The Case Disposition Information Sheet (CDIS) is designed to help participants that reached an agreement in ADR determine the disposition, or outcome, of their case without the ADR practitioner giving legal advice. The purpose of the Case Disposition Information Sheet is to help ADR participants exercise self-determination in making an informed decision about what they want to have happen with their District Court case.
The role of the ADR practitioner is to continue to support the conversation among the participants when they are considering the most commonly utilized case dispositions for civil cases in the District Court reaching an agreement in ADR (as noted on the Case Disposition Information Sheet.)
If participants do not determine their disposition prior to concluding the ADR session, the judge will determine the disposition of the case.
Next Steps
- View the Case Disposition Information Sheet / (Bilingual Spanish version)
- Watch a video demonstration at vimeo or YouTube.
- Questions? Contact your Regional ADR Programs Manager
To learn more about the history and the CDIS pilot:
- Learn the history of the Case Disposition Information Sheet.
- Read about the pilot that took place from August 1, 2017-January 31,2018.
History
ADR practitioners have asked how they can host the conversation around “What happens to the court case?” with the ADR participants. The genesis of the Case Disposition Information Sheet was to address long-standing concerns expressed by ADR practitioners about how to help participants have this conversation about their case disposition without the ADR Practitioner giving legal advice. Most participants in a District Court ADR process are unaware that after they reach terms of agreement on the topics that brought them to court or to ADR that day, the court needs to know what to do with the court case. And, that the court has a process, or system, to address what happens to the case, called “case disposition.”
Likewise, Day of Trial ADR participants have called the District Court ADR Office with questions about what will happen next with their case, or what they need to do to close or re-open their case, based on what was written in their settlement agreement. This is usually because either the terms of the agreement have been fulfilled, or one person did not complete/fulfill the terms of the agreement.
Pilot
A pilot of the draft Case Disposition Information Sheet was conducted between August 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018 in Day of Trial ADR programs in Baltimore City (civil), and Howard, Montgomery, St. Mary’s, and Wicomico Counties. There was an ADR Practitioner version and an ADR Participant version of the Sheet.
The only difference between the two documents was that the ADR Practitioner version included instructions for the ADR practitioner on when and how to administer the Sheet.
CDIS Pilot, by the Numbers
|
# of Cases Practitioner Used Case Disposition Information Sheet |
144 |
|
# Cases Parties Agreed on Case Disposition |
121 |
|
Disposition Type |
# of Cases |
|
Dismissal Upon Stipulated Terms |
107 |
|
Dismissal with Prejudice |
12 |
|
Dismissal without Prejudice |
2 |
Pilot Feedback
We elicited feedback from the practitioners participating in the Pilot, both throughout the Pilot as the practitioners used the CDIS in Day of Trial sessions (through follow-up conversations with their Regional ADR Programs Manager), and at the conclusion of the Pilot through a survey. Having reviewed all practitioner feedback in totality, several distinct themes emerged:
(1) The CDIS serves a useful purpose.
Our practitioners described the CDIS as a "useful tool" and a "helpful resource." One practitioner said about the CDIS, "I felt that the case disposition discussion and related agreement may provide a higher level of comfort and of closure to the parties in the mediation room." Another wrote in their feedback, "I think it answers a lot of questions that previously went unanswered."
(2) The Pilot version of the CDIS was too long (one page, double-sided).
Practitioners described the Pilot documents as "too lengthy," "verbose," and "too wordy." They asked for us to "simplify" the sheet and "make it shorter." Several expressed concern about how such a lengthy document might be received at the end of a long and exhausting ADR session.
(3) The Pilot version of the CDIS was too legal and formal.
There were multiple calls for "less legal language." Practitioners asked us to "make it less legalistic," and to "add more conversational language." Several practitioners shared that the participants found the CDIS to be confusing, had difficulty grasping the concepts, and that even after re-reading the sheet with the participants, the participants were still unclear as to which option to choose because of the way they were worded.
(4) Greater distinction needs to be drawn between the disposition options.
Practitioners indicated a need for more examples to help better distinguish between the options. Several pointed to the "Effect" statements as an area that could use expansion, to further clarify the logistics and implications behind whichever option they picked. One practitioner shared, "The "Effect" statements seemed to be the most useful piece in clarifying for the parties how the disposition worked." Another practitioner wrote that the most frequent question they encountered from participants was, "What happens if the other party doesn’t do what they promised?"
Revision and Approval Process
We also elicited feedback from law professors and Clinic students at Maryland Carey Law (having participated in the Pilot as well), and the Maryland Judiciary’s Access to Justice Department, who, in addition to content improvement suggestions, both recommended a columnar format. The CDIS was then re-drafted through several versions to incorporate new and improved language suggested by Access to Justice. The CDIS next passed to the Judiciary’s Government Affairs and Public Relations Office for an aesthetic facelift. Then came review, feedback, and approval by the District Court ADR Subcommittee, followed by review and approval by the ADR Committee of the Maryland Judicial Council. Next, the Sheet was vetted by the Forms Subcommittee of the Operations Committee of the Judicial Council, after which Chief Judge John P. Morrissey provided his final review and approval of the version we have today.
The end result is a shorter, simpler CDIS: one page, single-sided. With the assistance of the Maryland Judiciary’s Access to Justice Department, we incorporated more accessible and user-friendly terms. To give context to each disposition option, we included examples of each. To create greater distinctions between the disposition options, we incorporated a flow chart-type column format to better guide participants through the decision-making process and expanded on our Effect statements.
Thank you
We extend our gratitude to those that participated in the Pilot, provided feedback on the Pilot documents and/or processes, and contributed to the polishing of the terminology, explanations of options in the document, and layout and design since the conclusion of the Pilot, as follows:
- Volunteer ADR practitioners that participated in the Pilot.
- The Judiciary's Access to Justice Department;
- The Judiciary's Government Relations and Public Affairs Department;
- Maryland Carey Law Mediation Clinic professors and students;
- District Court ADR Office staff; and,
- The District Court ADR Subcommittee.
Contact
Questions about the Case Disposition Information Sheet may be directed to your Regional ADR Programs Manager as follows:
Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles + St. Mary’s Counties – Elaine Phillips
[email protected]
410-260-1986
Allegany, Garrett, Baltimore City + Harford County – Leona Elliott
[email protected]
410-878-8654
Baltimore, Carroll, Howard, Frederick + Washington Counties – Cindy Faucette
[email protected]
443-789-0256
Dorchester + Wicomico Counties – Wendy Schneider
[email protected]
410-901-4991
Prince George’s + Montgomery Counties – Isadora Cipolletta
[email protected]
301-563-8824