2021 Judicial Conference Program

Remote ADR Pretrial Pilot Program, practitioners were required to participate in Zoom practice sessions post-orientation prior to receiving case referrals in the remote program. The sessions were facilitated by ADR Office staff and provided the opportunity for the ADR practitioners to practice Remote ADR program procedures while staff assessed ADR practitioner ZfG proficiency. Unless an ADR practitioner requested a waiver from participating in a ZfG practice session, participation was mandatory. A total of 61 one-hour Zoom practice sessions were conducted between August 17, and October 27, 2020. The Remote ADR Pretrial Pilot Program was initiated in Prince George’s County on July 29, 2020, in Allegany and Garrett counties on July 31, 2020, and in Frederick and Washington counties on August 21, 2020. Two additional specialty docket pretrial ADR programs emerged from the pandemic to address urgent needs, and/or a case backlog. A pretrial mediation program for municipal infraction cases in partnership with the Montgomery County Attorney’s Office and the Conflict Resolution Center for Montgomery County was initiated on July 16, 2020. In Baltimore City, a pretrial mediation program is in development for illegal lock-out cases in partnership with the District Court in Baltimore City, the Department of Housing and Community Development, and the Baltimore Community Mediation Center. The Court of Special Appeals ADR Division also shifted to delivering alternative dispute resolution online with the onset of the COVID-19 health emergency. The ADR division continued normal internal operations and worked with the staff and chair of the ADR Committee to assess the use of platforms to conduct ADR processes online. In March and April, face-to-face mediations were postponed as a result of Chief Judge Barbera's administrative order issued on March 16, 2020. Review of civil appellate cases to select an appropriate ADR processes for the parties and screening those cases with counsel continued uninterrupted. The ADR division continue to receive and respond to calls from the public to assist the public with any questions it had about ADR at the Court of Special Appeals. The ADR Division staff began to practice on various remote platforms in order to assess which remote platform would be best suited for mediations and settlement conferences. The ADR division staff began to develop protocol and procedures to handle online ADR processes to be used by parties, counsel and mediators, including senior judges. To provide staff with working knowledge of remote platforms and processes used by private mediators, the ADR division sought out senior judges who provided private mediations remotely, practitioners through the MSBA’s ADR Section, and Court ADR Managers in the circuit courts and the District Court. With information provided by these groups, the ADR Division assembled a new Best Practices Guide for Remote Mediations to provide counsel and parties before conducting a remote mediation. The Best Practices Guide clarified expectations and made transparent the roles for both mediators and participants, such as the use of a camera during mediation and not recording the session for the sake of confidentiality. The ADR Division updated the mediation agreement to reflect that the participants and mediators have read and understood the Best Practices Guide. The ADR division changed its internal filing system to make confidential information statements provided by the parties and other relevant documents easier to access by the staff and distribute to the mediators. COSA ADR DIVISION CONTINUATION OF DELIVERY OF SERVICES District Court ADR Subcommittee The subcommittee’s most significant activities during the reporting period are summarized below. District Court ADR Volunteer Application The District Court ADR Volunteer Application was last reviewed and revised in December 2012, since which time Title 17, Chapter 300 became effective on January 1, 2013. While the entirety of the application was reviewed and considered, the subcommittee’s discussion focused on the collection and review of the applicant’s current, pending, or previous criminal convictions, disciplinary actions, and any peace, protective, and emergency risk protective orders issued against the applicant. The subcommittee agreed that the application should include questions about the applicant’s prior criminal history and/or disciplinary actions with the addition of a disclosure that information on the application will be verified, and add a question to conclude the birth date of the applicant, in accordance SUBCOMMITTEES AND WORK GROUPS

| 37 |