory, a non-commercial site, is to continue as I have done to raise public awareness, particularly within the ADR community, of the value of blogging and the extent to which it has contributed to the quality of conversation about our field, our work, and our practice.

Although it’s not required for inclusion in the Directory, your support of this project would be most welcome, which you can do by linking to the directory or publishing a post about it if you happen to be a blogger yourself.

If you wish to suggest a blog to add to the Directory, whether your own or someone else’s, please let me know.

(My deepest appreciation to Bob Ambrogi for the warm welcome to this new site.)

Technorati tags: alternative dispute resolution, blogging, mediation, mediation blogs

The hard-working (and anonymous editor) of Blawg Review (the weekly review of the best in law blogging) seemed understandably disappointed with the efforts of the most recent host of Blawg Review #60, judging by the post published today, which began with these observations:

When you don’t show up to host the Blawg Review as scheduled, and don’t offer so much as an apology or an excuse like my dog ate my blog, that’s just unacceptable. Pardon me, sir? What’s your name? Are you in this class? Sit down then, and pay attention if you will, please. You’ve already wasted enough of our time.

and ended with this note from the Blawg Review Editor:

…Blawg Review #60 is an alternative to Blawg Review #60: Gimme Some Truth at The Trademark Blog, which is not by any measure a Blawg Review. Regular participants in Blawg Review make their submissions and recommendations expecting that the host will, within the bounds of individual creativity, prepare a Blawg Review. It is essential to our project that we live up to those expectations, and not use the privilege of hosting Blawg Review for some other presentation, however interesting that might be.

While it is indeed true, as this earlier host of Blawg Review observed today, that”each host is free to organize and present the Blawg Review, without restrictions on personal creativity“, it is also true that hosts must plan their submission with the understanding that “[i]t is the concept of Blawg Review, within reason, to be inclusive of all posts submitted for review in the week prior to each issue.”

Thus, at Blawg Review’s table kings and commoners (or, in modern parlance, A-list bloggers together with bloggers who occupy a rung that is lower on the alphabetical ladder) gather to partake equally of conversation, repartee, and wit.

Sadly, this week’s host did not fully embrace these egalitarian principles. He linked only to those law blogs which “answer the question that interests me the most as a lawyer: Is this Administration [meaning the Bush administration in the U.S.] acting lawfully?”

What is unfortunate is that he did not place the law blog community on notice of his intentions in advance of the Blawg Review submission deadline. What is equally regrettable is that he chose to focus so narrowly on the vicissitudes of American politics (however deserving the topic may be), particularly when the law blog community’s attention has been drawn by blogger Dan Hull to the fact that a whole legal world ripe for exploring awaits beyond America’s borders.

All of this put me in mind of something I had read earlier today on the subway into Boston this morning in Conversation: A History of a Declining Art by Stephen Miller. This delightful book recounts the virtues of England’s Golden Age of conversation which flourished in British coffeehouses, the 18th century equivalent of the blogosphere.

Not only were coffeehouses a center for the enjoyment of conversation, but they also provided “a good Fire, which you may sit by as long you please; you have a Dish of Coffee; you meet your Friends for the transaction of Business; and all for a penny, if you don’t care to spend more.”

Moreover,

The mingling of different classes in coffeehouses also impressed many visitors. “What a lesson, the Abbé Prévost said, “to see a lord, or two, a baronet, a shoemaker, a tailor, a wine-merchant, and a few others of the same stamp poring over the same newspapers. Truly the coffee houses…are the seats of English liberty.”

Indeed.

How very like the broad-ranging and ecumenical Blawg Review. Where but Blawg Review does one find baronets and lords linked cheek-by-jowl with tailors and shoemakers? Law blog luminaries like Denise Howell and Evan Schaeffer together with lesser mortals (like yours truly)? Is not Blawg Review therefore the very seat of blog liberty? A coffeehouse of the digital age?

Those of you who remain confident in the enduring nature of Blawg Review’s democratic principles can partake of the spirit of law blog liberté, egalité, and fraternité at the site of next week’s host, Blonde Justice.

Submission guidelines, for lords and plebeians alike, may be found here.

J. Craig Williams over at May It Please the Court discusses the details of a recent California state appellate court decision which rejected the concept of “binding mediation” in a stipulation for settlement between two parties. Williams sets forth the differences between arbitration and mediation as a prelude for the discussion of the court opinion which follows.

Read Craig’s article first, then see the court opinion (in PDF).

The court sensibly asks,

If binding mediation is to be recognized, what rules apply? The arbitration rules, the court-ordered mediation rules, the mediation confidentiality rules, or some mix? If only some rules, how is one to chose? Should the trial court take evidence on the parties’ intent or understanding in each case? A case-by-case determination that authorizes a “create your own alternate dispute resolution” regime would impose a significant burden on appellate courts to create a body of law on what can and cannot be done, injecting more complexity and litigation into a process aimed at less.

Thanks for this link goes to this week’s edition of Blawg Review, the weekly review of the best in law blogging, hosted by the fearsome Professor Kingsfield.

I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight.