Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorLawrence Susskind.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKahveci, Alexandra Elizabethen_US
dc.contributor.otherMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-17T15:56:16Z
dc.date.available2018-09-17T15:56:16Z
dc.date.copyright2018en_US
dc.date.issued2018en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/118072
dc.descriptionThesis: M.C.P., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, 2018.en_US
dc.descriptionCataloged from PDF version of thesis.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (pages 53-57).en_US
dc.description.abstractThe Massachusetts Land Court is overburdened. More than 15,000 new cases are filed each year, with the even more cases carried over from previous years. Each emotionally taxing case can cost litigants between $50,000- $150,000 to try, with no guarantee of winning. One promising option that would relieve the overload, reduce the cost to litigants, and give them control over the outcome is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This is an approach to resolving disputes that allows parties to find mutually beneficial agreements with the help of a neutral mediator. The Land Court already has an ADR program - and has since 1999. But the program is underutilized and it is not clear why that is the case. Despite unanimous support for ADR among mediators, Land Court judges, and attorneys, less than 1% of cases that go through the Court are mediated. I find that the Massachusetts Land Court ADR program is perceived as "second-class justice" - less desirable than a trial. A lack of understanding about ADR and its value, a perception that the costs of mediation not worth the service, and emotional factors emerged as the key barriers to wider use of mediation in Land Court cases. I make recommendations for each of the involved parties. For the courts, I recommend reinstating an in-court ADR program (rather then sending cases to external mediators) and giving judges and clerks more responsibility for addressing litigants' misperceptions of ADR. For legislators, I recommend increasing ADR-specific funding for the Land Court. For attorneys, I suggest ensuring that all of their clients fully understand how ADR can improve their prospects, and bringing their clients with them to case management conferences or a similar court-tracked meeting. And lastly, for mediators, I recommend providing in-court screening of cases for the possibility of mediation and establishing long-term professional relationships with judges. Thesisen_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Alexandra Elizabeth Kahveci.en_US
dc.format.extent61 pagesen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsMIT theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed, downloaded, or printed from this source but further reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582en_US
dc.subjectUrban Studies and Planning.en_US
dc.titlePromoting alternative dispute resolution in the Massachusetts Land Court : current perceptions and useen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeM.C.P.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning.en_US
dc.identifier.oclc1051771545en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record