CC BY
9
ЗАРУБЕЖНОЕ ПРАВО
Adam Zienkiewicz*
THE CONCEPT OF A COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISON — FROM LEGAL THEORY TO PRACTICE
Abstract: The article is aimed at presenting the concept of a comprehensive comparison of the various forms of legal dispute resolution. The results of comparative studies may help a comprehensive characterization of these forms. They should also significantly contribute in the process of identifying the areas of their preferable (appropriate/correct) use. The presented theoretical legal model is based on a wide variety of analysis criteria and the comparison of the three basic forms: mediation, arbitration and adjudication. The necessity to undertake a comprehensive study and a discussion on the subject of understanding, optimal organization and the utilization of the different forms of dispute resolution determines the need to use an extensive catalogue of criteria, transcending legal issues per se. The author provides an overview of the selected concepts for criteria catalogues present in the literature. Furthermore, he presents his own broad collection of criteria, on which his concept of a comprehensive comparison is based. The presented theoretical legal model of a comprehensive comparison may be used in the proposed holistic approach to legal practice. The summary includes the nature and the basic kinds of the holistic law practice (elementary, broad, transformative). It also examines the main roles of a lawyer working in accordance with the holistic law practice. Methods. The main subject of research are the criteria of comparison concerning the main forms of dispute resolution (adjudication, arbitration, mediation). The main methods are: logical-linguistic method, comparative method, analysis and argumentation. The article concerns current issues and includes innovative thesis. The article presents the author's own concept of a comprehensive catalogue of criteria of comparison concerning the main forms of dispute resolution (adjudication, arbitration, mediation). The author postulates the use of the concept of a comprehensive comparison in order to comprehensively characterize these forms. The presented model should also significantly contribute in the process of identifying the areas of their preferable (appropriate/correct) use. Key words: holistic legal practice, justice, a comprehensive comparison, criterion of a comparison, adjudication, arbitration, mediation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, aims and nature of basic forms of dispute resolution, determine the optimal form of dispute resolution in each cases.
I.
The aim of this article is to present the concept of a comprehensive comparison of legal dispute resolution. The presented theoretical
legal model is based on a wide variety of analysis criteria and the comparison of the three basic forms: mediation, arbitration and adjudication. The necessity to undertake a comprehensive study and
© Zienkiewicz A., 2014
* Adam Zygmunt Zienkiewicz — PhD in Law, mediator, legal counsel, politologist, Head of Postgraduate Studies «Mediation and other Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution», Department of Theory and Philosophy of Law and the State, Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn. [[email protected]]
The address of the Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn: Wydziat Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytet Warminsko-Mazurski, ul. Warszawska 98, 10-702 Olsztyn, Polska.
The address for delivery: KANCELARIA RADCY PRAWNEGO DR ADAM ZIENKIEWICZ, ul. Mikotaja Kopernika 1/10, 10-510 OLSZTYN, POLAND.
да russica
Зарубежное право
a discussion on the subject of understanding, optimal organization and the utilization of the different forms of dispute resolution determines the need to use an extensive catalogue of criteria, transcending legal issues per se. The results of comparative studies concerning different forms of dispute resolution may assist in their comprehensive characterization. Furthermore, they should greatly contribute in a practical way in the process of identifying their preferable (appropriate) usage, which constitutes valuable knowledge, especially for the parties involved in the dispute, allowing them to take conscious and correct decisions concerning the choice of the most suitable way of resolving their dispute according the priorities they have as well as social reality and needs.
The attempts to «assess the quality» of serving justice (within the various forms of dispute resolution), found in the literature on the matter as well as in practice, which on the one hand imprudently glorify court mechanisms and deprecate the alternatives on the other, ought to be considered too unsuitable and one-sided1. However, each form of serving justice (resolving dispute) has its own individual characteristics, which makes it more justified to consider and take advantage of the given form taking into account the areas of its preferable (appropriate) usage than to decide on their smaller or greater value, often on the basis of merely one chosen assessment criterion.
