Nebraska’s Office of Dispute Resolution Partnered with the Ohio Supreme Court’s Dispute Resolution Section to Present at NACM 2025

Kelly Riley, Director of the Office of Dispute Resolution, partnered with Marya Kolman, Manager of the Dispute Resolution Section of the Supreme Court of Ohio, to discuss how alternative dispute resolution (ADR) promotes access to justice and procedural fairness. These concepts are important as courts focus on public trust in the judicial system.

When court users have an alternative dispute resolution option, such as mediation, there are at least four areas that can impact their access to justice. First, there is the financial component. Many court-connected ADR processes offer a sliding fee scale or services at no cost. For example, in Nebraska, parents can mediate through one of the approved mediation centers and have the option to be placed on the sliding fee scale. With small claims cases, many county courts offer mediation, which is provided by an approved center at no cost.

Other Access to Justice factors include time, decision-making, and formality. Regarding time, many ADR processes are available outside of standard business hours or virtually, saving on commute time. As for decision-making, depending on the ADR process, the parties are the decision makers or, at a minimum, have a voice in the outcome. For example, in mediation, the parties decide on the outcome, not the mediator. With parenting coordination, a parent coordinator (PC) will assist parents in coming to a mutual agreement; however, if that isn’t possible, the PC can make the decision. (Ohio courts use parent coordinators. In Nebraska, there is a pilot in Sarpy County under the direction of Judge Stefanie Martinez.) Finally, ADR processes tend to be less formal, both in setting and terminology (e.g., using the parties’ words), which can make it more comfortable for the participants.

As for procedural fairness and ADR, the presenters used the elements of procedural fairness outlined on the Procedural Fairness/Procedural Justice A Bench Card for Trial Judges, a joint publication produced by the American Judges Association, the Center for Court Innovation, the National Center for State Courts, and the National Judicial College. (The bench card can be viewed here.)

Voice – Parties have a voice to express their viewpoints, and those viewpoints are validated and a vital part of the process.

Neutrality – Consistently applied processes by unbiased practitioners who are transparent about the process and everyone’s role.

Respect – Participants are treated with courtesy and respect, including respecting their personal situations and how to make the process work for them.

Trust – As a neutral, building trust with the parties, as well as the parties’ trust in the process, is key.

Understanding – An ADR practitioner’s skills allow them to illustrate understanding. 

Helpfulness – The ability to get deeper into personal situations and the impacts on the case. Also, ADR is about helping the parties help themselves. 

The presentation culminated with sharing ADR processes available in both states. Session attendees shared what has worked well and not so well in their respective states.