Last week the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously approved two petitions, one by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (08-15) and one by the Clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (08-18), to require filing of an electronic copy of briefs and petitions for review.  The State Bar reports that the court rejected a portion of the proposed rule that would have barred the public from accessing the electronic filings.  Instead, the court determined that electronic copies of filed documents should be made accessible to the public as soon as possible.  The only exception will be for appendices; filing of electronic copies of appendices will be optional, not mandatory, and the scanned appendices will not be made accessible to the public.  The Bar further reports, “Although both petitions seek an effective date of July 1, 2009, for the proposed rules, it is expected that the system will be up and running before then, and the petitioners hope lawyers will begin using the system on a voluntary basis early in 2009.”

There is nothing like traveling to an international law conference in New York City to be reminded of the fact that Milwaukee is in flyover country. As in the place where most East Coasters might stop on their way out west or perhaps have been once or twice to visit friends. It particularly struck me this time — perhaps it was the number of times I needed to explain to the international law professors from other countries where Milwaukee was located or, more likely, the piercing question from no doubt a well-meaning colleague — you still live in Milwaukee, are you happy there? — that stuck in my craw. After all, I visit New York all the time. I live there for the month of August in my grandmother’s beach house. I married a New Yorker. If I was going to be offended, one would have imagined it would have happened long ago.  But no, it was really this visit, this time.

At the Works-in-Progress conference this past week at Arizona State University (great job, Art!), I had the pleasure of hearing from Professor Scott Hughes on his latest work on mirror neurons.  I have blogged about mirror neurons before and their impact on people.  It explains things from why Harley rides are pleasurable to why Starbucks runs smoothly. 

Scott took the next step regarding dispute resolution and discussed how the latest findings in neurobiology can help mediators be more effective.  If the goal of the mediator is to build the relationship and trust with the parties, then, Scott argues, mirroring the physical movements and the emotions of the parties can help do this.  As many of us noted, we already “know” this when we teach mediator skills.  We talk about “modeling” the behavior of the parties and watching body language.