Experiential Legal Education in China 夏季筹备会议 Summer Planning Session

Experiential Legal Education in China
法学实践教学在中国
Summer Planning Session
夏季筹备会议
July 25 – 28, 2009
2009 年 7 月 25 日至 28 日
Qingdao, China
中国 青岛
A project of USAID
美国国际发展署项目
Program Directed by:
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law
项目主持单位：
太平洋大学麦克乔治法学院
In Collaboration with:
American University, Washington College of Law
China University of Political Science and Law
South China University of Technology
Zhejiang Gongshang University
Committee of Chinese Clinical Legal Educators
协作单位：
美利坚大学华盛顿法学院
中国政法大学
华南理工大学
浙江工商大学
中国诊所法律教育专业委员会
Table of Contents
I.
Schedule……..…………………………………………………………4-7
II.
Biographies...…………………………………………………………8-31
III.
Curriculum Proposals and Simulations……………………………..32-63
IV.
Phoenix Case File………………………………………………….64-111
V.
Ending It: Dispute Resolution in America – Chapters 5 & 6….....112-169
VI.
China Arbitration Advocacy Handbook………………………….170-200
*Additional resources can be found at http://www.mcgeorge.edu/x1900.xml. Click
on the Published Resources or Curriculum Materials menu bar located on the left
hand side to retrieve program materials.
2
目录
VII. 日程安排……..…………………………………..……………………4-7
VIII. 专家简介...………………………………………...…………………8-31
IX.
课程设计方案及模拟……………………………………..………..32-63
X.
菲尼克斯公司案材料…………………….……………………….64-111
XI.
做个了断：美国的争端解决（第五、六章）………………....112-169
XII. 中国仲裁辩护手册………………………………………...…….170-200
*更多资料请参看网址：http://www.mcgeorge.edu/x1900.xml。点击页面左手边的
“Published Resources”或“Curriculum Materials”菜单条可查看项目材料。
3
7/20/09
Qingdao Planning Session
Schedule
July 25
9 a.m.
12:30 p.m.
2:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
Informal walking tour of Qingdao
Lunch
Orientation session
Introductions
Explain program to representatives from western schools
Overview of program: Landsberg and Milstein
CCCLE perspective: Han Guijun
Experience of Phase I partners: Xu Shenjian, Teng
Hongqing, Luo Wenyan
Opening banquet
July 26
9 a.m.
Discuss the needs of “western” schools
Central China University of Science and Technology
Yi Jiming (易继明), Dean of School of Law,
Cao Haijing (曹海晶), Chen Xugang (陈绪刚)
Southwest University of Finance and Economics
Gao Jinkang (高晋康), Dean of School of Law,
Jiang Bo (江波)
Chongqing University
Chen Zhonglin, Dean of School of Law, Zeng Wenge
11 a.m.
12:30
2:30
4:00
6:30
Discuss relationship between clinical legal education and other forms of
experiential education
Lunch
Clinical demonstration for western school leaders
Client interview – Liu Jianming; Bob Dinerstein
Theory of case – Li Chao; Jay Pottenger
Lawyering skills demonstration for western school leaders
Lawyering skills in a simulation course – Hu Minfei; Jay Leach
Lawyering skills as part of a substantive course – Dong Jingbo; Jarrod
Wong
Dinner
July 27
9 a.m. Begin discussing what areas each training should cover
Harbin training is two days and not all participants will continue in
Phase II
4
Fall training is two or three days and will be the introductory
training of Phase II trainees
Spring training is two or three days
Summer training will be one week and should build on the Fall and
Spring trainings [Professor Chen Jianmin will join us]
Presentation of proposed curriculum outlines by each Phase I
teacher
12:30
2:30
6:30
Lunch
Discuss methods to be used in the Phase II training sessions
Dinner
9 a.m.
Create detailed plan for all four trainings [with emphasis on the first two,
since content of second two may evolve after we have experience with the
Harbin and Fall training].
Lunch
Discuss materials for the trainings; make assignments for the Harbin and
Fall trainings.
Closing thoughts
Closing dinner
July 28
12:30
2:30
4:30
6:30
5
青岛筹备会会议日程安排
7 月 25 日
9:00
青岛城区漫步
12:30
午餐
14:30
见面会
介绍与会代表
向西部院校代表介绍项目情况
项目概况：Landsberg 和 Milstein 两位教授介绍
中国诊所法律教育专业委员会观点：韩桂君
第一阶段合作人的经验：许身健，腾洪庆，罗文燕
18:30
开幕晚宴
July 26
7 月 26 日
9:00
讨论西部院校的需求
华中科技大学：易继明（法学院院长），曹海晶，陈绪刚
西南财经大学：高晋康（法学院院长），江波
重庆大学：[代表姓名待定]
11:00
讨论诊所法律教育和其它实践教学的关系
12:30
午餐
14:30
向西部院校的领导展示诊所教学实践
客户会见——刘建明；Bob Dinerstein
案件主张分析——李超；Jay Pottenger
16:00
向西部院校的领导展示律师技巧培训
使用模拟案例培训律师技巧——胡敏飞，Jay Leach
18:30
实体课程的重要组成部分律师执业技巧培训——董京
Jarrod Wong
晚餐
6
波；
7 月 27 日
9:00
讨论每次培训应涵盖的范围
哈尔滨培训：两天，并非每个与会人员都要参与第二阶段的培
训
秋季培训：二至三天，针对第二阶段参训人员的初步培训。
春季培训：二至三天
夏季培训：一周，应以秋季培训和春季培训内容为基础。（陈
建民教授将加入）
每位第一阶段的培训老师演示其设计的课程大纲。
12:30
午餐
14:30
讨论第二阶段培训会议的培训方法
18:30
晚餐
7 月 28 日
9:00
制定四次培训的具体计划 [侧重于前两次，因为后两次的培训内容可
能取决于哈尔滨培训和秋季培训的经验]
12:30
午餐
14:30
讨论培训材料；分配哈尔滨培训和秋季培训的具体工作
16:30
总结思考
18:30
闭幕晚宴
7
Summer Planning Session – Qingdao, China
July 25, 2009 – July 28, 2009
Ms. Cao Haijing, Professor, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Law
School. Prof. Cao was born in Foshan City, Guangdong province, in 1957. She is a
Ph. D. in comparative political system (constitutional system and government
administration). She was a lecturer in 1987, associate professor in 1993 and
professor in 1998. She is the director of Teaching Guidance Committee in Law
School. Her professions include administrative law, administrative procedure law,
legislative studies. She is a committee member of Higher Education Teaching
Guidance Committee in Education Department, a director member of China Society
of Legal Education, committee member of Legal Advisory Committee of Hubei
Government, vice president of Hubei Society of Administrative Law and Hubei
Society of Local Legislation, Special Researcher of Research Office in Standing
Committee of Hubei province, Adjunct Researcher of Hubei Local Legislation Center, and Legal Advisor of
Wuhan intermediate People’s Court.
Ms. Phyllis L. Chang is the founder of China Law and Development Consultants
(“CLD”), a Hong Kong firm established in 2000 to support non-profit development
work in China. CLD works in China through its Beijing subsidiary, CLD
Consultants (Beijing). CLD focuses on programs to promote rule of law, citizens’
rights, governance reform, and development of the emerging NGO sector in China.
CLD assists Chinese organizations in designing projects, raising funding, and
implementing them. In addition, CLD provides consulting services to foreign
donors and foreign non-profit organizations that are conducting programs in China
or considering doing so. Ms. Chang, a Chinese-American, has been resident in
Beijing for many years. From 1981-82, Ms. China was one of the first foreign
students to study law at Peking University. After receiving her J.D. law degree
from the University of California, Berkeley, Ms. Chang was a Jervey Fellow at
Columbia Law School from 1986-88. As part of her Jervey Fellowship, Ms. Chang
spent 1986-87 at China Renmin (People’s) University doing research on Chinese contract law and the Chinese
legal profession. Ms. Chang practiced corporate law in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, California from
1988-1993, before discovering the non-profit world in 1994 and joining the Ford Foundation. From 1994 to
2000, she was the Ford Foundation’s Program Officer for Law, Rights and Governance in China. Ms. Chang
has been a consultant to numerous international development agencies and organizations, including the
American Bar Association, Asia Foundation, Asian Development Bank, AUSAID, NOVIB, Swedish
International Development Agency (SIDA), UNDP and the World Bank. Ms. Chang speaks Chinese with a
New York accent.
CHEN Jianmin, female, born in 1957, associate professor of Qinghua University
Law School, majored in professional education in laws of intellectual property rights
and legal practice; principal officer for the curricula of Qinghua University legal
clinical education project and in charge of labor clinic of Qinghua University Law
School; current general secretary of CCCLE Secretary General.
8
Mr. Chen Xugang, Associate Professor, Huazhong University of Science and
Technology Law School. Prof. Chen received his LL.B. (1992) from Shanghai
Maritime University, Master of Law (1998) and Ph. D. (2003) from Peking University,
where he was an editor and chief editor of Peking University Law Review, and LL.M.
(2004) from Columbia Law School, where he worked for Prof. Benjamin L. Liebman
as a research assistant in Center for Chinese Legal Studies. He is a member of Selden
Society in England. He was a commercial official in Guangzhou Salvage and a
lawyer assistant in Beijing Tianping law firm in the past. He was a lecturer (20042006) in Fudan University Law School.
Mr. Chen Zhonglin, Dean, professor and doctoral advisor, Chongqing University
Law School. Prof. Chen was born in Chongqing in 1951. He received his LL.B. (1982)
from Peking University, Master of Law (1986) from Southwest University of Political
Science and Law (SWUPL), Ph. D. (1996) from Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna di Studi
Universitari e di Perfezionamento (SSSUP). In 1998, he was promoted as a professor
in SWUPL unconventionally. He is the representative of the Eleventh National
People's Congress, State Council Expert for Special Allowance, vice president of
China Society of Criminal Law and China Society of Juvenile Delinquency, deputy
director of College for Criminal Law Science of Beijing Normal University, and
Special Researcher of Center for Criminal Law of Renmin University.
Robert Dinerstein is professor of law at AU's Washington College of Law. He
specializes in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the rights of people
with intellectual disabilities (mental retardation) and mental illness, disability
laws in general, homelessness, civil rights, criminal justice, lawyer-client issues,
and clinical legal education. He was the law school's associate dean for academic
affairs from 1997-2004, and previously directed WCL's clinical program (19881996), nationally recognized for its excellence. Dinerstein was a member of the
Clinton transition team in 1992 and was appointed by President Clinton in 1994 to
serve on the President's Committee on Mental Retardation (on which he served
until 2001). Prior to joining AU, Dinerstein worked as an attorney in the U.S.
Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, where he
handled federal court cases on the rights of people institutionalized in mental
hospitals, mental retardation and juvenile institutions, prisons, and jails. Dinerstein currently sits on the
boards of directors of the Quality Trust for Individuals with Disabilities, Inc. (president), Society of American
Law Teachers (board of governors), Equal Rights Center (treasurer), Mental Disability Rights International,
Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, Inc. (treasurer), and in the past has served on the boards of the
District of Columbia Bar Board of Governors (2002-2005), Maryland Disability Law Center, Legal Counsel
for the Elderly, and Law Students in Court. He is also actively involved on committees related to legal
education of the American Bar Association Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (including
the standards review committee) and the Association of American Law Schools (including chair of the section
on clinical legal education, committee on clinical legal education, committee on sections and the annual
meeting, and the planning committee for the 2006 Clinical Teachers Conference, as well as a member of the
membership review committee). Dinerstein has written numerous law review articles and chapters on clinical
legal education and disability rights, and is coauthor and coeditor of A Guide to Consent (American
Association on Mental Retardation, 1999), which addresses issues of capacity and consent in the lives of
9
people with mental retardation.
DONG Jingbo has been a professor of law in China University of Political Science
and Law since 2003. She has co-authored 3 books. She has published 8 articles in
Chinese Journals. She teaches International Economic Law, International Trade
Law and related subjects. She is also a part-time lawyer and member of Beijing
Bar association. In August 2007, she went to McGeorge School of law to pursue
her LLM study in “teaching of advocacy” and completed the study in May, 2008.
She received her B.A. and Ph.D. from China University of Political Science and
Law, Beijing, China. Her Masters in Law from Transnational Law and Business
University, Seoul, Korea and an LL.M. from University of the Pacific McGeorge
School of Law, Sacramento, U.S.
Mr. Gao Jinkang, Dean, professor and doctoral advisor, Southwestern University of
Finance and Economics (SWUFE). Prof. Gao is born in 1963. He received his LL.B.
from Southwest University of Political Science and Law and his Master of Law and
Ph. D. from SWUFE. He is a Prominent Expert in Sichuan province, a committee
member of Higher Education Teaching Guidance Committee in Education
Department, vice president of Society of Taxation law Education, an executive
director of the Society of Commercial Law and Society of Security Law in China Law
Society, a director member of China Society of Legal Education, and vice president of
Sichuan Law Society.
HAN Guijun is an associate professor of law of Zhongnan University of
Economics and Law since 2004. She specializes in Economic Law, Labor Law and
Legal Clinic. Guijun is one of the standing members of CCCLE and director of
Social Law Society of China. She has been in charge of legal clinic education
program since 2005. She wrote and published a book which study Self-help for
protecting and implement rights in 2008. She has co-authored 3 books in labor law.
She has published more than 30 articles in Chinese Journals. She is also a parttime judge in district court. She is vice-dean of legal aid center and devotes herself
to public interest. She received her B.A. and Master from South-central University
of Politics and Law which combined with other university and named of Zhongnan
University of Economics and Law. She received her Ph.D in Law from Wuhan
University in 2005. In August 2008, she went to the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law to pursue her LL.M in the Teaching of Advocacy, which she completed in May, 2009.
10
HU Minfei is a member of the Zhejiang Gongshang University faculty. She has
taught Private International Law for several years. She was a procurator in
Fenghua City for three years after her graduation from Northwest University of
Politics & Law. She received her Ph.D in 2006 from Wuhan University. Funded by
the USAID China Program, she received an LL.M. in the Teaching of Advocacy
from McGeorge School of Law in May 2008.
Mr. Jiang Bo, Associate Professor, Southwestern University of Finance and
Economics. Prof. Jiang received his LL.M. from London Metropolitan University, UK
and his S.J.D. from Golden Gate University, USA. He worked for Hallmark civil
aviation corporation. His professions include insurance contract law and aviation
law.
Clémence Kucera directs the activities for Pacific McGeorge School of Law's three
Centers of Distinctiveness: the Global Center for Business and Development, the
Center for Advocacy and Dispute Resolution, and the Capital Center for Public Law
& Policy. She also coordinates collaborative international activities with other law
schools domestically and abroad. In addition, she is the Project Manager of the
federally awarded USAID grant: Enhancing the Rule of Law in China. Clémence
Kucera is a French citizen who grew up in Egypt. She received her baccalaureate in
law from Université Panthéon-Assas Paris II and subsequently her Master of Laws in
Transnational Business Practice at Pacific McGeorge School of Law. She is a
member of the American Bar Association, the Association of American Law Schools
and the New York Bar.
Brian K. Landsberg worked for the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights
Division as a trial attorney, later heading the division’s Education Section for five
years and the Appellate Section for 12 years. He has been a professor at Pacific
McGeorge School of Law since 1986, with a six month break in 1993 to serve in
the No. 2 post in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. He has taught at
the Pacific McGeorge Institute on International Legal Studies in Salzburg and the
International Law Institute in Kampala, and served as Program Director, Summer
Law Institute, Kenneth Wang School of Law, Suzhou. He is Program Director for
the Pacific McGeorge Rule of Law Program in China, funded by U.S. AID. He
has also taught at Georgetown University, and at the University of California,
Berkeley. Professor Landsberg is the author of Alabama and the Origins of the
Voting Rights Act and Enforcing Civil Rights: Race Discrimination and the
Department of Justice. He co-authored Global Issues in Constitutional Law with Professor Leslie Jacobs and
11
Global Issues in Employment Discrimination Law with Professor Samuel Estreicher.
Dorothy Landsberg became the interim director of the clinical programs in June
2009. From 1987 until 2007 she was initially an associate and later a partner with
one of Sacramento’s largest law firms, Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann, and Girard.
At the Kronick firm she served as head of the Employment and Labor Group, the head
of the Education Group, and Chairperson of the Board of Directors. She
specialized in education and employment law.
