Copyright (c) 2010 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/lisa_bingham Recent documents in Lisa Blomgren Bingham en-us Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:31:28 PDT 3600 http://works.bepress.com/lisa_bingham/4 http://works.bepress.com/lisa_bingham/4 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:05:08 PDT This Article describes the map of statutory administrative law through those cross-cutting statutes that apply generally to all federal agencies. It argues that each major statute represents a balance among five fundamental values in the relationship between the government and the governed, a balance struck by Congress in a particular historical context and moment in time. These values are accountability, efficiency, transparency, participation, and collaboration. Second, it surveys the current law and practice of both in-person and technology-aided public participation , including recent developments through the Open Government Initiative, Open Government Dialogue, and Open Government Directive. Third, it argues that at this moment in history—in light of dramatic technology-driven changes in transparency—we need to reassess the balance among our five fundamental values to foster more participation and collaboration. In order to adjust those values to foster collaborative governance, it proposes to broaden agency authority to innovate through a Collaborative Governance Act (CGA) that defines public participation to include an increasingly rich variety of deliberative and participatory democratic practices. It proposes to model the CGA in structure on the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act by providing for an agency specialist, broad agency discretion to innovate in the use of participatory processes, and encouraging innovation by limiting judicial review. Lisa Blomgren Bingham Administrative Law Public Law and Legal Theory http://works.bepress.com/lisa_bingham/3 http://works.bepress.com/lisa_bingham/3 Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:24:55 PST This article argues that lawyers are designing justice through institutional and dispute system design, but that we are neither training law students for their new role nor are we having a deliberative discussion of the nature of justice these systems provide. First, I briefly introduce the field of institutional analysis and design in social science. Second, I describe the field of dispute system design (DSD) and apply elements of institutional analysis. Third, I survey how scholars have discussed varieties of justice in relation to legal institutions and other systems for managing conflict. I conclude that we should move more knowingly and intentionally to assess justice in DSD, and that we owe it to the next generation of lawyers to teach them how to serve ethically in their new role as designers of justice. Lisa Blomgren Bingham Dispute Resolution Public Law and Legal Theory Institutional Design http://works.bepress.com/lisa_bingham/2 http://works.bepress.com/lisa_bingham/2 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:36:29 PDT I argue here that we need a comprehensive model to understand emerging uses of collaboration across the policy continuum, and that we need to re-examine our legal framework for policy making, implementation, and enforcement to encompass this new collaborative governance. I take as my starting point the normative assumption that collaboration exists, and that it is useful and desirable in certain contexts if designed and implemented well. This article describes the broad range of processes through which citizens and stakeholders collaborate to make, implement, and enforce public policy, and then describes the incomplete legal framework for these processes. First, it will briefly review collaborative and new governance. Second, it will describe the emergence of deliberative democracy, collaborative public or network management, and appropriate dispute resolution in the policy process and argue that these three fields are related in their role in policy. These three separate fields have not previously been identified as part of a single phenomenon, namely the changing nature of citizen and stakeholder voice in governance. Third, it will describe the policy process and illustrations of how these new forms of participation operate across the policy continuum including legislative, executive, and judicial functions. Fourth, it will briefly review existing legal infrastructure as it authorizes collaboration, or provides constraints, obstacles, or barriers. Finally, I will argue that we need to revise our legal infrastructure needed to facilitate collaboration in a way that will strengthen our democracy. Lisa Blomgren Bingham Dispute Resolution Administrative Law Public Law and Legal Theory http://works.bepress.com/lisa_bingham/1 http://works.bepress.com/lisa_bingham/1 Tue, 06 May 2008 14:19:07 PDT This study compares litigation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in civil cases handled by Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) during the period 1995 to 1998. The findings indicate that that use of ADR can be an efficient and effective procedural solution to the problems of time and cost in the justice system without sacrificing the quality of macrojustice. When ADR was used, 65% of cases settled (only 29% of cases settled when it was not used). Significantly more cases settled when ADR was voluntary than when it was mandatory (71% vs. 50%), and tort cases settled with more frequency than employment discrimination cases (73% vs. 60%). When using ADR, AUSAs subjectively estimated that the process saved significant time and money. AUSAs spent an average of $869 in neutral fees and estimated that the process saved $10,735 in litigation expenses per case. AUSAs spent an average of 12 hours preparing for ADR and 7 hours in the ADR process per case, which they estimated saved 88 hours of staff time and 6 months of litigation time per case. Analyses of various macrojustice outcomes show that ADR outcomes were not significantly different from litigated outcomes, indicating that the process was neutral, favoring neither private parties nor the government. While these statistics are descriptive, a final analysis shows that the earlier a case is referred to ADR, the shorter its time to disposition. In sum, the study provides a better picture of how ADR is used by the government in federal court cases, and suggests that ADR has the potential to improve dispute processing without sacrificing the quality of justice. Lisa Blomgren Bingham Administrative Law Dispute Resolution Law and Society Public Law and Legal Theory