In the literature on the subject one can find proposals for the comparison criteria of the different forms of dispute resolution, usually created on the basis of several criteria. For instance:
Frank E. A. Sander, tukasz Rozdeiczer, in one of their proposals, indicated the following comparison criteria: 1) Speed; 2) Privacy; 3) Public Vindication; 4) Neutral Opinion; 5) Minimize Costs; 6) Maintain/ Improve Relationship; 7) Precedent; 8) Max/Min Recovery; 9) Create New Solutions; 10) Party Control of Process; 11) Party Control of Outcome; 12) Shift Responsibility for Decision to a Third Party; 13) Court Supervision or Compulsion; 14) Transformation of the Parties; 15) Provide Satisfying Process; 16) Improve Understanding of the Dispute2.
L. Riskin, J. Westbrook, Ch. Guthrie, T. Heinsz, R. Reuben, J. Robbennolt, indicated two catalogues of the criteria for characterizing the various forms of
dispute resolution, including their benefits and drawbacks. The first catalogue: 1) time savings; 2) cost savings; 3) parties satisfaction; 4) attorney's satisfaction; 5) settlement rates; 6) parties' compliance with the reached settlements; 7) perceived fairness; 8) effects on relationships; 9) changes in social values about disputing; 10) changes in the role or behavior of lawyers3. The second catalogue: 1) nature; 2) decision maker; 3) third party role; 4) basis for decision; 5) desired result; 6) confidential; 7) binding; 8) appeal4.
J. Falke, V. Gessnera in their comparison of negotiation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication indicate the following criteria: 1) the increase of formalism; 2) the increase of time and cost; 3) the influence of the parties; 4) orientation towards the norms; 5) orientation towards interests; 6) freedom of communication; 7) orientation towards the future; 8) orientation towards the past5.
A. Korybski compared the characteristics of the hybrid ADR models most common in the USA (minitrial, confidential listening, court-annexed arbitration, private judging, med.-arb, summery jury trial, corporate ombudsman) according to six fundamental criteria: 1) the mode of initiating the proceedings; 2) the role of the third party; 3) the nature of the proceedings; 4) the proceedings' attitude towards legal norms; 5) the area of particular applicability of the proceedings; 6) the nature of the dispute-resolving decision6.
Seven main criteria were accepted within The Report of the Ad Hoc Panel on Dispute Resolution and Public Policy organized in 1983 by the National Institute for Dispute Resolution7. The authors of the report rightly pointed out that there is no singular model of dispute resolution which would be suitable for all forms of conflict (optimally adjusted to their nature and the expectations of the parties). Among the prerequisites influencing the choice of the given model they include: the need (desire) to continue the relationship between the parties in the future (or its lack), financial circumstances, the parties' expectations concerning privacy and the possibility of affecting the process of dispute resolution, as well as the degree of urgency for dispute resolution. Moreover, the following criteria for the
1 In the literature on the subject there are also opinions glo-ryfying ADR and deeming it more appropriate, effective and fair than adjudication — see e.g. Resnik J., Many Doors? Closing Doors? Alternative Dispute Resolution and Adjudication, 10 «Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution», 1994-1995, p. 246-252; Cf.: Norton E., Justice and Efficiency in Dispute System, 5 «Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution», 1989-1990, p. 207-230.
2 Sander F.E.A., Rozdeiczer L., Matching Cases and Dispute Resolution Proceedings: Detailed Analysis Leading to a Mediation-Centered Approach, 11 «Harvard Negotiation Law Review» 1, 2006, p.12.
3 Riskin L., Westbrook J., Guthrie Ch., Heinsz T., Reuben R., Robbennolt J., Dispute Resolution and Lawyers. Abridged Edition. Third Edition, Saint Paul 2006, p. 516.
4 Ibid., p. 11.
5 Falke J., Gessner V., Konfliktnähe als Massstab für gerichtliche und aussergerichtliche Streitbehandlung // Alternativen i der Ziviljustiz, ed. E. Blankerburg, W. Gottwald, D. Strempel, Köln 1982. S. 292.