She litigated cases before
administrative law judges, trial courts and the California Court of Appeal, as well as
conducting independent investigations of employment practices and participating in
collective bargaining. She has also taught Education Law at Pacific McGeorge
School of Law. Before attending Pacific McGeorge, where she graduated with great
distinction and was elected to the Order of the Coif, she served as a paralegal in the
Washington, D.C. law firm, Shea & Gardner. In 1974 she served on the staff of the
United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry. She began her career in
the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, on the staff of Assistant Attorney General
John Doar.
Jay Leach team-teaches Trial Advocacy with Professor Joseph Taylor and
Professor Cary Bricker and developed and teaches Advanced Trial
Advocacy (a course added in 1999). Professor Leach also teaches
Evidence and he has taught advocacy skills courses in Chile and Italy.
He came to Pacific McGeorge in 1996 from Philadelphia, where he was a
trial lawyer and partner at the firm of Drinker Biddle & Reath and taught
as an adjunct professor at Temple University School of Law. He also
directs and teaches trial-skills courses for the National Institute for Trial
Advocacy. Professor Leach served a two-year clerkship with Judge
Edmund Spaeth of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania before joining his firm in 1978. He litigated in the
fields of general corporate and commercial disputes, specializing in franchising, construction, and automotive
products liability cases. Professor Leach also was the chair of his firm’s Alternative Dispute Resolution
Resources Group, and litigated several multi- million dollar cases settled through ADR techniques. Professor
Leach has taught trial skills in US-AID programs in Santiago, Chile and Beijing, China, and as a guest faculty
member at University of Parma, Italy.
LI Chao is an associate professor of Law School of China University of Political
Science and Law (CUPL), he comes to WCL as a student of LLM study legal clinic
education in one year. This is a cooperating program between CUPL and WCL, to
improve the development of rule of law of china. He obtained his master's degree
in 1997 and doctor’s degree in 2004. From 1997, associate professor Chao Li has
worked for ten years as a teacher in legal education as well as a part-time lawyer.
He instructs a legal clinic in his law school. E-mail: [email protected],
Telephone: (8610) 69724599.
12
LIU Jianming is the director of the clinical education center in Zhejiang
Gongshang University. From 1987 to 1991, he was a lawyer dealing with a large
number of criminal, environmental violations and real estate cases; he has
accumulated useful practical experience. In 1991, he became a teacher of the
college of law. He has taught many courses, focusing on Private International Law
and International Economic Law. Since 2006, he has concentrated to establish and
promote the legal clinics in ZheJiang province. He researches in the areas of legal
ethics, lawyering skills, and has over 2 years of experience in practice, teaching and
researching.
LUO Wenyan has been teaching administrative litigation, administrative law and
the law on state compensation since she took the teaching position in 1990. She
became a professor at Zhejiang Gongshang University in 2003. The course
Administrative law and administrative litigation law that Professor Luo is
responsible for has been ranked as provincial-level courseware. She is also a part
time lawyer and has handled some cases in the administrative law field. Professor
Luo received an LL.M in the Teaching of Advocacy as a part of USAID China
project at McGeorge School of Law in May 2008.
MAO Xiaoxiao is a lecturer at Zhejiang Gongshang University. He was also a
visiting scholar of Mcgeorge School of Law, the University of Pacific. He serves as
the standing director of the WTO Commission of Zhejing Legal Association. He
also served as the researcher in Shanghai Institute of Finance and Law. Mao
Xiaoxiao participated in the USAID clinic and advocacy programs in Guangzhou
and Hangzhou and submitted the article ‘The difference between US and China
legal clinic education’ to discuss the diversity between two legal education systems.
Elliott Milstein was president of the Association of American Law Schools in 2000,
the first clinical teacher elected to that position. He was dean of the Washington
College of Law from 1988 to 1995 and served one year as interim president of
American University starting in 1993. He has been a clinical teacher for nearly his
whole career, starting in 1969, and founded the clinical program here at WCL. He
has been a leader in the development of the concepts and methods that are the
basis for in-house clinical education and has trained or mentored a substantial
number of clinical teachers. He currently teaches in the Civil Practice Clinic and
also facilitates a program to train new clinical teachers.
13
J. L. Pottenger, Jr.is the Nathan Baker Clinical Professor of Law at the Yale Law
School.
He received his A.B. in Public & Urban Affairs from Princeton
University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs (1971) and
his J.D. from Yale Law School (1975). He was appointed to the Baker Chair
(previously held by Geoffrey Hazard and Lea Brilmayer) in December 1993.
Professor Pottenger served as Director of Clinical Studies at Yale from 1991-2002,
and has held the rank of Clinical Professor of Law since 1989. He teaches clinical
seminars involving public policy, legislative advocacy, housing, community
development, and civil rights, as well as courses in legal ethics and trial practice.
His clinical teaching and advocacy has won recognition from the Clinical Legal
Education Association, the Association of American Law Schools, and the American
Bar Association. Professor Pottenger has held posts as visiting professor atHarvard, Northumberland, and
Boston Universities, and as visiting fellow at Oxford's Centre for Socio-Legal Studies and London University's
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. He has lectured widely throughout the People's Republic of China,
where he was worked closely with the Ford Foundation, the Yale-China Association, and the Chinese
Committee for Clinical Legal Education, as well as with the China Law Center at Yale Law School.
TENG Hongqing Dr. Hongqing Teng is Assistant Dean of South China University
of Technology College of Law and Researcher of Research Centre for Guangdong
Local Legal System. He specializes in human rights law, constitutional law and
administrative law. He earned the PH.D in Law from Law School Wuhan University
in 2006 and attended the LL.M program on Law and Government in American
University Washington College of Law from 2007-2008. As a law professor, he
teaches Comparative Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence, Administrative Law and
Administrative Litigation Law, Human Rights Law (Bilingual), and Human Rights
Clinic courses. He has a strong publication record, he just published the monograph
“National Emergency Power and Human rights in Crisis: On the Legal System of
Emergencies”, People Press, 2008; edited “Building Up the Road of the Rule of
Law in China”, Xi’an University of Communication Press, 2002; “Law’s Viewpoint
of Humanist”, Chinese Social Science Press, 2006; “The Theory of Human Rights Law”, Chinese University
of Politics and Law Press, 2008. Additionally, he has published more than 20 articles in major journals,
undertook some social science research programs of national and regional class, such as “Supervision and
Check On the Judicial Power”, “Building Up the Guang Zhou Government of Rule of Law”, “Research On
Emergency Legal System in Guangzhou ”,etc.. Now he is the Council Member, Guangdong Province
Jurisprudence Society and the Council Member, Guangdong Province Constitutional Law Society. He was the
panelist in “The Role of the Law School in Promoting and Protecting Human Rights” Conference, In
Washington D.C. U.S., April 22, 2008 and “Workshop on Comparative Studies of Sino-US Judicial Ethics”, In
Guangzhou Guangdong Province P.R.China, Dec. 7-9, 2008. His contact information is as followed, Mobile
Phone: (+86)15920178974, Email1: [email protected], Email2: [email protected], Mail Address: High
Education Mega Centre, Guang Zhou City, Guang Dong Province, P.R.China Postal: 510006
14
Ms. Wang Yongmei, Program Officer, CLD Consultants (Beijing). Ms. Wang
obtained her LL.B. (2001) from Xiamen University, and her LL.M. from the
University of Nottingham in maritime law. In 2003, she obtained the Postgraduate
Diploma in Law with commendation in York Branch of the College of Law. UK.
She joined CLD in March 2009. She mainly is charge of the projects in the respect of
Rural Legal Aid Student Volunteer, Legal Clinic for Farmers and Rural Issues,
Capacity Building of Homeowner’s Association, Promoting Equality in Higher
Education, Supporting Grass-rooted NGO’s Capacity Building and Promoting the
Protection of Rivers. She is working at the design of the projects that is a nondiscrimination training for the domestic companies as well. She practiced law after
coming back from UK in 2003. She worked for Shanghai Haoliwen Law Firm,
Beijing Kingfield Law Firm (formally called Haotian Law Firm) and Kirkpatrick &
Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP in Hong Kong office and Beijing Representative Office as well. She passed
the Chinese bar exam in 2005 and got her license in 2007.
Jarrod Wong trained and educated in both the United States and
Europe, Professor Wong has centered his scholarship on issues in international
dispute resolution. He graduated Order of the Coif from Boalt Hall School of Law,
UC Berkeley. He also holds a law degree with First Class Honours from
Cambridge University and a Master of Laws degree from the Law School of the
University of Chicago. Prior to joining the faculty, Professor Wong served as
Legal Advisor to Judge Charles N. Brower at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal at The
Hague, Netherlands. He was also associated with the law firm of Cravath, Swaine
& Moore in New York and has practiced in San Francisco with the law firms of
Heller Ehrman and O’Melveny & Myers. Professor Wong is also a member of the
research and workshop faculty team on a USAID China project. This five-school
initiative is spearheaded by Pacific McGeorge and funded by a grant from the U.S.
Agency of International Development to assist Chinese legal educators in providing legal skills training in
advocacy and clinical legal services.
Xu Shenjian received his M.A and Ph.D. from China University of Political
Science and Law. He has been a professor of law at the School of Law, China
University of Political Science and Law since 2004. In September 2006, he was
appointed Distinguished Professor and Scholar, and in September 2007, he was
also appointed Distinguished Professor and Scholar of CUPL. In March 2007, he
was named Director of the Institute of Legal Ethics, in June2007, he was named
Director of the institute of Experiential Education, and in September 2007, he was
named Director of the Legal Clinic programme. The author or Co-author of over
10 books, he teaches Legal Ethics, Procedure Law, Legal Clinic, and related
subjects.
15
Ms. Yang Rui, Program Officer, CLD Consultants (Beijing). Ms. Yang received her
LL.B. in economic law (2004) from Northwest University of Political Science and Law,
and her Master of Law in Jurisprudence (2007) from Tsinghua University. She worked
as a student assistant in CLD in 2006 and joined CLD as a program officer in May
2007. She manages the projects in the aspect of rule of law in rural area, antidiscrimination law, capacity building for NGOs on the use of law and so forth. Ms.
Yang has a passion for public interest career and has participated in several public
interest law projects when she was a graduate student in Tsinghua University,
including Tsinghua University China-UK Research Project on the Legislation on AIDS,
Tsinghua University Barefoot Lawyers Training Program and Kobe University
Comparative Research on Lawyers System. She is also a certified psychological
therapist (level II) by China Ministry of Labor since May, 2008.
Mr. Yi Jiming, Dean, professor and doctoral advisor, Huazhong University of
Science and Technology (HUST) Law School. Prof. Yi was born in Gong’an County,
Hubei province, in 1968. He received his LL.B。 (1990) from Zhongnan University
of Economics and Law, Master of Law (1999) and Ph. D。 (2002) from Peking
University. He accomplished his post-doctoral study from Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences (CASS) in 2004. Between 2004 and 2006, he was the Research
Fellow in Institute of Law, CASS and professor in Law Department, Graduate
School, CASS. He became the professor in HUST in 2002. He is also the director of
Institute of Justice in HUST Law School. He is the founder and chief editor of
several journals including Private Law, China Science Law Annual, and Journal for
Law and Policy in China, and the associate editor of Science Technology and Law as well. He is a director
member of Society of Civil Law in China Law Society, president assistant of China Society of Science and
Technology, the president of Hubei Society of Science and Technology, vice president of Society of Civil Law in
Hubei Law Society, Society of Arbitration Law in Hubei Law Society and Hubei Society of Procuratorial
Science, and a committee member of Academic Committee in Hubei Law Society. He also serves as committee
member of Hubei Tenth Committee of Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference as well as
committee member and advisory expert of Expert Advisory Committee of Hubei People’s Procuratorate.
Yu Guodan received his M.A and Ph.D. from China University of Political
Science and Law. He has been a professor of law at the School of criminal justice,
China University of Political Science and Law since 2004. Yu Guodan teaches
criminal Law and criminology and also team-teaches Advocacy training with
other professors. Yu Guodan is author or Co-author of over 5 books.
16
Mr. Zeng Wenge, Vice dean, professor and doctoral advisor, Chongqing
University Law School. He was born in Chongqing in 1966. He received his LL.B.
(1987), Master of Law (1999) and Ph. D. (2004) from Southwest University of
Political Science and Law (SWUPL). He was a visiting scholar in Hong Kong
University Law School (2004) and University of Florida Law School (2004-2005).
Since Sep. 2008, he has obtained a post-doctoral position in Wuhan University
Law School. He teaches and researches in areas relating to international
economic law and environment and resources protection law. He is a director
member of China Society of International Economic Law and Society of
environment and Resources Protection Law in China Law Society, secretarygeneral of Society of International Economic Law and Society of Environment and Resources Protection Law
in Chongqing Law Society, and legislative advisor of Standing Committee of Chongqing Municipality.
