January 7, 2026 – 3:11 pm
Is there a deal, or not?
Ideally, lawsuit settlement negotiations result in a written agreement that all parties sign as final. But occasionally there are problems, as in the lawsuit between Bethany Christian Services and the State of Michigan. Bethany sued the State in 2024, claiming religious discrimination when the State failed to renew its contract with Bethany for refugee services. This past fall, as reported by mLive, the parties negotiated a settlement via email: Bethany’s attorney reportedly sent the assistant attorney general (AAG) a settlement proposal, the AAG “very gently modified” it and sent it back, and Bethany accepted the modified proposal. But the AG’s office claims that the case could be finally settled only after the Attorney General herself approved it, and she has not. So when Bethany went back to court last month to enforce the agreement, the judge determined that there ultimately was no settlement, and ordered the parties back to the negotiating table.
Negotiating with governmental entities usually involves seeking approval from parties who are not at the negotiating table. Although the negotiators may be elated with their deal, it’s not final until all the key parties have approved it.
An interesting side-note in this case is that the terms of the settlement were reported, because they were included in one of Bethany’s filings. Settlement terms are typically confidential.
November 2, 2025 – 9:25 am
A recent article in the Grand Rapids Press on crashes involving Amish vehicles in Michigan highlights how the Amish live out Jesus’ command to forgive. On October 16, 2022, an Amish couple was walking to church along a road in Isabella County when they were struck by a vehicle; the wife died. Some members of their Amish community asked for a meeting with the county prosecutor to let him know that the community forgave the driver, and didn’t want the punishment harder because of them. The driver pled guilty to committing a moving violation causing death, and received probation.
In another fatal crash, where a distracted driver killed an Amish pedestrian in Clare County, members of the Amish community attended the driver’s sentencing and told the judge they forgave the man. He too received no jail time.
The article doesn’t mention whether either driver admitted responsibility or showed any remorse.
Jesus warned us, “If you don’t forgive people their sins, neither will your heavenly father forgive you your sins.” Matthew 6:15. The Amish take this seriously, and are quick to forgive. How about the rest of us?
October 22, 2025 – 11:43 am
Arbitration is a time-honored dispute resolution process, valued for being both faster than litigation, and private. It has long been the dispute resolution process of choice in the construction industry because it typically resolves disputes more quickly than litigation, allowing the construction to continue.
But arbitration may not always be a time- or money-saver. In a case unfolding in New Jersey, a developer of a hotel project was advised by its attorneys, the law firm Connell Foley LLP, to resolve its dispute with a contractor through arbitration. The developer alleges that the arbitration process was both lengthy and costly, and resulted in an unfavorable outcome. So now the developer is suing its lawyers for $40 million, alleging attorney malpractice for guiding the developer into arbitration.
Usually malpractice suits allege bad legal advice. Is the choice of a dispute resolution process legal advice? How does the developer prove that it would’ve been better off in litigation than in arbitration? It’s ironic that the choice to use arbitration has itself spawned more litigation.
The ABA and the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) have jointly released the 2025 Revision of the Model Standards for Family and Divorce Mediation. This document replaces the Model Standards adopted in 2000, which have withstood the test of time. Notable in the Revised Standards are some additional topics, such as online dispute resolution and mediating with self-represented parties. The Revision also provides more guidance on dealing with cases where domestic abuse may be involved – including using the term “domestic abuse” instead of “domestic violence,” and adding a standard on “child maltreatment.”
Of special note to Michigan mediators are the ways in which the Revised Standards supplement the Michigan Standards of Conduct for Mediators. Our Standards, adopted in 2012, were based in part on the 2000 Model Standards. I had the privilege of serving on the task force that developed the Standards for Michigan; one of our innovations was to merge the standards for general civil mediators and the standards for domestic relations mediators into one set of standards designed to cover the whole field of mediation. The Michigan Standards do not go into as much detail regarding domestic relations (DR) mediation, so Michigan mediators are well-advised to consult the Revised Model Standards when facing particular issues that arise in DR mediation.
The Revised Model Standards are longer than the 2000 version (and longer than Michigan’s Standards) both because they address some new topics, and because they go into more detail on the topics they address. For example, the need to ensure party self-determination even where parties are unrepresented, and distinguishing this from informed decision-making, receives attention. There is now a separate standard entitled “Technology” that was not mentioned in the 2000 version. (Standard XI) Mediator competence is now defined to include ability to conduct online mediation, and to use technology and understand data security. (Standard XII.A.10 and 11)
One topic that has long challenged mediators is the ethical obligation to assess party capacity to mediate. Mediators have argued that they are not mental health professionals and lack insight into fully assessing party capacity. The Revised Standards include a standard entitled, “Barriers to Participation and Process Modification” to provide more guidance here (Standard IV). While still requiring a mediator to examine party capacity, the inquiry is framed as exploring “barriers to participation,” and effective safeguards and process modifications “tailored to address barriers to meaningful participation in mediation.” The reasons for terminating a mediation no longer include a participant’s “physical or mental condition.” (Standard XI.A.)
The Revised Standards are a welcome addition to the practice of mediation in the U.S.
“We now have neuroscience support for the ancient teachings of Jesus …”
Brain studies are revealing both the negative effects of revenge as well as the positive effects of forgiveness, according to a recent article by James Kimmel, Jr., that appeared in the Wall Street Journal last week, “This Is Your Brain on Revenge.” The author expanded on these thoughts in a podcast on Hidden Brain. Neuroscience research is using scanning technology to study what happens inside the brain when we seek revenge, as well as when we forgive.
He says that a brain bent on revenge “looks very much like your brain on drugs.” In one study, participants were given the opportunity to retaliate against players who had betrayed them in a game; MRIs of these participants revealed activation of the part of the brain involved in habit formation and addiction. In another study, participants who chose to retaliate for noise blasts had MRIs that showed activation of the part of the brain most implicated in pleasure and craving.
Forgiveness shows up in the brain in other ways. In a brain-scan study done at UCLA, “participants who chose to forgive rather than retaliate reduced activity in their brains’ pain network and rewards circuitry, and increased activity in their self-control circuitry.” The study’s title notes, “disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry.”
Mr. Kimmel concludes, “This suggests that forgiveness is a freely available wonder drug that reduces – rather than merely covering up – the pain of grievances, eliminates revenge craving and bolsters executive function.”
Christians have known this for centuries. We forgive because Jesus commanded us to forgive – after setting the example, by forgiving us (as captured in the familiar line from the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Yet we appreciate the positive personal effects that flow from forgiveness – release, peace, relief, etc. We know that forgiveness is good for us, even if it can be supremely difficult to do. One could almost say that our Creator hard-wired us to forgive. Now there’s research to back that up.