6 Korybski A., Alternatywne rozwi^zywanie sporow w USA — studium teoretycznoprawne, Lublin 1993, p. 134.
7 see The Report of the Ad Hoc Panel on Dispute Resolution and Public Policy, p. 3-4, 8-18, 30, 34-35 // Riskin L., Westbrook J., Guthrie Ch., Heinsz T., Reuben R., Robbennolt J., Dispute Resolution and Lawyers. Abridged Edition. Third Edition, Saint Paul 2006, p. 495-497.
assessment of dispute resolution models were developed: 1) availability of the given model; 2) the level of the parties' rights protection; 3) the aptness of the time and cost of the proceedings for the nature and complexity of the dispute; 4) the nature of administering justice and the proceedings; 5) the level of finality and enforceability of the dispute resolution; 6) the level of credibility and social recognition for the given proceedings, the level of competence and training of the third party executing the proceedings; 7) the level of expression of the social understanding of justice through the protection and propagation of observing the commonly accepted social norms and values and the appropriate prevention and encouragement to resolve dispute by oneself. The authors of the report emphasize the fact that the panel resulted in putting forward the fundamental thesis stating that no single model of dispute resolution is equally attractive (powerful) in all seven aspects described by the above criteria. The activity of the parties should therefore include: establishing their own priorities regarding the particular aspects and thereafter choosing the one model which is most appropriate for the given needs of the parties8. It must also be taken into account that each form of dispute resolution can lead to unexpected consequences, less or more desirable by the party(ies)9.
II.
What follows is the author's proposal for a wide catalogue of criteria for characterizing and comparison ofthethreeelementaryforms ofservingjustice — mediation, arbitrage and adjudication — which also concerns aspect transcending legal issues per se. It does not attempt to be a complete catalogue. It forms the scope of the concept of comprehensive comparison.
Depending on the preferences or needs, the entity performing a comprehensive characterization and comparison should rely either on the models of the analyzed institutions in the reconstructive sense (preferably on the ones based on data describing the institution's operations or the established norms) or on the models in the optimization (or standard-oriented) sense. A comparison of three randomly selected proceedings (i.e. their groups) might seriously distort the obtained research results, owing to their atypical (non-representative) character10.
8 Riskin L., Westbrook J., Guthrie Ch., Heinsz T., Reuben R., Robbennolt J., Dispute Resolution and Lawyers. Abridged Edition. Third Edition, Saint Paul 2006, p. 497.
9 Cf. ibid., s. 496.
10 For obvious reasons I rejects the use of complete induction whilst characterizing and comparing the different forms. How-
ever, particularly for the sake of fact analysis, it is necessary to use incomplete induction addressed to a specified representative group of mediation, arbitrage and adjudication proceedings.
The scope of the characterization and comparison of the institutions: mediation, arbitrage and adjudication should focus on the following main criteria (appropriately adjusted to each analyzed form):
I. THE MAIN CRITERIA
1) The fundamental aims of the proceedings
2) The breakdown structure: judge/arbitrator/ mediator — the parties (the representatives of the parties, other participant of the proceedings, e.g. experts, witnesses)
a) the roles of the participants of proceedings,
b) the status of the participants of proceedings and their competency (nature of the competency standard),
c) the division of rights and responsibilities — the relations between the participants of proceedings.
3) The substantive — procedural area:
a) the nature of the practical discourse criterion (truth, correctness, effectiveness) — the specificity of administering justice (material basis for reaching a decision — the values, norms, interests (needs) of the parties or the social environment11);
b) rules of conduct versus rules of law and other extralegal rules,
c) nature of the matter of dispute (the scope of perceptible issues),
d) the areas of particular applicability of the proceedings — types of predisposed cases.
Additionally — for the sake of specifying the main criteria, I propose to make use of the following additional (auxiliary) characterizing criteria:
II. SPECIFYING CRITERIA
1. Criteria of the objectives of the proceedings
a) the criterion of overriding objectives (further — personal, interpersonal, social);
b) the criterion of minor objectives (closer — communicative, psychological, informational, procedural).