17
夏季筹备会议——中国 青岛
2009 年 7 月 25 日至 28 日
曹海晶, 华中科技大学法学院教授。1957 年 4 月出生于广东佛山市。法学博
士（中外政治制度专业、宪政制度与政府管理方向），1987 年评为讲师，
1993 年评为副教授，1998 年评为教授。现为法学院教学指导委员会主任。
她的研究领域包括行政法学、行政诉讼法学、立法学等。她还是教育部高等
学校法学学科教学指导委员会委员、中国法学教育研究会理事、湖北省人民
政府法律咨询委员会委员、湖北省行政法学研究会副会长、湖北省地方立法
研究会副会长、湖北省人大常委会研究室特约研究员、湖北省地方立法研究
中心兼职研究员、武汉市中级人民法院法律咨询委员等。
张乐伦女士是中国法律与发展咨询公司的创建者，该公司为2000年成立的香
港公司，致力于支持中国非盈利性发展工作。中国法律与发展咨询公司在中
国的工作通过其设在北京的子公司—中律原咨询（北京）有限公司（简称
“ 中律原” ）开展。中律原致力于促进法治发展、公民权利、政府治理等项目
以及中国新兴非政府组织的发展。中律原帮助中国的组织机构设计项目、筹
集资金并帮助实施项目。另外，中律原还为国外的资助方和在中国或者即将
考虑在中国从事项目的外国非赢利组织提供咨询服务。张女士是一位美籍华
人，在中国居住多年。她是1981至1982年在北京大学学习法律的首批外国留
学生之一。获得加利福尼亚大学伯克利分校的法学博士学位后，1986年至
1988年张女士在哥伦比亚法学院任嘉威（Jervey）研究员。作为嘉威（Jervey）研究员的一部分工
作，1986年至1987年张女士在中国人民大学法学院做关于中国合同法和中国法律职业的研究。在
1994年发现非盈利性行业并加入福特基金会之前，张女士自1988年至1993年在美国旧金山和加利福
尼亚州的硅谷实践公司法。1994年至2000年，张女士担任福特基金会项目官员，负责中国法律、人
权和政府治理项目。张女士曾为多家国际发展机构和组织提供咨询，包括美国律师协会、亚洲基金
会、亚洲发展银行、澳大利亚发展援助署、荷兰发展署，瑞典国际开发署、联合国开发计划署和世界
银行。张女士说一口带纽约口音的中文。
18
陈建民，女，1957年生人，清华大学法学院副教授，硕士生导师。从事知识产
权法、法律实务的专业教育。现任清华大学法律诊所教育课程的负责人并具体
主持清华大学法学院劳动诊所的工作。现任中国法学教育研究会诊所法律教育
专业委员会秘书处秘书长。
陈绪刚，华中科技大学法学院副教授。1992年7月，自上海海运学院取得法学
学士学位，1998年7月于北京大学大学院取得法学硕士学位，其后又于2003年
7月取得北京大学法学博士学位，在校期间为《北大法律评论》编辑及主编，
成为英格兰赛尔登协会（英格兰法史协会）成员。2004年5月，取得哥伦比亚
大学法学院法学硕士学位，在校期间任哥伦比亚大学法学院中国法律研究中心
主任李本教授）助研。 他曾在广州救捞局任商务员，后在北京天平律师事务所
任律师助理。在2004年至2006年间，他曾任复旦大学法学院讲师。
陈忠林，重庆大学法学院院长、教授、博士生导师。1951 年生于重庆，1982
年获北京大学法学学士，1986 年获西南政法大学法学硕士，1996 年 6 月获比
萨圣安娜高等大学（SSSUP）法学博士学位，1998 年在西南政法大学破格评
为教授。现为第十一届全国人大代表，国务院特殊津贴专家，中国刑法学会、
中国犯罪学会副会长、中国青少年犯罪研究会副会长、兼任北京师范大学刑事
科学研究院死刑研究所副主任、国家人文社科基地中国人民大学刑事法研究中
心特邀研究员。
Robert Dinerstein，美国大学华盛顿法学院教授，专门从事美国残疾人法
案、智障人群和精神病人的权利、残疾人法律、无家可归者、民事权利、刑
事司法、律师与委托人的关系和诊所法律教育等方面的研究。其于1988-1996
年间负责世界劳工联合会的诊所项目，成绩卓越；于1997-2004年间担任美国
大学华盛顿法学院副院长，分管学术事务。Dinerstein是1992年克林顿政权接
收小组的成员，并于1994年被克林顿总统任命到总统委员会处理智力障碍问
题（直到2001年）。在加入美国大学之前，他在美国司法部公民权利司特殊
诉讼科担任律师，处理涉及被收容在精神病院、少年机构、监狱和拘留所的
19
公民，以及智力迟钝者的权利的联邦法院案件。目前，他担任残疾人质量信托公司（总裁）、美国法
律教师协会（理事会）、平等权利中心（财务官）、残疾人权利国际、华盛顿无家可归者法律诊所公司
（财务官）的董事，并于2002-2005年间兼任哥伦比亚特区法律理事会、马里兰州残疾人法律中心的董
事会成员，为老年人提供法律咨询。他著有许多关于诊所法律教育和残疾人权利的文章，是《智障人
士的主观同意》一书的合著者和合编者。该书讨论了行为能力和智障人士的同意效力问题。
董京波，中国政法大学讲师，兼职律师，北京律师协会会员，著有3本图书、8
篇论文，教授国际经济法、国际贸易法及相关学科。2007年8月，到美国太平
洋大学麦克乔治法学院从事LLM课程的学习，攻读方向为“ 辩护课程的讲
授” ，并于2008年5月完成学业。其于中国政法大学获得法学学士学位和博士学
位，并先后于韩国国际法律经营大学、太平洋大学麦克乔治法学院获得硕士学
位。
高晋康，西南财经大学法学院院长,教授，博士生导师。1963 年生，西南政法大
学法学学士，西南财经大学经济学硕士、博士。他还是四川省有突出贡献专家，
担任教育部高等学校法学学科教学指导委员会委员、中国财税法教育研究会副会
长、中国法学会商法研究会常务理事、中国法学会证券法学会常务理事、中国法
律教育研究会理事、四川省法学会副会长等学术职务。
韩桂君是中南财经政法大学法学副教授，主要从事经济法、劳动法和社会保障
法、法律实训和诊所法律教育的教学和研究工作，担任中国诊所法律教育专业
委员会的常委，中国法学会社会法学研究会理事。从 2005 年起她负责中南财
经政法大学的诊所法律教育项目。她出版专著一本《自助行为研究》，她编著
一本实验课教材，作为副主编以及作者合作三本书，在中文期刊上发表 30 多
篇文章。她是中南财经政法大学法律援助中心副主任，致力于公益事业。她还
20
是武汉市洪山区法院的兼职副庭长。2008 年 8 月，她赴美国太平洋大学麦克乔治法学院学习法律实
务技能教学法，于 2009 年 5 月完成学业，获得 LL.M 学位. 韩桂君 1992 年毕业于中南政法学院，获
法学学士学位；1999 年获法学硕士学位；2005 年获得武汉大学法学博士学位。
HU Minfei，浙江工商大学法学院教师，教授国际私法。自西北政法大学
毕业后，曾在奉化市检察院工作 3 年。2006 年，获得武汉大学法学博士学
位。受 USAID 中国项目的资助，于 2007 年 8 月至 2008 年 5 月，在麦克乔
治法学院攻读“ 辩护的讲授” 的 LLM 学位。
江波，西南财经大学副教授。英国伦敦首府大学法学院国际比较商法硕士，美
国旧金山金门大学法学院国际法学博士。曾任职于美国 HALLMARK 民用航空
公司。主要研究方向为国际航空法和保险法比较研究。
Clémence Kucera 主管太平洋大学麦克乔治法学院三个独特的中心：商务与发
展全球中心、辩护与争端解决中心以及公法与政策中心。她还负责协调与国内
外其他法学院间的国际合作活动；此外，她还是美国国际开发署联邦基金项目
“ 增强中国法治” 的项目经理。Clémence Kucera是法国人，在埃及长大，从巴
黎第二大学获法学学士学位，随后于太平洋大学麦克乔治法学院获法学硕士学
位，专业为“ 跨国商务实务” 。她是美国律师协会、美国法学院协会和纽约律
师协会的成员。
21
Brian K. Landsberg, 出庭律师，曾为美国司法部公民权利部门工作，后
来前往该部门的教育机构工作了5年，并在上诉机构工作12年。自1986年以
来，除1993年有6个月的间隙之外，一直担任太平洋大学麦克乔治法学院教
授，在这6个月期间，其就职于司法部民权部门第二号的职位。其主要从事
萨尔茨堡的国际法律研究，同时任教于乔治城大学和加州大学伯克利分校，
并担任苏州大学王健法学院(Kenneth Wang School of Law)法律暑期学院项
目主任，亦是U.S. AID资助下太平洋麦克乔治法学院法律规则中国项目的负责人。著有《阿拉巴马州
和投票权利法案的起源》和《强制执行民事权利：种族歧视和司法部》，并与Leslie Jacobs教授合著
有《宪法中的全球问题》
，与Samuel Estreicher教授合著有《就业歧视法律中的全球问题》。
Dorothy Landsberg 于 2009 年 6 月开始暂时代理诊所系列项目的主任职
务。自 1987 年至 2007 年，她先后在萨克拉门托市最大的几间律师事务所工
作，包括 Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann, and Girard 等，从受雇律师干起直到
成为其中一间的合伙人。在 Kronick 事务所，她是劳资案组和教育案组的领
导人，也是该事务所董事会主席。她精于教育和劳工法。她曾在行政法庭、
初审法院和加利福尼亚州上诉法院出庭诉讼；她还进行过独立的劳工实务调
查并参与过集体谈判。而且，她还长期在太平洋大学麦克乔治法学院教授教
育法。她毕业于太平洋大学麦克乔治法学院，并因成绩优异而入选 the Order
of the Coif（译者注：这是一个美国法学院优秀毕业生的社会团体，只有成
绩排名在班里前百分之十的毕业生有资格加入）。而在进入太平洋大学麦克乔治法学院之前，她已经
在华盛顿特区的 Shea & Gardner 律师事务所担任律师助手。1974 年她作为工作人员服务于美国众议院
司法委员会弹劾调查组。她的职业生涯正式开始于美国司法部民权处，其时她在处长 John Doar 手下
工作。
22
Jay Leach，与Joseph Taylor教授和Cary Bricker教授一起讲授审判
辩护课程和高级庭审辩护课程（1999年新增加的课程），并单独教授
证据学，在智利和意大利开授辩护技巧课程，并为国家诉讼辩护协会
讲授辩护技巧课程。1996年，其从费城来到麦克乔治法学院，并兼任
出庭律师、Drinker Biddle & Reath律所的合伙人和天普大学法学院的
教师。在1978年加入律所之前，其在宾夕法尼亚州高等法院为Edmund Spaeth法官工作了两年，负
责处理企业和商业纠纷，特许经营，建设，汽车产品赔偿责任方面的案件。他同时也是律所替代性纠
纷解决集团的主席，曾参与数百万美元标的案件的替代性纠纷解决方案的拟定。在USAID项目中，其
在智利首都圣地亚哥、中国北京讲授庭审技巧，同时也是意大利帕尔马大学的客座教师。
李超，中国政法大学法学院副教授，曾赴美国大学华盛顿法学院学习法律诊
所教育的 LLM 课程。这是中国政法大学和美国大学华盛顿法学院的合作交
流项目。其于 1997 年获得硕士学位，2004 年获得博士学位。从 1997 年
起，其作为一名法学教师已任教十年，亦是一名兼职律师。
刘建明，浙江工商大学诊所教育中心主任。自 1987 年至 1991 年从事律师
职业期间，处理了大量的刑事、环境违法和房地产案件。1991 年，成为法
学院教师，教授许多课程，主要为国际私法和国际经济法。自 2006 年起，
致力于建立和推进浙江省的法律诊所教育，研究领域包括法律职业道德、律
师技能，并已有两年多的实践、教学与科研经验。
23
Luo Wenyan，于 2003 年成为浙江工商大学教师，教授行政诉讼法、行政
法和国家赔偿法课程，且其教授的行政法和行政诉讼法课程被评为省级课
程。现任浙江工商大学法学院副院长，亦是兼职律师，处理部分行政法领域
的案件。2007 年 8 月到 2008 年 5 月，其在麦克乔治法学院攻读“ 辩护的
讲授” 的 LLM 学位。
Mao Xiaoxiao，浙江工商大学讲师，太平洋大学麦克乔治法学院访问学
者，浙江法律协会世贸组织委员会（the WTO Commission of Zhejing Legal
Association）主任，上海金融与法律研究院研究员。参加了在广州和杭州举
行的诊所及辩护培训，并提交论文“ 美国和中国诊所法律教育的区别” 。
Elliott Milstein，2000年美国法学院协会主席，是第一位当选这一职位的
诊所教师。1988年至1995年，任华盛顿法学院院长。1993年，暂时代理美
国大学校长职务。自1969年起，一直担任诊所教师，并在华盛顿法学院建立
了诊所项目。其关于校内诊所教育的理念和方法处于领先地位，培训了大量
的诊所教师。其目前教授民事实践诊所，同时负责推进培训新的诊所教师项
目的发展。
24
J. L. Pottenger, Jr.是耶鲁法学院的Nathan Baker诊所教育法学教授。他从普
林斯顿大学威尔逊公共和国际事务学院获得学士学位（1971），专业是公共
及城市事务；之后于耶鲁法学院获法学博士学位（1975）。他于1993年12月
被 授 予 Nathan Baker 教 授 称 号 （ 之 前 该 称 号 由 Geoffrey Hazard 和 Lea
Brilmayer获得）。Pottenger教授从1989年起就获得了诊所教育法学教授的职
称，并于1991至2002年间担任耶鲁大学诊所研究负责人。他教授的诊所课
程内容包括：公共政策、立法辩护、住房问题、社区发展、公民权利，以及一些有关律师职业道德和
庭审实务的课程。他的诊所教学和辩护水平在法律诊所教育协会、美国法学院协会和美国律师协会中
广受赞誉。Pottenger教授还担任着哈佛大学、诺森比亚大学和波士顿大学等著名学府的客座教授，还
担任过牛津大学社会法律研究中心和伦敦大学高级法律研究学院的访问学者。通过与福特基金、雅礼
协会、中国诊所法律教育专业委员会和耶鲁法学院中国法中心密切合作，Pottenger教授在中国广为讲
学。
Teng Hongqing，华南理工大学法学院副院长，广东省地方法律制度研究中
心研究员。人权法，宪法和行政法专家。2006年，获得武汉大学法学博士学
位。2007-2008年，在美国大学华盛顿法学院参与了LLM项目。作为法学教
授，教授比较宪法，法理学，行政法和行政诉讼法，人权法（双语），以及人
权诊所课程。出版著作多本，包括《国家应急权力和人权危机：论法律制度
的紧急状态》、《在中国建设法治道路》、《法律人文观》、《论人权法》等，在
主要期刊上发表论文20余篇，如《对司法权的监督和检查》、《构建广州法治政府》、《广州应急法律制
度研究》等。现任广东省法学会理事会会员，广东省宪法学会理事会会员。2008年4月22日，担任在
华盛顿举行的“ 法学院在促进和保护人权中的作用” 会议小组成员，广州市“ 中美司法道德比较研
究” 研讨会小组成员。
25
王永梅，中律原咨询（北京）有限公司项目官员。王女士于 2001 年 7 月，
自厦门大学取得法学学士后，赴英国诺丁汉大学攻读法学硕士，取得英国海
商法硕士学位后，她继续在英国法律学院的约克分部以优异成绩完成了英国
律师课程。她于 2009 年 3 月加入中律原咨询（北京）有限公司。她主要负
责了农村法律援助学生志愿者项目、农民与农村问题法律诊所项目、业主委
员会能力建设项目、促进高等教育平等权项目、支持草根 NGO 能力建设并
推进河流保护的守望家园项目以及正在策划和实施中的中国律师及公司反歧
视培训项目。她于 2003 年自英国回国后开始从事法律职业，曾在上海昊理文
律师事务所、北京乾丰律师事务所（原浩天律师事务所）和美国高盖茨律师
事务所香港分所和北京代表处工作约 6 年的时间。王女士于 2005 年通过司法考试，2007 年正式成为
中华人民共和国执业律师。
Jarrod Wong，曾在美国和欧洲接受教育，毕业于伯克里法学院，加州大
学伯克里分校，持有英国剑桥大学颁发的法律学位一级荣誉证书和芝加哥大
学法学院的法学硕士学位。在加入该院任教前，曾在荷兰海牙担任Charles
N. Brower法官在伊朗美国索赔案中的法律顾问，并在纽约的Cravath、
Swaine & Moore律师事务所和旧金山市的Heller Ehrman and O’ Melveny
& Myers律师事务所工作。其是USAID中国项目的研究和培训教学成员之
一。USAID中国项目旨在协助中国的法律教师教授法律技能，提供诊所法律服务。
许身健，法学博士，中国政法大学副教授。自2004年起，在中国政法大学
法学院任教。2006年和2007年，被评为中国政法大学优秀教师。2007年3
月，被任命为法学院法律职业伦理教研室主任，2007年6月，被任命为法学
院实践教学教研室主任，并于2007年9月，被任命为法学院法律诊所项目的
主任。独著或合著的著作超过10余本。教授法律伦理，程序法，法律诊所
和有关课程。
26
杨睿，中律原咨询（北京）有限公司项目官员。杨女士2004年在西北政法大学获
得法学学士（经济法学），2007年在清华大学法学院获得法学硕士（法理学）。她
于2006年8月开始在中律原咨询（北京）有限公司担任学生助手。2007年5月正
式加入中律原，任项目官员一职，负责中律原的推动中国法治合作项目，主要负
责农村法治、反歧视法、NGO法律运用能力建设等项目的管理工作。杨女士热爱
非营利事业，在校期间曾参加清华大学中英艾滋病立法研究项目、清华大学农村基层法律服务人员培
训项目和日本神户大学“ 市场化社会的法动态学研究中心” 的律师制度比较研究等公益法项目。杨女
士还于2008年5月获得劳动部颁发的心理咨询师二级证书。
易继明，华中科技大学法学院院长、教授、博士研究生导师。1968 年 02 月
生 ， 湖 北 公 安 人 。 中 南 政 法 学 院 法 学 学 士 （ 1990 ）， 北 京 大 学 法 学 硕 士
（1999）、法学博士（2002），中国社会科学院博士后（2004），美国哥伦比
亚大学访问学者（2005－2006），曾任中国社会科学院法学研究所研究员、
研究生院法学系教授（2004－2006）。2002 年始任华中科技大学教授，现任
华中科技大学法学院司法研究所所长。创办《私法》、《中国科技法学年刊》
和《Journal for Law and Policy in China》任主编至今，并任《科技与法律》
杂志社副主编至今。他是中国法学会民法学研究会理事、中国科学技术法学
会会长助理、湖北省法学会民法学研究会副会长、湖北省检察学研究会副会长、湖北省法学会仲裁法
研究会副会长、湖北省法学会学术委员会委员、湖北省科学技术法学会会长。他还是中国政协湖北省
第十届委员会委员，湖北省人民检察院专家咨询委员会委员、咨询专家。
于国旦 从中国政法大学获得硕士和博士学位，自 2004 年以来担任中国政法
大学刑事法学院教授。于教授讲授刑法和犯罪学等课程，也同其他教授以合
作教学方式进行辩护技巧培训。于教授独著和合著的著作已超过五本。
27
曾文革，重庆大学法学院副院长，教授，博士生导师。出生于 1966 年 8
月，重庆市人。1987 年 7 月毕业于在西南政法学院法学本科获法学学士学
位，1999 年 7 月在西南政法大学获经济法硕士学位，2004 年 1 月在西南
政法大学获得经济法博士学位。2004 年 3 月至 5 月在香港大学法学院作访
问学者三个月；2004 年 7 月至 2005 年 8 月在美国佛罗里达大学法学院作
访问学者一年；2008 年 9 月至今在武汉大学法学院攻读国际法博士后。他
主要从事国际经济法和环境与资源保护法的教学与研究。他是中国国际经
济法研究会理事、中国法学会环境与资源保护法学研究会理事、重庆市法
学会国际经济法研究会秘书长、重庆市法学会环境与资源保护法学研究会 秘
书长，重庆市人大常委会立法咨询专家。
28
Last Name: Cao
First Name: Haijing
Last Name: Chang
First Name: Phyllis
School: Central China Univ. of Sci. & Tech.
