Private Means for Public Justice? Professor Murray Responds
After generously commenting on my own comments to his article on the Privitization of Justice (any chance I can get permission to publish it here Professor?), Harvard Law School Professor Peter Murray left a comment which I've decided to bring "upstairs."
Murray assures me he is no "enemy" of mediation, reminding me that behind every accusation (mine) is a cry for help (mine) which I sometimes think this entire blog-effort consists of. In Jerry McGuire's words, help me help you. Professor Murray has graciously offered to do so by joining the (soon to be formed) steering committee of the LegalTED Conference about which you'll all see much more after the election.
Professor Murray's comment below.
Ms. Pynchon's comments on my article on privatization of civil justice are right on. Of course the situation is nuanced. Mediation is an excellent technique to facilitate settlement of many, perhaps a majority, of the disputes which end up in the civil courts. My point is that having this service provided by private professionals rather than public servants increases the likelihood of economic influences playing a larger role than they would in a purely public institution. And mediated results, while providing some attributes that litigants cannot obtain in public judgments, does not provide others, namely a kind of vindication and creation of public norms to govern others.
I would be delighted to join a Steering Committee to set up a conference on these issues.
Let the conversation continue!
Yep, it's time Prof Murray had the right of reply but his comment on your blog goes nowhere in explaining many of his views outlined in the article 'The Privatization of Civil Justice' - for instance, that 'arbitrators and mediators can handle and decide cases more or less in their own economic interests without fear that their activities and decisions will be subject to effective judicial oversight'.
Where is Prof. Murray coming from? I don't want to appear too precious about this but I would like to understand why a Harvard academic says/thinks such dark thoughts - about mediators in particular.
How to say this without sound like an ad hominem attack?
Prof. Murray's vague comment confirmed the belief that I had of his piece in the first place - his problem is ideological. Murray sounds like a die-hard liberal who hasn't met a problem the government can't solve for us. Or more accurately, he hasn't me a problem that private enterprise can fix.
It does not sound like he wants to reform the process. Instead, he wants to put it back into the hands of the people that drove litigants to seek alternative resolution methods in the first place.
Why?
His article may make some interesting points, but I would personally find it hard to take seriously.