2. Criteria of the paradigms of conduct
a) the criterion of the proceeding outcome-based paradigm (win-win paradigm, win-lose paradigm);
b) the criterion of analyzing (assessing) the position, interests and relations of the parties (right-wrong based paradigm, interest-based paradigm, relational values — based paradigm);
c) the criterion of the parties' attitude in the course of proceedings (competitive paradigm, co-operative/integrative paradigm; adversarial paradigm, non-adversarial paradigm);
11 It needs to be said that the question put forwards by J. Auerbach: is it possible to serving justice without law? — should be deemed rhethorical — Cf. Auerbach J., Justice Without Law? Resolving Dispute Without Lawyers, New York, 1983; E. Steele, Morality, Legality, and Dispute Processing: Auerbach's Justice Without Law?, 9 «American Bar Foundation Research Journal», 1984, nr 1, p. 189-205.
d) the criterion of the orientation towards the parties' future or past;
e) the criterion of considering the points of issue and the parties' emotions (Issues — Oriented Dispute Resolution, Blending Issues and Emotions in Dispute Resolution, Emotions — Oriented Dispute Resolution) in the course of proceedings.
3. Procedural criteria
a) the criterion of the mode of proceedings initiation (initiation by the court — compulsory proceedings/voluntary proceedings (with the parties' agreement), initiated by the parties, initiated by a party);
b) the criterion of the prerequisites for initiating proceedings;
c) the criterion of the availability of the given form of the administering justice;
d) the criterion of quality and the means of safeguarding (protecting) the parties' equal treatment in the course of proceedings;
e) the criterion of the existence of non-symmetric proceedings;
f) the criterion of the speed of proceedings;
g) the criterion of the possibility of choice, creating and accepting the proceedings by the parties;
h) the criterion of the scope of the parties' possibility to influence the proceedings and their outcome;
i) the criterion of the nature of proceedings (public, non-public);
j) the criterion of the formality (flexibility) of proceedings;
k) the criterion of the disclosure of proceedings; l) the criterion of the rules of conduct; m) the criterion of the relation between the rules of conduct, rules of law and other extralegal rules;
n) the criterion of the types of proceedings stages (establishing legal and factual status, the process of reaching the final decision in the proceedings);
o) the criterion of the nature of reasoning exercised in the proceedings (legal reasoning: validation, interpretation, cognition, other);
p) the criterion of the significance of evidence for the outcome of proceedings;
q) the criterion of acquiring, collecting and assessing evidence in the case;
r) the criterion of the means of acquiring expertise knowledge (experts);
s) the criterion of the justifiability of establishing objective truth and its significance for the outcome of proceedings;
t) the criterion of the nature and the outcome of the dispute-resolving decision — the dispute (form, content matter, binding, non-binding, contract agreement, advisory nature);
u) the level of risk of achieving a disadvantageous outcome or resolution of the dispute (the level of predictability of the outcome of proceedings);
v) the criterion of the nature of the statement of reasons behind the dispute-resolving decision;
Зарубежное право
w) the criterion of the nature of the content control of the dispute-resolving decision (or its stage) — internal control, external control;
x) the criterion of the effectiveness of proceedings — resolving or settling dispute (enforceability and its scope, the level of risk of finding enforcement not possible).
4. Personal criteria
a) the criterion of the level of satisfying the parties' procedural, substantial and psychological interests;
b) the criterion of the level of the parties' contentment (with the proceedings, their outcome, the work of the judge/arbitrator/mediator);
c) the criterion of the level of the parties' self-cognition, self-improvement and inner moral development;
d) the criterion of the parties' emotional level in the course of proceedings (the level of stress, the presence and possibility of expressing negative emotions).