Affliation: CLD
Phone: 1397-109-0882
Phone: (86) 10-8526-2420
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Chen
First Name: Xugang
School: Central China Univ. of Sci. & Tech.
Phone:
E-mail:
Last Name: Dong
First Name: Jingbo
School: CUPL
Phone: 13718294696
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Hu
First Name: Minfei
School: ZGU
Phone: 13867422078
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Chen
First Name: Jianmin
Affiliation: CCCLE
Phone: (86) 10-8286-3936
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Chen
First Name: Zhonglin
School: Chongqing University
Phone: 1388-306-2257
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Dinerstein
First Name: Robert
School: American University
Phone: 202-274-4141
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Gao
First Name: Jinkang
Last Name: Han
First Name: Guijun
Affiliation: CCCLE
Phone:
E-mail: [email protected]
School: Southwestern Univ. Finance and Econ.
Phone: 1398-067-6998
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Jiang
First Name: Bo
School: Southwestern Univ. of Finance and Econ.
Phone:
E-mail:
29
Last Name: Kucera
First Name: Clemence
School: McGeorge
Phone: 916-739-7353
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Landsberg
First Name: Brian
School: McGeorge
Phone: 916-739-7103
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Landsberg
First Name: Dorothy
School: McGeorge
Phone: 916-739-6145
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Leach
First Name: Thomas J.
School: McGeorge
Phone: 916-739-7002
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Li
First Name: Chao
School: CUPL
Phone: 13701156195
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Liu
First Name: Jian Ming
School: ZGU
Phone: 13905819017
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Luo
First Name: Wenyan
School: ZGU
Phone:13067917996
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Mao
First Name: Xiaoxiao
School: ZGU
Phone: 15868833666
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Milstein
First Name: Elliott
School: American University
Phone: 202-274-4224
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Pottenger
First Name: Jay
School: Yale
Phone:
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Teng
First Name: Hongqing
School: SCUT
Phone: 15920178947
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Wang
First Name: Yongmei
Affiliation: CLD
Phone: 1370-133-8760
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Wong
First Name: Jarrod
School: McGeorge
Phone: 916-739-7231
E-mail: [email protected]
30
Last Name: Xu
First Name: Shenjian
School: CUPL
Phone: 13611293026
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Yang
First Name: Rui
Affiliation: CLD
Phone: 1358-150-2249
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Yu
First Name: Guodan
School: CUPL
Phone: 13691298071
E-mail: [email protected]
Last Name: Zeng
First Name: Wenge
School: Chongqing University
Phone:
E-mail:
Last Name: Yu
First Name: Lei (Inez)
Phone: 13360025909
E-mail: [email protected]
Interpreter
Last Name: Du
First Name: Biyu (Jade)
Phone: 13360025957
E-mail: [email protected]
Interpreter
31
Last Name: Yi
First Name: Jiming
School: Central China Univ. of Sci. & Tech.
Phone:
E-mail:
Clinical Legal Education
Teacher Training In China
中国诊所式法律教育教师培训
CURRICULUM OUTLINE
课程大纲
Dr. Hongqing Teng
South China University of Technology Law School
[email protected]
滕宏庆
华南理工大学法学院
32
Day 1
Session I: Introduction to Training and CLE General Overview
Session II: Introduction into CLE Methodology
1. Brainstorming
2. Learning Pyramid Structure
3. Clinical Teaching Methods
4. Preparation of a Lesson Plan: Elements of an Effective Clinical Law Lesson
5. Clinical Legal Education Lesson Plan Template
Session III: Demonstrative CLE Interview Lesson
6. Interview Lesson – Active Listening Lesson Plan
7. Suggestive Interview and Consultation Topics To Be Included Into CLE Program
8. Interview Skills
9. Litigation Interviewing and Advising Guide
10. Participants’ Case Study
Session IV: Demonstrative CLE Counseling/Advice-Giving Lesson
11. Counseling/Advice Giving Skills Lesson Plan
12. Demonstration Case Study
13. Types of Blockages That Occur During the Counseling Sessions
14. Counseling/Advice- Giving Lesson Plan Template
Session V: Group Work on Developing an Interview and Counseling Lesson
Plan
第一天
第一节 培训简介和诊所式法律教育的回顾
第二节 诊所式法律教育的方法
1. 头脑风暴
2. 学习的金字塔结构
3. 诊所式法律教育方法
4. 准备课程设计：有效的诊所式法律课程的组成元素
5. 诊所式法律教育课程设计模板
第三节 诊所式法律教育之会见课程
6. 会见课程：积极聆听的课程计划
7. 诊所式法律教育中建议性会见和咨询的主题
8. 会见技巧
9. 诉讼会见和建议指导
33
10. 参加者的案例分析
第四节 诊所式法律教育之咨询课程
11. 咨询技巧课程计划
12. 案例分析
13. 阻碍会见咨询的情形
14. 咨询课程模板
第五节 参加者集体进行会见和咨询课程设计
34
Day 2
Session I: Introduction into Alternative Dispute Resolution
15. Teaching Aspects of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Session II: Demonstrative CLE Negotiation Lesson
16. Negotiation Guidelines
17. Negotiation Lesson Plan
18. Negotiation Lesson Plan Template
Session III.: Demonstrative CLE Mediation Lesson
19. Steps in Mediation
20. Mediation Lesson Plan
21. Mediation Lesson Plan Template
Session IV: Group Work on Developing a ADR Lesson Plan
第二天
第一节 非替代性纠纷解决简介
15. 非替代性纠纷解决的教学领域
第二节 诊所式法律教育之谈判课程
16. 谈判指导
17. 谈判课程计划
18. 谈判课程计划模板
第三节 诊所式法律教育之调解课程
19. 调解步骤
20. 调解课程计划
21. 调解课程计划模板
第四节 参加者集体进行非替代性纠纷解决课程设计
35
Day 3
Visit I: Visit to local law schools clinics and meeting with law students –
interns & teachers
Visit II: Visit to the Office of the Legal Aid of local government and meeting
with officials and public interest lawyers
Visits Debriefing
Session I: General Introduction into Street Law and Street Law Teaching
Methods
Session II: Group Work on Developing a Street Law Lesson Plan
Session III: Legal Ethics and Legal Professionalism in CLE
Session IV: Establishing and Running Sustainable Clinic
第三天
参观 1： 参见当地法学院法律诊所，与法学院学生和教师会谈
参观 2： 参观当地法律援助机构，与政府官员和公益律师会谈
参观总结
第一节 普法简介和普法教学方法
第二节 参加者集体进行普法课程设计
第三节 诊所式法律教育中法律伦理与法律职业培养
第四节 建立和运作可持续的法律诊所
36
Simulation Exercise
Hongqing Teng
A 24-years-old female job applicant was refused by the Tiantai County People’s Court of
Zhejiang Province just because the girl’s stature is 157 cm that isn’t fit to the 158 cm standard,
even though she had passed the Skills Examination, the Paper Examination and the Oral
Examination.
On June 26, 2006 the Tiantai County People’s Court of Zhejiang Province and the Tiantai
County Personnel, Labor and Social Security Bureau advertised through the Tiantai Daily that
the Trial Security Centre of Tiantai County People’s Court will provide 3 court clerk positions
determined by the public examinations, but the applicants should be healthy besides male’s
stature is more than 168 cm and female’s stature is more than 158 cm. The Centre belongs to the
County Court and gets the financial budget from the government, so the court clerk is civil
servant.
The girl, BINBIN HU, participated all of examinations and finally was ranked the 2nd
position of all applicants. But on July 25, when she went to the hospital empowered by the
Bureau to take the body examination, her stature is 157 cm. So the hospital diagnosed she was
out of the condition. Then the Bureau confirmed the hospital’s written result that she can’t be
accepted as a court clerk.
So Miss HU filed an administrative appeal to the Bureau, but she didn’t receive the
adjudication under the time ruled by the law. Then she filed the claim to the Court. She argued
that the stature condition is illegal because that is conflicted with the Constitution, Labor Law,
Regulation on People’s Court Clerk (Trying out), etc. So this condition is a discrimination
condition. She claimed that the decision of Bureau was illegal and should be suspended; the
Bureau should confirm her body examination was eligible and accept her as court clerk.
37
Miss HU does not know how to solve the situation and has come to the University Clinic
for advice and assistance.
1.
What are the facts you can find out and what rules might be applied for this case?
2.
Are there other cases like this which have been decided by the court supporting for
this case?
3.
What are your suggestions and your final goals?
38
模拟练习
滕宏庆
浙江省天台县人民法院拒绝录用 24 岁的女孩，虽然她通过了职业技能考试、笔试和
面试，原因是她身高为 157cm，并不符合 158cm 的体检要求。
2006 年 6 月 26 日，浙江省天台县人民法院和天台县人事劳动社会保障局在《天天天
台》刊发了天台县人民法院审判保障服务中心考录聘任制书记员的《考录公告》。该公告
中载明：招聘聘任制书记员 3 名；招聘条件：身体健康，男身高 168 厘米以上，女身高
158 厘米以上。由于该中心隶属县法院，并通过政府获得财政预算，所以，法院书记员属
于公务员序列。
当事人胡彬彬参加了所有录取考试，最终在所有申请人中排名第二位。但是 6 月 25
日，当她参加人事局委托的医院组织的体检时，她测量的身高为 157cm。所以，医院判断
她不符合体检要求。人事局也确认了医院结果，导致她不能被录用为书记员。
对此，胡彬彬向天台县人事劳动社会保障局提出异议，并提交书面申请书，在没有得
到回复的情况下，胡彬彬又将天台县人事劳动社会保障局告上法庭。
胡彬彬认为，将身高作为招聘条件，违反了宪法、劳动法、人事部《事业单位公开招
聘人员暂行规定》第十条：“事业单位公开招聘人员，不得设置歧视性条件要求”的规定，
以及中组部、人事部、最高人民法院《人民法院书记员管理办法(试行)》。天台县人事劳
动社会保障局作出的体检不合格的具体行政行为违法，要求予以撤销，并确定她体检合格
，准予进入考核聘用环节。
胡彬彬不知如何解决这一问题，而来到法律诊所寻求建议和帮助
39
1. 本案中的事实和法律问题有哪些？
2. 是否有其他相似判例可以支持胡彬彬？
3. 您的建议和最终目标是什么？
40
Draft Teaching Plan
Professor: Luo Wenyan, Hu Mingfei, Liu Jianming, Mao Xiaoxiao
I.
Clinic
1. Legal Ethics
(Professor: Liu Jianming, Mao Xiaoxiao)
1.1 The purpose of teaching legal ethics
To find an effective teaching method is the key to teach legal ethics in
clinics. The most important thing is to make student not only believe in legal
ethics but also follow it to practice law.
The training of legal ethics consists of two phases. The first phase is to make
the students understand legal ethics, i.e., from “blank” to “occupied”. The
second phase is to make the students from “occupied” to “honest,
convinced, faithful, devotional”. The clinic education provides students the
opportunity to deal with real case, interview with real client, encounter the
confusion between morality and real interests, so that students can obtain
the concept of legal ethics spontaneously and achieve the change from
“occupied” to “honest, convinced, faithful, devotional”. It is also the purpose
of legal education.
1.2 The content of teaching
1.2.1 The relationship between lawyer and court, prosecute and arbitration
institution.
1.2.2 The professional discipline between lawyers
The focus: The relation between lawyer and client, the concept of “clientoriented” and confidential obligation of lawyer
1.3 Teaching Material
1.3.1 Lawyer Law of PRC
1.3.2 Yang Jia case and Zhang Luye case (real clinic case)
2. Interview with client
(Professor: Liu Jianming, Mao Xiaoxiao)
41
2.1 The purpose of teaching
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
Understand the fact of case from client
Understand the purpose and need of client
Establish the effective tie between lawyer and client
Reduce the anxiety of client
2.2 The content of teaching
2.2.1 Preparation before interview
2.2.1.1 Choose an appropriate interview location
2.2.1.2 Improve the efficiency and prepare with pertinence
2.2.1.3 deal with the appearance and wearing
2.2.2 The general procedure of interview
2.2.2.1 Brief introduction
2.2.2.2 Information collection
(a) Open statement phase (Client introduces the case generally,
focusing on who, when, what, where, why, how )
(b) Specific and pertinent questioning phase (lawyers ask the pertinent
questions)
(c) Review phase (lawyer repeats the fact of case and client corrects
and complete the details)
2.2.2.3 Target confirmation
Understand the client’s specific need and requirement when dealing with the
dispute
2.2.2.4 Ending
This is the work after interview.
2.2.3 The basic skills of interview
2.2.3.1
2.2.3.2
2.2.3.3
2.2.3.4
2.2.3.5
2.2.3.5
Listen actively
Respect the client
Overtake the lawyer’s own subjective and objective obstacles
Catch the key points of case
Learn to feedback in time
Use the body language
2.3 Teaching material
2.3.1 Fang Jieming case (Hangzhou Training )
42
3. Fact Finding
(Professor: Liu Jianming, Mao Xiaoxiao)
3.1 The purpose of teaching
3.1.1 Skills of fact finding
3.1.2 Strategy of evidence collection
3.2 The difficulties of evidence collection and the strategy to remove the
difficulties
3.3 Teaching material
Li Weiguo vs. Wang Baogen case
4. Management of litigation strategy
(Professor: Liu Jianming, Mao Xiaoxiao)
4.1 Management of litigation strategy
4.1.1 Choose the appropriate defendant
4.1.2 Analysis and evaluation of existing evidence
4.1.3 Analysis and evaluation of potential evidence and evaluation of
difficulties in obtaining evidence
4.1.4 Legal Research and evaluation of existing laws
4.1.5 Analysis and evaluation of possible strategy
of other party
4.2 Provide various strategies to client
4.3 The issues need to be addressed in management of litigation strategy
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
Social effect
Economic factor
Human factor
Time factor
4.4 Teaching Material
Li Weiguo vs. Wang Baogen case/ Wu Jinjin vs. Ni Dehua case
43
II.
