2021 Judicial Conference Program

ADR Updates At each regular meeting, the committee members had an opportunity to provide updates about ADR initiatives in their respective courts. The three Judiciary ADR offices (the Court of Special Appeals (COSA) ADR Division, the District Court ADR Office, and Administrative Office of the Court’s Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO)) reported on their activities. The Committee also received reports from justice partners, including community mediation and community conferencing programs, and ADR practitioner organizations. Approval of Standards of Conduct The Standards of Conduct for Mediators Work Group was comprised of ADR Committee members and other stakeholders. The work group was tasked to draft a single set of standards of conduct applicable to mediators governed by Title 17 of the Maryland Rules (court cases) and members of the Maryland Program for Mediator Excellence (MPME), who are, at times, concurrently governed by two different sets of standards. The ADR Committee presented the Mediator Standards of Conduct document to the Judicial Council in November 2018 for its consideration. The Judicial Council referred the matter to the Rules Committee. Members of the ADR Committee participated in the review of the new Standards with the ADR Subcommittee of the Rules Committee. One word was changed in the preface of the document. The ADR Subcommittee of the Rules Committee recommended that the document be included in Title 17 of the Rules by reference, and each reference would include a Judiciary web location where the document could be found. The Rules Committee carried that recommendation in the 201 st Report to the Court of Appeals. The revised Standards of Conduct for Mediators, the related standards for other ADR practitioners, as well as the associated rules, were approved by the Court of Appeals at an open meeting on November 19, 2019, with an effective date of January 1, 2020. Administrative orders moved the new standards forward for publication on the Judiciary website, as required by the new rules. The new standards were posted to the Judiciary website by staff in advance of the effective date. Ongoing continuing education programs throughout the year have introduced practitioners to the revised standards. Subcommittee and Work Group Reports The ADR Committee received reports from, and provided input to, the District Court ADR Subcommittee, the Research and Grants Subcommittee, the ADR in the Maryland Rules Subcommittee, and the Mediation Quality Assurance for Programs and Practitioners Work Group. The ADR Committee recommended the Judicial Council sunset the Research and Grants Subcommittee. Additionally, the Standards of Conduct Work Group was sunset when the Court of Appeals adopted the recommendation in the 201 st Rules Report and made the Standards of Conduct for Mediators effective on January 1, 2020. Statewide Rosters of ADR Practitioners The ADR Committee considered a draft of a new statewide ADR practitioner application form to be used under the new system recommended by the ADR Committee and supported by the Conference of Circuit Judges and the Conference of Circuit Court Administrators. Sections of the application pertaining to past crimes, ethical challenges, and protective orders/peace orders/ emergency risk protective orders are still under discussion. The committee considered and approved one application for the Business and Technology ADR Roster. In October 2020, the Major Projects Committee requested the Rules Committee create a rule in Title 20 to provide for ADR Practitioner access to MDEC. Proposed Rule20-109(e), was approved by the Rules Committee, and will be forwarded to the Court of Appeals for review and approval. Creation of a centralized roster of ADR practitioners is needed to support the implementation of this rule. As a unified system, the District Court ADR Programs have a centralized roster currently administered by the District Court ADR Office. MACRO will work with the circuit courts to develop an ADR practitioner centralized roster for the circuit courts. The creation of a new statewide circuit court ADR practitioner application process will support the ongoing updating of the centralized ADR practitioner roster. ADR Data Collection The ADR Committee helped determine what core data points should be collected by all court ADR programs. A survey was sent to circuit court administrators to verify what, if any, data is currently being collected by either ADRESS, MDEC, or some other means. There is now a baseline and the committee will be exploring options to improve ADR data collection in the circuit courts. Additionally, a survey has been drafted to support the collection of ADR evaluation data in cases where mediation was conducted using an online or other remote platform.

| 31 |