5. Interpersonal criteria
a) the criterion of the influence of proceedings on reestablishing unobstructed communication and a positive nature of the relations between the parties during the proceedings and thereafter;
b) the criterion of the forms, ways and conditions of communication (allegation) by the parties;
c) the criterion of the influence of the proceedings on achieving mutual respect, recognizing the dispute opponent's conditions and the parties' reconciliation;
d) the criterion of the level of eliminating the causes and results of the dispute;
6. Economic criteria
a) the criterion of the costs of proceedings;
b) the criterion of the influence of the speed of proceedings on the economic situation of the parties;
c) the criterion of prospective cooperation (the possibility for the parties to maintain positive business/professional relations in the future);
d) the criterion of the economic outcomes of the particular form of administering justice for the state and the society (the social cost);
7. Social criteria
a) the criterion of the level of satisfying significant social interests connected with dispute resolution;
b) the criterion of organizing and stabilizing (harmonizing) social relations;
c) the criterion of including a civil society in the process of serving justice (the idea of participatory and individualized justice);
d) the educational criterion (the impact on raising legal awareness, legal culture and discourse culture);
e) the didactic criterion (the impact on enriching interpersonal relations with social sensitivity, social values — good, freedom, equality, justice — respect for the law and its entities as well as creating social
attitudes leading to peaceful coexistence — development/moral advancement of the society);
f) the communication criterion (the impact on building an effective, unobstructed social communication and discursive decision-making (expressing will) in social relations);
g) the integration criterion (the impact on the formation of communication community, a common identity and culture);
h) the criterion of the level of preventing future social conflicts.
To conclude the above deliberations, it must be pointed out that in order to avoid subjective one-sidedness and establish the factual areas of particular preference (usefulness/appropriateness) regarding the use of the given forms of administering justice, it is therefore justified to:
1) make attempts to develop an objective catalogue of criteria aiming at their orderly, comprehensive characterization and comparison;
2) in an attempt to assess the quality of administering justice (existing within the various forms of dispute resolution), make use of at least several fundamental criteria of its evaluation (the comprehensiveness postulate), among which one should include above all:
a) the availability of the given form of administering justice (conditioned by e.g. financial, personal or social costs, the level of complexity of the procedure, necessary legal knowledge or the need to employ professional legal help, etc.);
b) the average time of proceedings conducted within the given form;
c) the quality and means of safeguarding (protecting) the parties' equality in the course of proceedings;
d) integrity (correctness, appropriateness) of resolving (settling) dispute;
e) the parties' possibility to influence proceedings and their outcome;
f) the level of implementation of the dispute resolution (settlement) by the parties and the effectiveness of the enforcement;
g) the impact of the nature of proceedings and their outcome on eliminating the causes of dispute, the mutual relations of their participants and increasing their ability to amicably resolve conflicts by themselves in the future;
h) the level of (broadly understood) contentment of the parties with the course of proceedings and their outcome.
The presented concept of a comprehensive comparison stems from the author's preferred holistic approach to legal practice12. It is based on a
comprehensive approach to legal phenomena (the area of language and logic, sociology, psychology and axiology). The holistic approach in legal practice is not easy to unequivocally define. It is characterized by usually appointing one of the three scopes of a lawyer's activity in relation to the client/party or the matter of dispute itself13.
Holism which can be described as elementary assumes an analysis of the situation in the light of all the legal institutions relevant at the time and the regulations of different areas of the law. The aim of such approach is to comprehensively establish and assess the legal aspects of the problem (from the viewpoint of the public and private law — in the administrative, penal, fiscal, civil, domestic, labour, economic, copyright, etc. context).