Advocacy
1. Negotiation
(Professor: Luo Wenyan, Hu Mingfei)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
The
The
The
The
purpose of negotiation
strategy of negotiation
skill of negotiation
main teaching model of negotiation: Simulation
2. Argument in Court
(Professor: Luo Wenyan, Hu Mingfei)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
it
The
The
The
The
purpose and focus of argument in court
establishment of topic and the organization of content
method and skill of argument in court
main teaching model of argument in court: feedback and how to use
44
教学大纲
授课人:罗文燕，胡敏飞，刘建明，毛骁骁
一、法律诊所部分
第一讲:法律职业道德
授课人:毛骁骁、刘建明
教学目标：寻求有效的法律职业道德的教学方法和途径是培养学生的职业道德修养的关键
。最重要的是要实现由”信之“而进一步上升为”行之“。
职业道德的培养过程应该说要实现两次飞跃
第一次飞跃是要实现对职业道德的内容从“无知”到“已知”的跨越；
第二次飞跃是要实现从“已知”到“诚信、信服、信念，信仰“的提升和突破。
法律诊所教育从学生接触真实的案件、会见真实的当事人、处理真实的道德和利益的困惑
，从中来自觉培养学生道德品质，完成由”知之“到”信之“的态度或情感的养成,才是法学
教育的最终目的。
教学内容：
(1)律师在处理与审判机关、检察机关、仲裁机关的相互关系
(2)律师在处理与同行关系时应遵守的执业纪律
(3)律师在处理与当事人的相互关系时应遵守的执业纪律
重点突出：律师与当事人的关系，表现当事人为中心的理念，重点讲解律师的保密义务。
教学材料：
2007 年修改的《中华人民共和国律师法》
杨佳案件以及张芦叶案件（诊所学生代理的案件）
第二讲：会见当事人
授课教师：毛骁骁、刘建明
教学目标：
1、了解客户所知的案件事实
2、了解客户的目标和诉求
3、建立律师与客户之间的有效联系
45
4、切实减少客户的忧虑
教学内容：
（一） 会见当事人前的准备
1、选择合适的会见场所
2、提高效率，有针对性进行必要准备工作
3、调整好会见前的心态和情绪
4、处理好自己的穿着打扮
（二）会见当事人的基本程序
1、简短的开场白
2、信息收集部分，
(1)开放式陈述阶段（客户泛泛地讲述案情，主要围绕 WHO、WHEN、WHAT、
WHERE、WHY、HOW）
（2）详尽而有针对性的提问阶段（由律师提出具有针对性的问题）
（3）回顾阶段（由律师复述案件事实，由客户来纠正和补充）
3、目标确认阶段：了解客户在解决纠纷时所期望达到的确切目标包括具体的诉求和要
求
4、结束部分，这是你和客户达到会见后事项的部分。
（三）会见当事人的基本技巧
1、会见客户的基本技巧一，积极地倾听
2、尊重当事人
3、努力突破律师自身的主、客观的障碍
4、抓住案件的本质
5、学会及时反馈
6、适当地运用肢体语言
教学材料：
去年杭州培训的方明杰案的录像资料
第三讲：事实发现及证据的收集
授课教师：毛骁骁、刘建明
教学目标：
Fact finding, The strategy of evidence collection 事实发现
46
证据收集策略
证据收集中可能出现的障碍及其排除这些障碍的策略
教学材料：
李卫国诉王宝根案件
第四讲：诉讼策略的谋划
授课老师：毛骁骁、刘建明
教学内容：
一、诉讼策略的谋划
1、选择合适的被告
2、对现有证据的分析和评估
3、对潜在证据的分析及取证障碍和风险的评估
4、对相关法律法令的研读和评估
5、对方当事人可能进行的谋略的分析与预估
二、给当事人提供可供选择的多种策略
三、诉讼策略谋划需要注意的问题
（1）社会影响
（2）经济因素
（3）人际因素
（4）时间因素
教学材料：
李卫国诉王宝根案件或者吴晶晶诉倪德华一案
二、抗辩技能部分
第一讲：谈判
1．谈判的目的
2．谈判的策略
3．谈判的技巧
3．谈判的主要教学方式—模拟演练
第二讲：法庭辩论
47
1．法庭辩论的目的与重点
2．论题的确立与内容的组织
3．法庭辩论的方式与技巧
4．法庭辩论的主要教学方式—点评与反馈的要点及运用
48
Curriculum for 3 days training of advocacy teaching
First Day: Introduction of the meeting/Advocate for the clients(roles of lawyer in
negotiation, mediation)
9:00
10:00
11:00
14:00
15:45 –
17:00
Introduction of the meeting
Introduce the members of the meeting by the one from another school
What is experiential study and simulations?
Simulations in negotiation: PHOENIX
All the members participate (in class and out of class）
simulations in mediation：PHOENIX
Duties of each group
First group discussion (focus on the legal issues in simulation, the background of
the case, the character and story of the simulation).
Second Day: Advocate for the clients------trial advocacy training
9：00
10：30
14：00
15：30
16：30
Simulations (argument)：advocate for the plaintiff and defendant。
The trainer evaluate the performance and points out the how to make persuasive
argument. Since the legal argument should have supporting evidence, there is
need for direct examination and cross examination.
Trial advocate skills 一——Direct examination
Simulations: PHOENIX
One group simulated as students, the other group practice as a professor and give
evaluations of the performance. The trainer will comment on the performance
and the evaluation, show the right way to do so
Trial advocate skills 一——Direct examination simulations: PHOENIX
One group simulated as students, the other group practice as a professor and give
evaluations of the performance. The trainer will comment on the performance
and the evaluation, show the right way to do so.
Trial advocate skills 一——opening and closing statement
Simulations: PHOENIX
One group simulated as students, the other group practice as a professor and give
evaluations of the performance. The trainer will comment on the performance
and the evaluation, show the right way to do so.
Advocacy training topic: how to evaluation the students simulations
Scientific way to evaluate the students: the marking chart by the audience in trial
advocacy and the self-evaluation chart in appellate advocacy (provided by
McGeorge school of law).
The third day: Experiential teaching class preparation (content and syllabus)
9：00
Trial Advocacy class: content and the syllabus
CUPL will show how to teach the class by DVD, PPT
49
10：00
11：00
14：00
Discussion in class: the advocacy skills in Chinese Court and the transferability of
the American teaching model.
Group discussion on making the syllabus of the advocacy skills class.
Experiential teaching in traditional class
Case study: simulated case and the performance of the students. (Done by Jingbo
Dong, taking international economic law for example
PPT and discussion
15:00
16：00
Group discussion, divided by different subjects (civil law, criminal law)
Making the class plan of experiential teaching in different subject class.
Group report
17：00
Concluding report of the meeting
Jingbo Dong
Shenjian Xu
50
课程表：三天抗辩技巧教学培训
第一日
会议简介/为当事人抗辩（谈判和调解中的律师角色）
9:00
会议简介
成员“互相介绍”
10:00
什么是体验性教学或模拟教学？
11:15
模拟谈判: PHOENIX
全班性模拟（课内+课外）
12：00
午休
14:00
模拟调解：PHOENIX
15:30
课间休息
15:45—17：00 分组任务介绍
小组第一次讨论
确定需要通过模拟展现的法律问题、为模拟设计有真实感的事实背景、为模拟设计人物及
故事
第二日 为当事人抗辩——美式法庭中的律师抗辩技巧培训
9：00 模拟练习：PHENIX 案子，要求双方以出庭律师身份进行辩论。
培训人指出有说服力的抗辩的要素并点评辩论，同时指出辩论的论据要依法获得，
所 以有必要对证人进行直接询问和交叉询问
10：30 法庭中的律师抗辩技巧一——直接询问
模拟练习：PHOENIX 案子，双方进行直接询问练习
一组进行模拟练习，另一组被培训人评价
培训人分析模拟练习和评价，指出正误，并示范正确的模拟和评价。
14：00 法庭中的律师抗辩技巧---------交叉询问
模拟练习：PHOENIX 案子，要求双方以出庭律师身份进行交叉询问。
培训人分析模拟练习和评价，指出正误，并示范正确的模拟和评价。
15：30 法庭中的律师抗辩技巧一—开庭和最后陈述
模拟练习：PHOENIX 案子，要求双方以出庭律师身份进行模拟练习。
培训人分析模拟练习和评价，指出正误，并示范正确的模拟和评价。
16：30．抗辩技巧培训专题：如何评价学生
51
重点避免随意性，展示一审打分表及二审打分表
第三日 实践性教学课程设置
9：00 抗辩技巧课程: 内容及大纲
中国政法大学 PPT、DVD 演示课堂教学活动及成果并展示教学大纲
10：00 组织讨论：中国法庭中的律师抗辩技巧及美国教学模式的可转化性
11：00 小组第二次讨论并制定各组抗辩技巧课课程大纲
14：00 在传统课程中使用实践性教学方法
实例剖析：模拟案例介绍及学生书写代理词情况（以董京波国际经济法课模拟案例
为例）
PPT 演示及讨论
15:00 小组第三次讨论，按学科分组，拟定模拟教学的课程大纲。
16：00 小组工作成果报告
17：00 会议总结
董京波
许身健
52
刑事诊所教案
Trial advocacy curriculum
教学案例：刘长江抢劫案（为当事人抗辩，第８３－１０９页）
Case material: Liu Chang jiang’s robbery case (representing the client, page 83-109)
第一次课，９０分钟
Class One, 90 minutes
主题：分析案件，发现案件主张
Subject: analyzing case material and finding case theory
目标：通过分析案件材料，控辩双方总结本方的案件主张和可供利用的证据
Goal: both of prosecutor and defender conclude their case theory and find evidence which can be
used in the trial by analyzing case material
活动：
Activities:
1、学生分为两组，进行头脑风暴，找到控辩双方的案件主张及可供利用的证据（６０分
钟）
1. Dividing students into 2 groups to do brain storm to find the case theory and evidences
supporting their case theories (60 minutes)
2、了解案件需要适用的程序法和实体法（３０分钟）
2. Reviewing related substantial and procedure law (30 minutes)
第二次课 １２０分钟
Class Two, 120 minutes
主题：直接询问，学生分组进行直接询问技巧的演示、评析。
Subject: direct examination
目标：
Goals:
1、明确直接询问的目标和意义
1. Learning what direct examination is
53
2、掌握直接询问的基本策略和方法
2. Learning strategy and skills of direct examination
活动 ：
Activities: (120 minutes)
1、指导教师进行直接询问介绍（１０分钟）
1. Lecture on constructing direct examination (30 minutes)
2、观看直接询问的视频（１０分钟）
2. Watching video of direct examination (10 minutes)
3、学生分为若干小组，进行直接询问的模拟演练，并进行录像（８０分钟）
3. Dividing students into several groups to do direct examination, and all the process would be
videoed (80 minutes)
4、学生进行自我评价，指导教师进行点评（２０分钟）
4. Students self-evaluate and instructor critiques (20 minutes)
第三次课：１２０分钟
Class Three, 120 minutes
主题：间接询问，学生分组进行交叉询问技巧的演示、评析
Subject: cross examination
目标：
Goals:
1、明确间接询问的目标和意义
1. Learning what cross examination is
2、掌握间接询问的基本策略和方法
2. Learning the strategy and skills of cross examination
活动：
Activities:
1、指导教师进行间接询问介绍（１０分钟）
1. Lecture on constructing cross examination (10 minutes)
2、观看间接询问的视频。（１０分钟）
54
2. Watching video of cross examination (10 minutes)
3、学生分为若干小组，进行间接询问的模拟演练，并进行录像（８０分钟）
3. Dividing students into several groups to do cross examination, and the whole process would
be videoed (80 minutes)
４、学生进行自我评价，指导教师进行点评（２０分钟）
4. Students self-evaluate and instructor critiques and discussion the same (20 minutes)
第四次课：１２０分钟
Class Four, 120 minutes
主题：庭审辩论技巧，学生分组进行庭审辩论的演示；
Subject: debate in the trial
目标：
Goal:
掌握庭审辩论的基本策略和方法
Grasping debate strategy and skills in the trial
活动：
Activities:
1、邀请专家进行辩论技巧的讲授（如果可能，３０分钟）
1. Lecture on debate skill by an expert (30 minutes)
2、学生分为若干小组，进行辩论演练，并进行录像。（８０分钟）
Dividing students into several groups to debate face to face, and all the process would be videoed
(80 minutes)
3、学生进行自我评价，指导教师进行点评（１０分钟）
Students self-evaluate and instructor critiques and discussion the same (10 minutes)
第五次课：１２０分钟
Class Five,(120 minutes)
主题：开庭和最后陈述，学生分组进入开庭和最后陈述技巧的演练；
Subjects:
Opening and closeting statement
55
目标：
Goals:
1、掌握开庭和总结陈述的基本方法
1. Knowing the skills of opening and closing statement
２、掌握法律文书的写作
2. Knowing how to do legal writing
活动：
1、学生分为若干小组，进行模拟演练，并进行录像（１００分钟）
1. Dividing students into several groups to process opening and closing statements which would
be videoed (100 minutes)
2、学生进行自我评价，指导教师进行点评（２０分钟）。
Students self-evaluate and instructor critiques (20 minutes)
第六次课：１８０分钟
Class Six,(180 minutes)
主题：模拟法庭，按照刑事诉讼程序对案件进行审理，并作出判决
Subject: moot trial
目标：
Goals:
１、在法官的住持下，通过法庭审判
1. Doing trial presided by a judge
２、系统运用直接询问、间接询问、法庭辩论和开场陈述和总结陈述的技巧
2. Using learned skills of direct, cross examination, debate opening and closing statements in
previous classes
活动：
Activities:
１、学生分为若干小组，分别扮演法官、辩护人、检察官角色，进行一次完整的法庭审理
（１５０分钟）
1. Dividing students into several groups to do simulation as a real trial which would be videoed
(150 minutes)
56
２、学生进行自我评价，指导教师进行点评（３０分钟）
2. Students self-evaluate and instructor critiques (30 minutes)
Guodan Yu
于国旦
CUPL
中国政法大学
57
Case material
An advocator on consumer interests and his lawsuit profit
Mr. Wang was a retired teacher. In the past few years，He had engaged in the fight against
counterfeit goods in health care supplements, so as to safeguard the interests of consumers.
There were many health products claimed to be effective in the treatment of diabetes, these
products were health food, not drugs.
But in fact, the majority of these health foods had no any effect for the treatment of diabetic.
Moreover, there was a serious fraud on these products advertising, such as a false description,
false ingredients, the product's packaging did not conform to state standards, etc. However, these
activities were not serious, at least, not criminal activities. Though health supplements had no
any effect on treatment diseases, but they were not harmful to consumer’s health.
Mr. Wang had diabetes, however, his condition was not serious. Since five years ago, he
always went to stores to buy some certain brand health supplements, then, collected enough
evidences to act claims. He claimed that there were contracts between him and manufacturers in
the purchase of those certain products, but the manufacture took a fraud for him. Obviously, the
certain product was described having effective treatment on diabetes, except the exaggerated
description, it was illegal to use the word “treatment” on food. According to Chinese law, to
punish a product marketing fraud, the victims can seek double compensation, and get some other
actual damages. And under a new law on food safety: “ PRC Food Safety Law”, certain
administration agency on food safety can make a maximum fine that 10 times the total value of
the commodity.
But for such claims similar to Mr. Wang’s activity, were controversial in China judicial
circle and legal circle. Then main focus was whether Mr. Wang is a consumer. Mr. Wang knew
clearly the false function of certain health supplement, his interest was not to treat his diabetes,
just wanted to get the double compensation and other compensation on his loss. Especially, some
times, he liked to communicate with some stores managers before he came to courts, he told
them what he found on some certain health care foods, just some defects that were not accord
with food regulations. If those managers can give him enough compensation, he would not let
them confront with the judges and administration officials.
58
One manager, Mr. Li, had spent several years on selling health care food products in this
city and built a big multiple shop. One day, Mr. Wang came to one shop, bought a lot of goods
describing some effects on treating diabetes. Then he came to our law clinic and requested us to
help him.
The product that Mr. Wang has purchased worth 50,000 yuan, for double compensation, he
can get 20,000 Yuan, 10,000 Yuan is additional profit. Moreover, under the relevant law, he can
request those costs he has actually spend, such as taxi fare, inn fare, hotel expenditure, and the
“loss of income due to absence from work”, such loss is calculated on the victim’s wage. Wang
take his whole time on pursuing those illegal health supplements, not just on Mr. Li’s product,
but in all his indictments, the loss of income is one important part. Of course, if he noticed the
food safety administration agency, Mr. Li probably would get a fine about 500.000 RMB.
Chao Li
CUPL
59
Curriculum
Part one: Demonstration
The whole trainees may divided into several groups
1. Interviewing:
30 min
2. Counseling about Mr. Wang’s case:
50 min
3. Conclusion on the case theory, different groups may provide
different opinions:
50 min
Part two: Lecture
What is the client-centered principle and how to practice it on interviewing and counseling?
