I had imagined that I might take some months off from the idea of saying anything about college football. (Yes, yes. I sent filberts to Sarah Cole after the Rose Bowl.) But ESPN today ran a story about the prospect of the dispute between Texas Tech and recently dismissed football coach Mike Leach being resolve in mediation.
The first four paragraphs of the story alone would probably serve for fodder for an entire class session in a Mediation course:
Former Texas Tech football coach Mike Leach and the school are headed to mediation Friday in Lubbock, Texas, sources with knowledge of the situation told ESPN.com on Tuesday.
On Jan. 21, State District Judge William Sowder ordered Leach, Texas Tech and their attorneys to complete mediation by Feb. 5. Lubbock attorney Frank E. “Dirk” Murchison III, a graduate of the Texas Tech School of Law, will try to mediate a resolution between the sides, according to the sources.
Sowder issued a gag order in the trial, precluding both parties from commenting about the mediation.
A source familiar with the situation told ESPN.com that attorneys did not expect a resolution to be reached during this weekend’s mediation because “it’s too early in the process.” The source described the mediation as a “feeling out” of sorts. The source said neither side wants the case to go to trial and said the dispute might be resolved in mediation at a later date.
Under what circumstances can a court mandate parties into mediation? How are mediators selected in such circumstances? What procedures are (or should be) in place to guard against conflicts of interest? What are the effects of gag orders, and how are they enforced in the context of mediation? What are the tradeoffs in the timing of an effort at mediation? Etc etc.
I’m not sure I could reasonably ask for anything better to set up a good class discussion.
Thank you, Mike Leach, for all that you have done to contribute to dispute resolution education.
Last 5 posts by Michael Moffitt
- ABA DR Section: Award for Scholarly Work - September 8th, 2010
- Wallace Warfield 1938-2010 - September 2nd, 2010
- Assessing Settlements - Judicial Deference, the Feds, & the Banks - August 23rd, 2010
- High-Performance in the Workplace - August 21st, 2010
- Axelrod on the Humanitarian Law Project Opinion - August 16th, 2010
6 responses so far ↓
1 Clayton // Feb 2, 2010 at 11:42 pm
FYI: I’m in your class and I graduated from Texas Tech.
2 Michael Moffitt // Feb 3, 2010 at 12:23 am
Perhaps you’d like to lead the class discussion?
3 Sarah Cole // Feb 4, 2010 at 5:27 pm
And, I want to publicly thank Michael for the delicious filberts — both straight and covered with candy. Yum! Better luck next year to those Ducks . . .
4 utexashorns // Feb 13, 2010 at 10:43 am
Yes, a court absolutely order mediation before going to trial. I have had an order reversed based on the other party trying to file, and pull a fast one on me. I was able to get everything reversed and completely re-set because we did not go to mediation first as the court had originally ordered. Now, you don’t give up your right to a hearing- but you must attempt mediation first if the court had ordered it. Further, the contract probably has something about mediation in there in case of a legal dispute between the parties.
5 cb in austin // Feb 19, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Feb 5th has come and gone and I haven’t heard a word about the results of the mediation. I’m guessing nothing was “completed”. Does anyone know what happened and what’s the next step?
6 thomas smith // Jun 30, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Good article but what is the status of the situation today?
thanks for any updates as I believe Tech owes the guy big time
Leave a Comment