Holism which can be described as broad assumes an analysis of the problem/legal dispute not only in the comprehensive legal sense, but also on the relative level transcending legal issues per se. It adopts examining the aims, interests, needs of the client/parties in parallel in the light of such spheres as: communication, relations, psychology, economy, society or ethics. In accordance with broad holism, the analysis made by the lawyer while diagnosing the client's situation concerns, on the one hand, legal issues such as e.g.: 1) establishing relevant factual circumstances, 2) a correct choice and interpretation of legal regulations aimed at determining all rights and responsibilities of the client/parties, 3) guilt, 4) right, 5) evidence position of the parties (including evidence preclusion), 6) the statute of limitations of the claims, 7) the need for legal representation, 8) the analysis of the possible schemes of action in the course of adjudication, 9) anticipating the nature of the court's decision (winning/ losing the case). On the other hand, according to broad holistic approach, in the course of diagnosis, one does not overlook extralegal criteria such as e.g.: 1) the aims, interests, needs (procedural/ communicative, substantial, psychological/emotional, short term/long term) of the client/parties,
12 Cf. e.g. Greenberg M., Beyond Confrontation: A Holistic Ap-
proach to the Practice of Law, 30 «New England Law Review», 1995-1996, p. 927; Steinberg R., Beyond Lawyering: How Holistic
Representation Makes for Good Policy, Better Lawyers, and More Satisfied Clients, 30 «New York University Review of Law & Social Change», 2005-2006, p. 625; Zienkiewicz A., Mediation als eine Form der Justiz // Mediation als Verfahren konsensualer Streitbeilegung. Die deutsche, polnische und ukrainische Perspektive, red. Tina de Vries, Frankfurt am Main 2012, p. 3-22; Zienkiewicz A., Koncepcja s^du otwartego — wzmocnienie pluralizmu form wy-miaru sprawiedliwosci // Mediacja — nowa droga rozwi^zywania sporow, edited by R^kas A., Warszawa 2011, p. 29-47; Araszkie-wicz M., topatkiewicz A., Zienkiewicz A., Parent Plan Support System — Context, Functions and Knowledge Base // Business Information Systems Workshops, BIS 2013 International Workshops, Revised Papers, edited by W. Abramowicz, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, p. 160-171.
13 Cf. Kim Wright, Lawyers as Peacemakers. Practicing Holistic, Problem Solving Law, American Bar Association, Chicago 2010, p. 23-24.
2) the nature of the dispute and the possibility of eliminating its causes, 3) the length of potential incourt and out-of-court proceedings, 4) the possibility of influencing the course and outcome of the dispute resolution and its potential effectiveness, 5) comprehensive consequences of taking particular measures/desistance in the personal, interpersonal and social aspect, 6) financial costs of making particular choices, 7) the impact of particular choices on the client's mental (the emotional aspect) and physical health, 8) the possibility of improving the parties' communication and relations, 9) short-or long-term basis of their future contact (the need for future cooperation), 10) the need for other expert's participation in a comprehensive resolution of a dispute (callaborative team).
Holism which can de described as transformative prefers to perceive the problem/legal dispute merely as one aspect of the client's life situation, with the assumption that his or her main need is spiritual and emotional 'healing' or inner transformation. The relation between the client and the lawyer is of particular importance, since it is based on cooperation aimed at solving the party's legal problems with due consideration for the possibility of his or her personal development and positive transformation. In such situation the lawyer also fulfills the role of
Зарубежное право
a peculiar guide/trainer, who, within the discourse, encourages the client/party to recognize the importance and possible interpretations of the significant circumstances of the case in the broader perspective including, among other things, his or her life hierarchy, aims, aspirations and even dreams. The presented attitude assumes showing the client creative solutions to legal problems and focusing his or her activity on what can be changed, and not on what is beyond his or her control, in order to 'allow the client to shift the client's life to new levels of productivity and fulfillment14.'
The proposed concept of a holistic legal practice assumes that a lawyer can play at least three basic roles: a) the person who prevents disputes from happening, b) the person who diagnoses the dispute holistically, including designing and implementing the optimal form of its comprehensive resolution with the use of mediation or other ADR models, c) the person who represents the party in the course of adjudication (in-court and arbitration).
Out of the above, it is assumed that the two former are preferred and that the scope of a lawyer's duties is determined by the model of the employed holistic stance (elementary, broad, transformative).
Аннотация. В статье представлена концепция комплексного сравнения различных форм правового разрешения споров. Результаты сравнительного анализа помогут в характеристике этих форм и внесут существенный вклад в процесс выявления областей их предпочтительного применения. Эта теоретическая правовая модель имеет широкий диапазон аналитических критериев в сравнении с тремя основными формами: медиацией, арбитражем и судебным решением. Для проведения комплексного исследования и дискуссии на тему понимания, оптимальной организации и применения различных форм разрешения споров необходимо использование расширенного перечня критериев, раскрывающих правовые вопросы по существу. Автор дает обзор отдельных направлений существующих в литературе указанных перечней. Кроме того, он представляет собственный расширенный список критериев, на котором основана авторская концепция комплексного сравнения. Данная теоретическая правовая модель комплексного сравнения может применяться в юридической практике. Выводы основаны на сущностных и базовых видах практики целостного закона (начальной, широкой, преобразующей). В статье также рассматриваются основные роли юриста, работающего в соответствии с практикой «целостного закона». Главным предметом исследования являются сравнительные критерии, касающиеся основных форм разрешения споров (вынесения судебного решения, арбитража, медиации). Основные методы: логико-лингвистический, сравнительный, анализ и аргументация.