2 hours
Part three ( if time is enough) Practice
Mock trial on the case
Chao Li
CUPL
60
案件材料：
王先生是一位在中国各大城市致力于打击伪劣保健品的公益维权人士。他已经退休了
，并患有不太严重的糖尿病。
在国内的各大城市的药店、商场，有很多保健品宣传其有治疗糖尿病的功效，但实际
上它们要么是添加了药物要么根本就没有任何疗效。在销售这些保健品时，销售人员会提
供一些夸大其词的宣传单、印刷品。这些保健品都不是药品，而属于食品。
王先生一般会在发现这些问题产品的时候，购买大量的产品，让售货人员开具发票，
发票上会列明具体的产品名称、盒数和价格。他还会到国家的食品卫生管理机构查询该保
健品的批号、是否违规的信息。有时候他还会写信给这些部分，就特定产品是否符合国家
在包装、批号、成份上是否违规，一般情况下，这些部分都会给他具体答复。
之后，他会向法院提起诉讼。按照国家相关法律、法规的规定，他可以获得双倍赔偿
。此外，他还会提出一些额外的法定赔偿请求，如出租车费、旅馆费用、生活费、误时费
等等。最近，国家出台的食品安全法又规定，有些违反食品安全法要求的食品，国家可以
给予高达十倍的罚金处罚。
对于王先生这样的维权人士，国内司法界、法学界存在一定的争议。主要是他是否是
知假买假。可以肯定的是，王先生精于此道，他在一些大城市租下房屋，并以所得到的赔
偿作为主要经济来源。有时候，他还会在购买产品并收集相关证据后给这些商家打电话，
告诉他们如果他得到足够的赔偿话，他可以不向工伤行政管理机关和食品卫生管理机关举
报他们的违法销售行为。
61
李先生在这座城市销售保健品已有多年，他在一家大型的连锁药店内经销自己的产品
。王先生来到李先生的一家药店铺购买了存在问题的李先生经销的保健品。然后到我们诊
所寻求帮助。
王先生购买的产品价值 5 万，如果他要求双倍赔偿的话，他可以得到 10 万，其中五
万自然是额外的收益。此外，他认为，按照国家消法的规定，他还可以得到租住房屋的花
费，因为他的户籍不在这座城市，出租车费、一些生活费。因为他认为，这些都是他在维
护自己权益时出现的。当然，如果他向食品卫生机构举报李先生的产品的话，李先生可能
会被罚 50 万。
李超
62
课程安排
一、演示：
培训者可分为几个小组
1、演示如何与当事人交流
50 分钟
2、演示如何给该案件提供一个具体的咨询意见， 每个小组可以有不同的意见。 50 分钟
3、就该起案件如何操作形成一个具体的结论
50 分钟
二、 讲授
什么是以当事人为中心以及如何将这一原则运用到接待当事人和与当事人咨询中
2 小时
三、实践（如果时间允许）
就该起案件，培训者分配角色进行一次庭审模拟
李超
63
Phoenix Enterprises, Inc. v. Intech
Electronics, Inc.
____________________
Case File
This case file is adapted from a file prepared and copyrighted by, and used by kind permission of, the
National Institute for Trial Advocacy. © 2007 National Institute for Trial Advocacy.
64
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………....iv
Application for Arbitration………………………………………………….1
Exhibit A: Intech/Phoenix Agreement……………………………..3
Exhibit B: Intech/Sakura Agreement……...……………………….7
Statement of Defense……………………………………………………...9
Stipulation: Smartplug and Sp2 Technology and Profits …………….10
Stipulation: Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing………………..11
Deposition of Tan Kar-Seng………………………………………………12
Deposition of Simon Lim ………………………………………………….15
Deposition of Carl Adams …………………………………………….......18
Deposition of George Taylor………………………………………………21
Exhibits
D-1: Intech-Phoenix letter dated November 19, 2006……………24
D-2: Sakura-Intech proposal dated November 9, 2006………….26
D-3: Intech-Phoenix airbill no. 015980234………………………..28
D-4: Intech-Phoenix airbill tracking record no. 015980234……..29
D-5: Phoenix-Intech letter dated November 24, 2006…………...30
D-6: Phoenix-Intech letter dated December 3, 2006…………….31
D-7: Intech-Phoenix letter dated December 18, 2006……………33
D-8: Phoenix-Intech fax dated December 24, 2006….…………34
D-9: Intech-Phoenix letter dated December 28, 2006…………..35
D-10: Phoenix-Intech fax dated January 1, 2007………………..36
65
Table of Contents (cont’d)
D-11: Phoenix Memo dated September 17, 2003………………37
D-12: Phoenix Memo dated September 19, 2003………………38
D-13: Intech Memo dated October 16, 2003..…………………..39
D-13a: Phoenix-Intech letter dated October 10, 2003.………...40
D-14: Intech Memo dated October 17, 2003…..………………..42
D-15: Intech Memo dated October 16, 2006……………………43
D-16: Sakura-Intech letter dated November 1, 2006…………..45
D-17: Intech-Sakura letter dated November 13, 2006.………...47
D-18: Intech-Sakura letter dated December 30, 2006 ………..49
66
PHOENIX ENTERPRISES, INC v. INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
CASE FILE
INTRODUCTION
Intech Electronics, Inc. (“Intech”) is a United States manufacturer of video game
decks and cartridges. Phoenix Enterprises, Inc. (“Phoenix”) is a Chinese manufacturer
and distributor of leisure products. In 2004, Intech and Phoenix entered into a licensing
agreement that gave Phoenix an exclusive right to distribute Intech’s video games and
players within Asia for a period of at least five years. In 2004, all Intech games and
game players were based on its patented “Smartplug” technology.
Pursuant to this contract, Phoenix manufactured and distributed “Smartplug”
products beginning in 2004.
In 2007 Intech licensed its newly-developed “Sp2” games and game players to
Sakura Company (“Sakura”), a Japanese company with a well-developed Asian
distribution network for games and toys. The Sp2 equipment utilizes technology
completely distinct from Smartplug. In the last two years Sakura’s Sp2 cartridges and
decks have virtually captured the Asian market for video games.
Phoenix has initiated arbitration against Intech, claiming that Intech violated their
agreement when it licensed the Sp2 technology to Sakura without honoring Phoenix’s
claimed right of first refusal for new products.
Intech denies breaching the contract. Intech claims, instead, that it offered
Phoenix a distribution contract for the Sp2 games and players, but that Phoenix failed
effectively or timely to exercise its right of first refusal.
67
APPLICATION FOR ARBITRATION
CLAIMANT: PHOENIX ENTERPRISES, a company incorporated and existing under
the laws of People’s Republic of China.
Domicile: 233 Tian He North Road, Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China.
Tel: (8622) 83191701; Fax: (8622) 83191722
Person in charge: Simon Lim, CEO.
RESPONDENT: INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC, a company incorporated and existing
under the laws of Delaware, USA.
Domicile: 5618 Freeport Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
Tel: (916) 391-8413; Fax: (916) 391-8417
Person in charge: George Taylor, CEO.
The Arbitration Agreement Upon Which the Present Application Relies:
The arbitration clause - Article 11 of the contract signed by and between the parties and
attached hereto as Exhibit A – provides in relevant part that “[a]ny dispute, controversy
or claim arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question
regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall . . . [failing settlement] . . . be
submitted to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission
(CIETAC) for arbitration. . . .”
The Facts and Reasons Upon Which the Arbitral Claims Rely:
1. On or about January 15, 2004, Claimant and Respondent entered into a
contract, attached hereto as Exhibit A (“the Contract”), which provides, in relevant part,
as follows:
A. That Claimant shall have an exclusive right to market in Asia
Intech video games and video games players for five years, renewable
for five additional years upon substantial satisfactory performance by
the respondent for the first five years.
B. That, in particular, Claimant shall have an exclusive right to market
the Intech “Smartplug” technology and all improvements or
modifications thereof.
C. That Claimant shall have a right of first refusal to market all new
Intech products introduced during the term of the Contract.
68
2. Claimant at all times fulfilled its material obligations under the Contract,
including investing large sums of money in the construction of production facilities and
in the development of a marketing network throughout Asia.
3. Claimant substantially and satisfactorily performed its obligations under
the Contract during its first five years, thereby entitling it to a renewal of the contract for
a second period of five years.
4. On or about August 4, 2005, Intech introduced a new product called the
Sp2.
5. In violation of the terms of the Contract, Respondent entered into an
agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B, with Sakura Company, located in Japan, to
market the Sp2.
6. On or about December 3, 2006, Claimant exercised its right of first refusal
under paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Contract of January 15, 2004, and agreed to market
the Sp2 system under terms substantially meeting or exceeding the terms of the
Respondent’s agreement with Sakura Company.
7. In violation of the terms of the Contract, Respondent refused Claimant’s
exercise of its right of first refusal and entered into the agreement with Sakura
Company.
Arbitral Claims:
1. Claimant is entitled to the specific performance of the Contract for the
marketing of the Sp2 system in Asia.
2. In addition to, and/or in the alternative to, the specific performance of the
Contract, Respondent shall pay Claimant the amount of One Hundred Eighteen Million,
Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($118,240,000) as the damages suffered by
Claimant as a result of Respondent’s breach of its contract.
Dated: January 19, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Simon Lim
69
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Intech, Electronics, Inc. (Intech) is a United States corporation
engaged in the design, development, and marketing of video games and video game
players exclusively in the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, Phoenix Enterprises, Inc. (Phoenix) is a Chinese corporation engaged
in the sale and distribution of leisure products in China and throughout Asia; and
WHEREAS, Intech is desirous of expanding its sales in China and throughout Asia,
but lacks the distribution network and other facilities with which to do so; and
WHEREAS, Phoenix is desirous of marketing video games and game players
throughout Asia, but lacks the technical expertise to develop such products on its own;
and
WHEREAS, both Intech and Phoenix believe that it would be mutually
advantageous for the parties to enter into an agreement whereby Intech licenses its
video game and game player products for manufacture, sale and distribution in Asia by
Phoenix Enterprises;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby, and in consideration of the several
and mutual undertakings herein, agree, contract, and covenant as follows:
1. Intech agrees to grant Phoenix an exclusive license to manufacture, sell,
and distribute “Smartplug” video games and game players throughout Asia.
2. Said license is granted for a period of five (5) years, and shall be renewed
for a further five (5) years upon the satisfactory substantial performance of each party.
3. Said license shall include the exclusive right to use in Asia the registered
trademark “Smartplug,” and any related trademarks now owned, or to be owned or
developed, by Intech that shall be used for the sale or promotion of “Smartplug” video
game products.
4. Phoenix agrees to manufacture “Smartplug” video games and game
players in accordance with specifications provided and exclusively controlled by Intech,
and to use its best efforts to market and distribute said video game products throughout
Asia.
Exhibit A, page 1
5. All expenses for manufacture, sale, and marketing of said “Smartplug”
70
products shall be borne solely by Phoenix, and Intech undertakes no responsibility
therefor. Intech shall have no ownership or proprietary interest in advertising materials
so developed, other than the rights provided herein.
6. All expense for research and development of improvements, refinements, and
modifications to technology and software shall be borne solely by Intech, and Phoenix
Enterprises undertakes no responsibility therefor. Phoenix shall have no ownership or
proprietary interest in technology or software so developed, other than the contractual
rights provided herein.
7. In consideration of the exclusive rights to market Intech video game products
granted hereunder, Phoenix agrees to pay a royalty to Intech in the amount of fifteen
percent (15%) of Phoenix’s gross sales of “Smartplug” products in each of the first three
years of the term of this agreement, increasing one percent each year for the fourth and
fifth years of the term of this agreement; upon the renewal this agreement for a second
five (5) year term, the amount of royalties shall be subject to renegotiation by the
parties, and shall be submitted to binding arbitration in the event that the parties fail to
agree.
8. All royalties due hereunder shall be payable quarterly at the offices of Intech,
5618 Freeport Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
9. In consideration of Phoenix’s undertaking to fund and develop a full Asian
network for the distribution of “Smartplug” products, Intech grants Phoenix a right of first
refusal with regard to the manufacture and distribution in China and throughout Asia of
all new Intech leisure products not otherwise covered hereunder. This right of first
refusal shall continue throughout the duration of this Agreement.
10. In the event that Intech determines to manufacture, sell, or distribute in China
and throughout Asia any such new leisure product not otherwise covered hereunder,
Intech shall first make available to Phoenix Enterprises the opportunity to manufacture,
sell, and distribute said product(s). In the event that Intech solicits or receives a
proposal for such manufacture, sale, or distribution from a firm other than Phoenix,
Phoenix shall be given written notice of the terms of said proposal and shall have a
period of thirty (30) days within which to meet or exceed the terms of said proposal.
Exhibit A, page 2
11. Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this
contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be
settled through informal negotiations between the parties. In the event that no
settlement is reached within 30 days from the date of notification by either party to the
other that it intends to submit a dispute, controversy or claim to arbitration then such
dispute, controversy or claim shall be submitted to the China International Economic
and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) for arbitration, which shall be conducted in
accordance with the Commission’s arbitration rules in effect at the time of applying for
arbitration. The arbitral award is final and binding upon the parties. Additionally:
71
A. The place of arbitration shall be Guangzhou.
B. The language of the arbitration shall be English.
C. The tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators. One arbitrator
shall be selected by each of the respective parties. The presiding
arbitrator shall be selected in accordance with the relevant arbitration rules
of the Commission in effect at the time of the selection, except that the
presiding arbitrator shall not in any event be a national of the country of
domicile of either of the parties to this contract.
D. Prior to the hearing, the tribunal shall permit discovery by the parties,
including with respect to documents or information in the care, custody or
control of the parties, depositions and written interrogatories.
E. As part of the hearing, the tribunal shall permit each party to present
live, oral testimony of and to directly examine its witnesses, as well as to
cross-examine testifying witnesses presented by the opposing party.
12. All issues relating to this contract, including the availability of remedies for a
breach thereunder, shall be governed by the laws of California, excluding the United
Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods.
13. Definitions:
A. The term “Asia” as used within this Agreement shall mean all the
markets situated, in whole or in part, on the land mass of the Asian
continent, including China, Japan, India, Taiwan, Korea and the nations in
ASEAN.
Exhibit A, page 3
B. The terms “Smartplug” and “Smartplug products” as used within this
Agreement shall mean Intech’s patented microchip which is currently
marketed under the trade name “Smartplug,” as well as all games, game
players, software, and other products or devices that are based on, or
designed to use or otherwise exploit, the “Smartplug” microchip
technology, and shall extend to all modifications, revisions, and
adjustments to the “Smartplug” microchip and ancillary products, and to all
improvements upon said technology.
ATTEST, this 15th day of January, 2004
INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
by: /s/ Carl Adams
PHOENIX ENTERPRISES, INC.
by: /s/ Simon Lim
72
Exhibit A, page 4
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Intech Electronics, Inc. (Intech) is a United States corporation
engaged in the design, development, and marketing of video games and video game
players primarily in the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, Sakura Company (Sakura) is a Japanese corporation engaged in
the sale and distribution of electronic products throughout Asia; and
WHEREAS, Intech is desirous of marketing its revolutionary “Sp2” throughout
Asia, but lacks the distribution network and other facilities with which to do so; and
WHEREAS, Sakura is desirous of marketing this new product throughout
Asia, and believes that this product has enormous potential in the Asian market; and
WHEREAS, both Intech and Sakura believe that it would be mutually
advantageous for the parties to enter into an agreement whereby Intech licenses its Sp2
products for manufacture, sale, and distribution throughout Asia by Sakura;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby, and in consideration of the
several and mutual undertakings herein, agree, contract, and covenant as follows:
1. Sakura shall have the exclusive license to manufacture, sell, and distribute
the Sp2 video games and game players throughout Asia, for a period of four
years, effective January 1, 2008.
2. Sakura shall bear all expenses of manufacture and marketing, while Intech
shall bear all expenses of research and production.
3. Sakura shall pay royalties to Intech in the amount of fifteen percent (15%)
of Sakura’s gross sales of Sp2 products during the term of the contract.
4. Sakura shall establish distribution and repair facilities for Sp2 products
throughout Asia, including in Japan, Singapore and Korea beginning June 1,
2008.
5. In the event that Sakura fails to maintain distribution and repair facilities in
each of the above named countries, Sakura shall pay Intech liquidated
damages in the amount of $50,000 per month or any part thereof during
which such facilities are absent from any one of the countries designated in
Paragraph 4, supra.
73
Exhibit B, page 1
6.
This agreement shall extend to and cover any and all Intech video
game products which are now or shall be in production, with the exception of
those already licensed to Phoenix Enterprises, Inc.
7.
Upon the date of the signing of this agreement, Sakura shall have
immediate access to all Intech technical data and specifications for Sp2,
provided that Sakura may in its discretion use any part of the period between
the signing and January 1, 2008 to put in place the necessary manufacturing,
distribution, and repair facilities.
8.
All royalties due hereunder shall be payable quarterly at the office of
Intech, 5618 Freeport Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
9.
The term “Sp2” as used within this Agreement shall mean Intech’s
patented microchip which is currently marketed under the trade name “Sp2",
as well as all games, game players, software, and other products or devices
that are based on, or designed to use or otherwise exploit, the “Sp2”
microchip technology, and shall extend to all modifications, revisions, and
adjustments to the “Sp2” microchip and ancillary products, and to all
improvements upon such technology.
10.
The parties specifically contemplate that Intech may in the future
develop video game products that are based on wholly new technologies
unrelated to Sp2, although no such technologies are currently contemplated
or known to Intech. In the event that such products are developed, they shall
not be deemed “improvements” of Sp2 within the meaning of this agreement.
Disagreements over the application of this paragraph shall be submitted to
binding arbitration.