Ключевые слова: «целостный» закон, практика его применения, юстиция, комплексное сравнение, критерий сравнения, вынесения судебного решения, арбитраж, медиация, альтернативное урегулирование споров, цели и сущность основных форм разрешения споров, оптимальная форма разрешения споров.
14 Cf. URL: http://www.coachapproachlawyers.com/eight-possibilities/ (10.02.2014)
References:
1. Auerbach J., Justice Without Law? Resolving Dispute Without Lawyers, New York, 1983.
2. Araszkiewicz M., topatkiewicz A., Zienkiewicz A., Parent Plan Support System — Context, Functions and Knowledge Base // Business Information Systems Workshops, BIS 2013 International Workshops, Revised Papers, edited by W. Abramowicz, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, p. 160-171.
3. URL: http://www.coachapproachlawyers.com/eight-possibilities/ (10.02.2014)
4. Falke J., Gessner V., Konfliktnähe als Massstab für gerichtliche und aussergerichtliche Streitbehandlung // Alternativen i der Ziviljustiz, red. E. Blankerburg, W. Gottwald, D. Strempel, Köln 1982.
5. Greenberg M., Beyond Confrontation: A Holistic Approach to the Practice of Law, 30 «New England Law Review», 1995-1996, p. 927.
6. Korybski A., Alternatywne rozwigzywanie sporow w USA — studium teoretycznoprawne, Lublin 1993, p. 134.
7. Norton E., Justice and Efficiency in Dispute System, 5 «Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution», 1989-1990, p. 207-230.
8. Resnik J., Many Doors? Closing Doors? Alternative Dispute Resolution and Adjudication, 10 «Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution», 1994-1995, p. 246-252.
9. Riskin L., Westbrook J., Guthrie Ch., Heinsz T., Reuben R., Robbennolt J., Dispute Resolution and Lawyers. Abridged Edition. Third Edition, Saint Paul 2006.
10. The Report of the Ad Hoc Panel on Dispute Resolution and Public Policy // Riskin L., Westbrook J., Guthrie Ch., Heinsz T., Reuben R., Robbennolt J., Dispute Resolution and Lawyers. Abridged Edition. Third Edition, Saint Paul 2006, p. 495-497.
11. Sander F.E.A., Rozdeiczer L., Matching Cases and Dispute Resolution Proceedings: Detailed Analysis Leading to a Mediation — Centered Approach, 11 «Harvard Negotiation Law Review» 1, 2006, p. 1-41.
12. Steele E., Morality, Legality, and Dispute Processing: Auerbach's «Justice Without Law?», 9 «American Bar Foundation Research Journal», 1984, nr 1, p. 189-205.
13. Steinberg R., Beyond Lawyering: How Holistic Representation Makes for Good Policy, Better Lawyers, and More Satisfied Clients, 30 «New York University Review of Law & Social Change», 2005-2006.
14. Wright K., Lawyers as Peacemakers. Practicing Holistic, Problem Solving Law, American Bar Association, Chicago 2010.
15. Zienkiewicz A., Mediation als eine Form der Justiz // Mediation als Verfahren konsensualer Streitbeilegung. Die deutsche, polnische und ukrainische Perspektive, red. Tina de Vries, Frankfurt am Main 2012, p. 3-22.
16. Zienkiewicz A., Koncepcja sgdu otwartego — wzmocnienie pluralizmu form wymiaru sprawiedliwosci // Medi-acja — nowa droga rozwigzywania sporow, edited by R^kas A., Warszawa 2011, p. 29-47.