ATTEST, this 12th day of January, 2007
INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
SAKURA COMPANY
by:/s/ Carl Adams
by: /s/ Takashi Motoki
Exhibit B, page 2
STATEMENT OF DEFENSE
RESPONDENT: INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC, a company incorporated and existing
under the laws of Delaware, USA.
74
Domicile: 5618 Freeport Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
Tel: (916) 391-8413; Fax: (916) 391-8417
Person in charge: George Taylor, CEO.
CLAIMANT: PHOENIX ENTERPRISES, INC., a company incorporated and existing
under the laws of People’s Republic of China.
Domicile: 233 Tian He North Road, Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China.
Tel: (8622) 83191701; Fax: (8622) 83191722
Person in charge: Simon Lim, CEO.
Respondent, Intech Electronics, Inc., submits its defense as follows:
1. On January 15, 2004, the parties entered into the contract (“the Contract”)
attached as Exhibit A to the Application for Arbitration.
2. In 2005, Respondent introduced a new product called Sp2.
3. In accordance with the contract, Respondent offered Claimant a right of first
refusal with respect to the marketing of Sp2.
4. Respondent did not exercise its right of refusal effectively or in a timely
fashion.
5. Respondent as such was entitled to offer the right to distribute Sp2 to other
companies and subsequently entered into a contract with Sakura Company for the
distribution of Sp2, which therefore was not a violation of the Contract with Claimant.
Respondent hereby requests that this application be dismissed, and that
Respondent be awarded its costs of defending this arbitration.
Dated: February 9, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Elizabeth Matthews
Elizabeth Matthews
Porterhouse & Anthony
1 B.M.I. Plaza
Sacramento, California 60611
Telephone: (916) 503-8576
75
STIPULATION: Smartplug and Sp2 Technology and Profits
The parties hereto stipulate to the following account of the technical relationship
between the “Smartplug” technology and the “Sp2” technology. The parties agree and
stipulate that no further expert evidence on the scientific or technical relationship
between the “Smartplug” and “Sp2” will be introduced in this arbitration, whether in the
parties’ cases in chief or in rebuttal.
The Sp2 system utilizes technology completely distinct from the Smartplug
system. Smartplug and Sp2 are the subjects of separate patents.
Accordingly, the parties agree that products using the Sp2 technology were not
covered by the parties’ January 15, 2004 contract concerning licensing of products
using Smartplug technology, except insofar as such Sp2-technology-based products are
alleged to be covered by paragraphs 9-10 thereof.
Additionally, the parties stipulate that Phoenix’s net profits resulting from its
marketing of the Smartplug system for the period January 15, 2004 through July 15,
2007 were in the amount of $55,899,000 whereas Sakura’s net profits resulting from its
marketing of Sp2 for the four-year term of its contract with Intech (January 1, 2008
through December 31, 2011) are projected to be in the amount of $118,240,000.
So stipulated:
/s/ Counsel for Claimant
/s/ Counsel for Respondent
76
STIPULATION: Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
The parties hereto stipulate that all agreements at issue between them in this
arbitration are subject to an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They
further agree and stipulate that the applicable California law regarding the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing is as follows:
Some covenants and obligations are implied in all contracts. Thus, there is in every
contract an implied covenant that neither party will do anything to destroy or injure the
right of the other to receive the benefits of the contract. This means that in every
contract there exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is not
necessary that such a covenant be spelled out in order to insure that one party will not
take unfair advantage of a situation. Similarly, each party has a duty to do everything
that the contract presupposes he or she will do to accomplish its purpose and the duty
not to prevent or hinder performance by the other person. In addition to its principal
function, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing has a subsidiary use: In the case of
a contradictory and ambiguous contract, the implied covenant may be applied to aid in
construction.
The law implies an obligation to perform with care, skill, reasonable expedience, and
faithfulness the thing agreed to be done. This rule is applicable to all persons who by
contract undertake professional or other business engagements requiring the exercise
of care, skill, and knowledge. And the obligation that work performed is to be fit and
proper for its intended use is implied in all contracts, as are stipulations that are
necessary to make a contract reasonable, if the contract manifests no contrary
intention. However, the general rule regarding the covenant of good faith is plainly
subject to the exception that the parties may, by express provisions of the contract,
grant the right to engage in the very acts and conduct that would otherwise have been
forbidden by an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing cannot create rights, obligations or conditions inconsistent
with the express provisions of the parties’ agreement.
So stipulated:
/s/ Counsel for Claimant
/s/ Counsel for Respondent
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DEPOSITION OF TAN KAR-SENG
My name is Tan Kar-Seng. I am currently the marketing director for Yum-Yum
Chocolates, an international confectionery firm headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. YumYum distributes specialty chocolates and other sweets world-wide, with an emphasis on
the youth market. In fact, the concentration on young people is why we use the English
word “chocolates” in the firm’s name. English is popular with kids all over the world.
Until 2005, I was the Asian marketing director for Phoenix Enterprises. Although
I was born in China, my family moved to Japan when I was 16 and I was educated at
Tokyo University. I stayed on in Japan after I graduated, working in a series of
marketing and management positions before moving back to China in 2000 to work at
Phoenix Enterprises. Many Chinese firms were anxious to have someone on staff with
my credentials, since my background was often seen as helpful in obtaining a foothold
for eventual sales in Japan. I’m not sure how important it really was, but I do speak
Japanese, as well as Chinese and English.
I joined Phoenix Enterprises in 2000; my first position was as a marketing
representative. I eventually became director for the entire Asian region. It was always
important for Phoenix Enterprises to increase sales throughout Asia.
I was the lead negotiator on the deal with Intech. Phoenix Enterprises had never
entered into a licensing arrangement like that before, and it was thought that sales in
Asia would be the key to the financial success of the entire project. I exchanged some
memos with Simon Lim, our CEO, but I was basically in charge. I believe that I spoke
with George Taylor at Intech once or twice about the negotiations, and I may have
made some notes, but I honestly can’t remember any of our conversations.
We were well aware of the impulsive nature of the video game industry. Our own
business -- toys and sports equipment -- is also subject to fads and fluctuations. It is
extremely important to anticipate the market. If you fail to foresee an innovation or a hot
item, you can lose millions before you have time to turn around. Of course, sales in
Asia are less volatile than in the United States, but you still have to be sure to be up to
date. It won’t do at all to have a full inventory of Mechano sets just when everyone is
out shopping for Legos.
That’s why I made sure that we had a right of first refusal in the contract. The
reason for insisting on an automatic option was also to allow us to take advantage of
Intech’s research department. For example, if they came up with an entirely new
product we wanted to be able to have our distributors handle it.
We had to invest a considerable amount of money in setting up a comprehensive
Asian distribution system for the video games, and it made sense for us to be sure that
we could further amortize those costs through the distribution of other leisure products
that Intech came up with. Intech wasn’t willing to finance any part of the outlay for the
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
distribution network, so the right of first refusal was more or less in lieu of a contribution
to our capital expenses.
In fact, Intech was completely unwilling to participate in our marketing
development. Not only did they refuse to make a capital contribution, at one point they
actually asked us to make a front end payment to them in addition to the eventual
royalties. Of course, we refused. A payment like that would have made the entire
project prohibitively expensive. That negotiation, however, had nothing at all to do with
our right to distribute new products. It was just part of the payment package.
The right of first refusal was intended to apply to new products. Let’s say that
Intech developed a line of arcade pinball games or interactive videodiscs; we wanted
the option of distributing new items like that. So since Sp2 is a new product utilizing
new technology, it has to be covered by the new products right of first refusal.
I left Phoenix Enterprises shortly after the Intech deal was finalized. I hadn’t
been in Tokyo for many years by then, and looked forward to returning there. I left on
very good terms with Phoenix Enterprises; they tried very hard to get me to stay. It
certainly is possible that I might return there or to another Chinese company some day.
The fact is, though, that the international position with Yum-Yum was too good to pass
up. Not only did it involve returning to Tokyo, but Yum-Yum is a much bigger company
than Phoenix Enterprises, and I was going to have one of the most senior positions in
the firm. I believed at that point that I had pretty much gone as far as I could go at
Phoenix Enterprises. I am very happy at Yum Yum; I run the entire sales division and
we are doing very well. I bear no grudges against Phoenix Enterprises. I learned a
great deal while I was there and value that experience.
There was no real opportunity for me to get Asian sales of Smartplug off the
ground. I did put together a few marketing proposals before I left. I am not sure
whether they were adopted by Phoenix Enterprises. My ideas about Asian distribution
were not warmly received.
I understand that my replacement at Phoenix Enterprises is Chow Jian-Guo. He
is quite competent, and I have no reason to doubt that he would do a fine job of
coordinating video sales in Asia. As far as I know, Mr. Chow speaks only Chinese, but
that should not be a terrible drawback. Almost all of the key business people in Asia are
multi-lingual. I have had almost no contact with Phoenix Enterprises since I left, other
than some friendly correspondence from Simon Lim informing me about this litigation. I
wasn’t involved in any of the negotiations or discussions of Sp2, although I do continue
to read the trade press on video games. I learned about the Sp2 controversy from an
article in GAMES AND TOYS, and I wrote a letter to Simon Lim expressing my concern.
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
My severance package from Phoenix Enterprises included stock options, which I
have since exercised. I currently hold about $160,000 in Phoenix Enterprises stock. I
have no idea how my stock might be affected by this lawsuit.
/s/ Tan Kar-Seng
/s/ Anne Wagner
Certified Shorthand Reporter
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DEPOSITION OF SIMON LIM
My name is Simon Lim. I am the CEO at Phoenix Enterprises. I am in charge of
manufacturing, labor relations, product development, and everything else that goes into
day to day operations. I was involved in the initial feasibility studies concerning our
plunge into the video game market. I received the original inquiry from Intech, and it
was my opinion that the Asian markets were definitely ready for the introduction of
American-style action games. I spoke several times with George Taylor of Intech, who
also visited me once in China. Taylor and I only dealt in generalities. I left the details of
the deal to Tan Kar-Seng and I did exchange a few memos during the negotiations.
During one phone call I told Tan Kar-Seng that I did not want Intech Electronics to be
able to drop us after five years.
Our research showed that up until 2004 or so, the home video game market in
Asia was dominated by what we have come to call the “cerebral-style” games. These
games emphasized complicated or tricky situations, in which the challenge was to figure
out solutions to intricate problems. Every time you solved a problem, you would go on
to a higher, more difficult level. For example, one classic Asian game format involved
choosing paths to follow in a search for treasure. Based on clues and past experience,
the players have to figure out which doors to open, which caves to explore, which rivers
to cross, and things like that. The key to the game is accumulating information and
experience, and then thinking logically.
In contrast, the American games emphasize speed and combat. They depend
on how fast you can anticipate the action and operate the controls, and much less on
how well you can solve the intellectual puzzle of the game. Classic American games
involve sword fights, martial arts, airplane dogfights, and battles of all sorts.
The Intech “Smartplug” is designed for speed, action, and demolition. It doesn’t
store a lot of information, but it delivers incredibly fast action. No one had marketed
games like this in Asia before 2004, and we thought that the kids in Asian countries
would be ready for the innovation. American things are typically very popular in Asia:
look at the popularity of American movies, television shows, and clothes. We could see
no reason that video games wouldn’t follow the same pattern.
Unfortunately, it didn’t quite work out that way. We spent a lot of money on
production and advertising, but our sales of the Smartplug products were much flatter
than we had anticipated. We certainly sold some games and game players, but we just
couldn’t achieve the market penetration that we originally anticipated. We performed
best in China, which after all is our base. We had much less success in other areas of
Asia.
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
In my opinion, our sales problem was partially due to the fact that video games,
unlike movies or television shows, require a significant capital expenditure on the part of
the consumer. It only costs a few dollars for a consumer to check out an American
movie, but a video game player costs about $150.00 and after that the games cost
another $40.00 each. That’s quite a significant investment, especially for a children’s
product, so I think it is reasonable to expect that the market would be slower to develop.
Asians were familiar with one type of video game, and they weren’t just going to rush
out and spend close to $200.00 on an entirely different sort of game. I think that we
could have sold American style software fairly easily, but the big hurdle was getting
Asian consumers to buy the game players, since they would only run the unfamiliar,
action-oriented Intech games. I know that we could have succeeded if given enough
time.
That is why it was so devastating to us not to get the Sp2 distribution contract.
As I understand it, the Sp2 chip will run both action games and complex games. That
obviously makes the game players much more attractive in Asia, since they are
supported by familiar sorts of game software, and they can be used for the Americantype games as well. In other words, the Sp2 technology solves the Asian market
dilemma. It really renders the Smartplug useless. We have continued selling
Smartplug, and even extended our license for five years, but it is a product without a
future.
It is obvious to me that Intech set out to deprive us of the Sp2 technology. Even
their timing on the right of first refusal is suspicious. They never let on that they were
negotiating with Sakura Company until they already had a done deal, and then they
informed us by mail, rather than by telephone or fax. Right there we were deprived of
several days notice, since it took that long for the letter to arrive. This was hardly what
one would call straight dealing.
I was worried about dealing with Intech. Our mistake was being too honest. My
original option letter concerning Sp2 was intended to accept the Sakura Company
terms, while suggesting a more cost-efficient alternative. I foolishly thought that Intech
wanted the best arrangement, when they were really just trying to trick us out of our
rights. In retrospect we should simply have drafted a contract that incorporated all of
the provisions of the Sakura Company letter, signed it, and faxed it off to Intech. Once
we had Sp2 in production, we could have argued about those silly repair facilities. Who
repairs a plastic game-player anyhow? If one of the things breaks we just ship the
customer a new one.
The liquidated damages provision is hardly material. At most it could have come
to U.S. $600,000 a year, which doesn’t amount to much in a U.S. $100,000,000 market.
The risk of a small amount of liquidated damages was certainly preferable to losing our
entire investment in video game technology. When I said that we “cannot guarantee”
local repair sites, I meant that we would pay the damages if we had to.
What’s more, our offer definitely exceeded the Sakura Company proposal. We
increased the royalties and we would have gone into production sooner.
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
We didn’t adopt Tan Kar-Seng’s marketing suggestions for Smartplug because I
thought it best to establish us first in China. Our greatest expertise is in China. I thought
that a strong presence for Smartplug in China would “bleed over” into the rest of Asia,
eventually spreading our sales. In fact, I think that our strong Chinese marketing has
contributed to the success of Sp2 in certain parts of Asia. I know that Tan Kar-Seng did
not agree with this decision, but I still think it was right. I have stayed on good terms
with Tan Kar-Seng, which has helped us prepare for this lawsuit.
I am certain that the Sp2 technology will make a better product than the
Smartplug technology. It does the same thing, but better. In American terms, isn’t an
aluminum baseball bat an improvement over a wooden one, even though they use
entirely different materials and technology?
/s/ Simon Lim
/s/ Anne Wagner
Certified Shorthand Reporter
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DEPOSITION OF CARL ADAMS
My name is Carl Adams. I am a senior vice president and director of
operations at Intech Electronics. In 2003 and 2004 I was the head of the team that
negotiated our licensing agreement with Phoenix Enterprises for distribution of our
products in Asia.
In 2001 we introduced an advanced video game system in the United States.
It was tremendously successful, and we very quickly came to dominate the domestic
video game market. Our games were based on our patented “Smartplug” chip,
which at that time was the most sophisticated device on the market. Smartplug was
faster and allowed more intricate graphics than any of the competition. It allowed
more types of movement, which we expected would be popular with Americans. At
the time, other video game technology emphasized complexity and unpredictability.
We were right in predicting that Americans would be drawn to action, action, action,
even if it was less cerebral and more routine.
After two years of continued growth in the United States, we decided to
expand our distribution internationally by licensing the Smartplug to foreign
manufacturers and distributors. Rather than invest in additional production facilities
ourselves, we thought that greater profits would be available if we allowed existing
foreign firms to make the products and to use the “Intech” logo in their sales. In that
way we would have the advantage of our reputation and their local experience.
Licensing arrangements like that are common in the game and toy world. For
example, Retell licenses the manufacture of “Darbie” dolls to a number of
companies around the world. The other companies make and sell the dolls, and
they pay Retell a royalty for the use of the company name and the “Darbie” logo.
We wanted to do the same thing for “Smartplug."
Consumer preferences vary, of course, from country to country. In the past,
Asians had always seemed to prefer more strategic, less fast-paced video games.
We thought that the Asian market was ripe for something new, the American-style
slam-bang games.
I led the team that investigated possible foreign partners. Our primary interest
was in the Asian/Pacific region and our secondary interest was in the European
market. We wanted to be discreet in our inquiries because we didn’t want to affect
market conditions before we were ready to go into production. Therefore, to our
great misfortune, we only spoke to two or three Asian companies before we settled
on doing business with Phoenix Enterprises.
Phoenix Enterprises immediately seemed like a good fit for us. They were
well established in the Chinese leisure products sector, and they specialized in
youth-oriented products such as sports equipment and motorized toys. They had
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
up-to-date production facilities and a lot of know-how. They had never been in the
computer game business, but that did not seem like a drawback to us at the time
since video-game production is actually fairly simple. Developing the product and
the software is difficult, but we were still going to do all of that. Marketing is the real
issue, and we were confident in Phoenix Enterprises’ ability in that area. Regarding
marketing, Phoenix Enterprises made some very specific representations to us, and
we wouldn’t have contracted with them if they hadn’t virtually guaranteed a certain
level of performance.
It was never our expectation that we would be tied to Phoenix Enterprises
forever. The term of the initial contract was five years, renewable for another five if
they performed to our satisfaction. We wouldn’t have hesitated for a second to drop
them for the second five-year term if they hadn’t fully performed up to our highest
expectations. And frankly, they weren’t performing up to expectations. Their sales
were flat, and were concentrated too much in China. They had far too little
penetration into other regions of Asia and it wasn’t improving. The video game
business is extremely fast moving. You have to be alert to every new development,
or you will lose your shirt in a hurry. We expected Phoenix Enterprises to sink or
swim on its own, and we didn’t plan to nurse them along if they couldn’t cut it.
The contract does give Phoenix Enterprises a right of first refusal regarding
new video technology. As far as I know, we gave them appropriate notice of our
intention to negotiate with Sakura Company for the Sp2, and Phoenix Enterprises
failed to exercise their option. I wasn’t involved in those transactions, so you would
have to talk to someone else about them. George Taylor was in charge of that deal.
In my original negotiations with Phoenix Enterprises I dealt with Tan KarSeng, who was their vice president for development. I thought that Tan, who is
originally from China, was extremely knowledgeable about Asian marketing
conditions; that heavily influenced my decision to recommend that we go with
Phoenix Enterprises.
Anyhow, Tan seemed up to the challenge. Tan is Chinese by birth, but was
educated at the Tokyo University. So we had upper management at a Chinese
company with excellent contacts in Asia.
By sometime in 2004 we realized that Phoenix Enterprises was simply too
limited in vision and ability for our true needs. While their performance was
satisfactory for what they attempted, there was no way that they were going to show
the kind of leadership that we needed for Sp2. George Taylor and I agreed on this
point. We didn’t convey this conclusion to Phoenix Enterprises, since we were stuck
with them and we didn’t want to discourage their efforts.
I got a 15% salary increase in 2004. I had deserved a substantial raise for a
long time, and I’m sure that closing the Phoenix Enterprises deal had something to
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
do with it finally coming through. The Phoenix Enterprises contract was my main
project. The current problems reflect poorly on me, and may affect my raises in the
future.
I was not at all involved in the Sakura negotiations. For whatever reasons,
George Taylor wanted to handle those talks personally, although ordinarily that
would have been my job.
/s/ Carl Adams
/s/ Anne Wagner
Certified Shorthand Reporter
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
DEPOSITION OF GEORGE TAYLOR
My name is George Taylor. I am the CEO of Intech Electronic. I founded the company
in 2000 after I left the Silicon Partners Computer Company. I own fifty-one percent of the stock
of Intech. The balance is publicly held.
It had been my conviction that video games could be made more popular in the United
States if they were actually less sophisticated. Until we entered the business you would have to
say that the development of video games had been “programmer driven.” What I mean is that
the computer hackers who did the programming would think up games that they thought were
interesting. That inevitably meant that the games would be intricate and complex, with all sorts
of twists and turns and logical problems to be solved. It was my idea that game development
should be “consumer driven.” The kids who play our games basically just like mindless speed,
so we set to work developing the Smartplug chip.
The beauty of the Smartplug technology is that it is incredibly fast. It allows our games
to move at a pace that nobody else can match. Of course, we had to give up a good deal of
complexity. Our games can’t hold enough information to provide dozens of levels (or worlds) of
increasingly difficult challenges. What they can do is move fast, and that proved enough for the
kids of America. We began to dominate the American market almost as soon as we introduced
Smartplug in 2001.
After two years of tremendous success in the United States, I decided that it was time to
consider expanding overseas. Asia seemed to be the logical next market. I didn’t want to have
to invest in production and marketing facilities in that region, so I began looking for a potential
licensee with good Asian connections.
After considerable investigation I decided to approach Phoenix Enterprises of China.
Phoenix Enterprises is a major manufacturer and distributor of toys and games. I think that they
specialized in sports equipment for the youth market, which fit right into my theory of speed and
action. They didn’t have any experience with video games, but that was fine with me. We
wanted to bring some new blood into the business, and in my opinion we would do better
working with sports people than we would with more hackers and wonks. Anyway, I liked the
fact that most everyone at Phoenix spoke English, and also that I was able to speak directly to
their CEO, Simon Lim.
After a few phone conversations and a trip to China, Simon Lim and I pretty much
agreed that we would license Smartplug to Phoenix Enterprises. We concentrated on getting to
know each other, but didn’t discuss any specifics. The details had to be worked out, and I
assigned that task to Carl Adams, one of my senior vice presidents. I know that Adams
negotiated with someone named Tan Kar-Seng on the other side. I never spoke with Tan, but
Adams kept me informed of all of their discussions and, of course, I approved the agreement.
It wasn’t until 2005 that we made the major breakthrough with Sp2, and began marketing
it in the United States. Until then it was just an idea on the drawing board. In 2005, however,
we realized that it had the potential to completely dominate the video game market because,
unlike Smartplug, it could drive both fast-action and cerebral games. It could be all things to all
players, making every other system obsolete. This feature was particularly important for
overseas markets, since the Asian market never did seem to pick up on the American-style
games that Smartplug was designed for.
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
By 2006 we had also figured out that Phoenix Enterprises wasn’t the marketing dynamo
that we thought they were. Their sales were disappointing and we really had lost confidence in
their ability to distribute the product. Carl Adams and I agreed to this as soon as we saw the
summary of their 2004 and 2005 sales. Tan had left the company and they didn’t seem to have
anyone else who was familiar with the rest of Asia, as opposed to just the Chinese market.
Frankly, we weren’t at all happy about the prospect of turning Sp2 over to them. We knew that
Sp2 had the potential to turn around our disappointing performance in Asia, but we didn’t think
that Phoenix Enterprises was the company to handle it. On the other hand, we had given them
a right of first refusal and we knew that we were bound by it. We also had to live with their
rights to Smartplug under the original contract. But no one can blame us for hoping that
Phoenix Enterprises wouldn’t effectively exercise their option.
The right of first refusal only entitled Phoenix Enterprises to match or exceed any offer
that we got; it didn’t prevent us from soliciting distribution agreements with other companies.
Because we were unhappy with Phoenix Enterprises, we immediately started looking around for
other possible partners. We were especially interested in finding a firm in Japan or Southeast
Asia, so we didn’t consider Phoenix Enterprises at all. We spoke to a Singapore company
called Top Video and a Vietnamese outfit called Videorama, but for various reasons it didn’t
seem as though they would be any improvement over Phoenix Enterprises. The most
promising firm was Sakura Company of Japan. They had a deep background in games and
toys, and they were already distributing throughout Asia. They also had significant contacts in
Japan, which was a market that Phoenix Enterprises had no hope of tapping.
We solicited a proposal from Sakura Company knowing that we would have to give
Phoenix Enterprises an opportunity to match it. Our negotiations at Sakura Company were with
the CEO, Takashi Motoki. Motoki knew of Phoenix Enterprises’ option rights from the very
beginning of our discussions. Still, we reached an agreement without much difficulty. I admit
that we tried to tailor the proposal to Sakura Company’s unique abilities.
We stuck to the letter of our contract with Phoenix Enterprises. We gave them written
notice of our offer from Sakura Company and informed them that they had 30 days within which
to match or exceed it. We were not interested in a counteroffer and the contract doesn’t provide
for one, so Phoenix Enterprises basically had to take it or leave it on the terms that Sakura
Company had offered us. We were tremendously relieved when Phoenix Enterprises failed to
exercise their right of first refusal within the allotted time. It would have been a disaster for us if
they had accepted.
We never informed Phoenix Enterprises that we were contacting Sakura Company
because the contract didn’t require us to do that prior to the negotiation of a proposal. I’m sure
that Phoenix Enterprises would have preferred for us to let them know that we were
contemplating a new distributor for Sp2, but that wasn’t part of the plan. We knew that it would
be difficult for them to move quickly enough to match Sakura Company’s offer within 30 days,
but that was just fine with us. The 30-day time period was Phoenix Enterprises’ problem, not
ours.
We did get a response from Phoenix Enterprises within the 30 day period, but we
interpreted it as a counteroffer, rather than an exercise of their right to match the deal with
Sakura Company. We weren’t under any obligation to accept a counteroffer, so we rejected it.
They refused to set up offices in Japan, and proposed to compensate us for that by increasing
royalties. That really was a pretty reasonable compromise, but we didn’t have faith that Phoenix
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Enterprises could sell enough to make royalties meaningful. We might have compromised with
another firm, but Phoenix Enterprises just didn’t have the track record. Phoenix Enterprises
later tried to offer us the same terms as Sakura Company but by then it was too late.
The contract with Sakura contained a liquidated damages provision under which we
could have sought damages for Sakura’s failure to open distribution and repair facilities in Korea
and Singapore. It is true that they have not yet opened such facilities, apart from the sales
offices they already had in place. For the time being, the Sakura Company sales offices will
double as drop-off points for Sp2 repairs, with the work actually being done in Japan. They
expect to have on-site repairs available in Singapore and Korea by 2011. We have agreed to
waive our liquidated damages until then. Sakura Company’s sales have exceeded all of our
expectations, so we want to do what we can to preserve our excellent relationship.
/s/ George Taylor
/s/ Anne Wagner
Certified Shorthand Reporter
89
D -1
INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
5618 Freeport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
November 19, 2006
Via National Air Express
Simon Lim, President
Phoenix Enterprises
233 Tian He North Road, Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China
Dear Simon,
I am writing to you pursuant to paragraphs 9 and 10 of our Agreement of January 15,
2004. Intech Electronics, Inc. has determined to license and distribute a new product in Asia,
and the purpose of this letter is to allow you an opportunity to exercise your right of first refusal.
Specifically, we propose to license to Sakura Company a new series of improved video
games and game players which we have named Sp2. The technology for Sp2 is entirely distinct
from “Smartplug,” and is therefore covered only by your right of first refusal under our
preexisting contract. I have enclosed a copy of the proposal that we have agreed to with Sakura
Company.
Please be advised that you now have 30 days within which to match or exceed the exact
terms of Sakura Company’s proposal. We will not consider or accept a counteroffer.
Should you determine not to exercise your contractual rights, we would appreciate
notification as soon as possible. As we would like to proceed to accept Sakrua Company’s offer
as soon as possible, we are prepared to compensate you for a waiver of your right of first refusal.
I have been authorized to offer you $100,000 if you provide me with an executed waiver
within 15 days.
In any event, we look forward to having your response. If we do not hear from you
within 30 days, we shall proceed to finalize our agreement with Sakura Company.
90
An additional copy of this letter, together with the proposal from Sakura Company is
being sent to you via United States airmail.
Very truly yours,
/s/ George Taylor
D-2
91
P R O P O S A L
November 9, 2006
TO:
FROM:
RE:
GEORGE TAYLOR, INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
TAKASHI MOTOKI, SAKURA COMPANY
LICENSING OF SP2 VIDEO GAMES
Sakura Company proposes to enter into an Agreement with Intech Electronics,
Incorporated, for the licensing, manufacture, and sale of Sp2 video games and game players on
the following terms:
1. Sakura Company shall have the exclusive license to manufacture, sell, and
distribute said games and game players throughout Asia, for a period of four years,
effective January 1, 2008.
2.
Sakura Company will bear all expenses of manufacture and marketing, while
Intech will bear all expenses of research and production.
3.
Sakura Company will pay royalties to Intech in the amount of fifteen percent
(15%) of Sakura Company’s gross sales of Sp2 products during the term of the
contract.
4.
Sakura Company will establish distribution and repair facilities for Sp2
products throughout Asia, and specifically in Singapore, Korea, and Japan.
5.
In the event that it fails to maintain distribution and repair facilities in each of
the above named countries, Sakura Company will pay Intech liquidated damages in
the amount of $50,000 per month (or any part thereof) during which such facilities
are absent from any specified country, beginning June 1, 2008.
6.
This agreement shall extend to and cover any and all Intech video game
products which are now or shall be in production, with the exception of those already
licensed to Phoenix Enterprises.
92
7.
Upon signing of a formal contract, Sakura Company will have immediate
access to all Intech technical data and specifications for Sp2, it being understood that
Sakura Company may use the period between signing and January 1, 2008, to put in
place the necessary manufacturing, distribution, and repair facilities.
8. This proposal shall be held open for your acceptance until
December 30, 2006.
D-3
93
NATIONAL AIR EXPRESS
AIRBILL
Deliver To:
Simon Lim
Phoenix Enterprises, Inc.
233 Tian He North Road
Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China
From:
Intech Electronics, Inc.
5618 Freeport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95822
U.S.A.
Bill To:
Intech
Account No:
7484343 PF
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
NATIONAL AIR EXPRESS USE
Base Charges:
X
NEXT DAY, REGULAR DELIVERY
Declared Value Charge:
NEXT DAY, A.M. DELIVERY
Other 1:
RESTRICTED DELIVERY, ADDRESSEE ONLY
Other 2:
X
RETURN TRACKING RECORD
TOTAL CHARGES:
X
SIGNATURE REQUIRED
SERVICE CONDITIONS, DECLARED VALUE, AND LIMIT OF LIABILITY
Use of this airbill constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in our Customer Service Guide,
available to you upon request. See back of sender’s copy of this airbill for information. Service
conditions may vary for Government Overnight Service. See U.S. Government Service Guide for details.
We will not be responsible for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss,
damage, delay, non-delivery, misdelivery, or misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an
additional charge, and document your actual loss for a timely claim. Limitations found in the current
National Air Express Customer Service Guide apply. For more information on service conditions,
declared value, and limitations call us at (800) 555-4555
National Air Express
POB 5555
____________
AIRBILL TRACKING NUMBER
015980234
94
D-4
NATIONAL AIR EXPRESS
AIRBILL TRACKING RECORD
Date Sent:
November 19, 2006
Addressee:
Simon Lim
Phoenix Enterprises Inc.
233 Tian He North Road
Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China
Account No: 7484343 PF
Sent by:
Intech Electronics, Inc.
5618 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA
95822
U.S.A.
AIRBILL PACKAGE TRACKING NUMBER 015980234
NAME
Date Delivered:
November 20, 2006
Accepted by:
/s/ Wen Li
95
D-5
Phoenix Enterprises, Inc.
233 Tian He Road
Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China
24 November, 2006
George Taylor
Intech, Inc.
5618 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
Dear George,
I have received your express package of May 19, and I must say that I am completely
shocked. We regard your secret negotiations with Sakura Company as a complete breach of
trust. Needless to say, it is impossible for us to respond to your ultimatum on such short notice.
You may be assured, however, that we have no intention of waiving our contractual right of first
refusal for $100,000 or for any other sum.
I have forwarded your letter to our legal counsel. You shall certainly hear from us within
the allotted 30 days.
Very truly yours
RECEIVED
November 28, 2006
INTECH Electronics,
INC.
/s/ Simon Lim
President
96
D-6
Phoenix Enterprises, Inc.
233 Tian He Road
Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China
December 3, 2006
George Taylor
Intech Electronics, Inc.
5618 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
Dear George,
I am writing on behalf of Phoenix Enterprises Industries to exercise our right of first
refusal with regard to the licensing of Intech’s Sp2 video products. We are not at all pleased
with the process that has created this situation, but we are prepared to match (actually, to exceed)
the proposal from Sakura Company.
Specifically, we shall undertake to meet the specific terms of Sakura Company’s proposal
to distribute Sp2 products throughout Asia. While we cannot guarantee to locate repair facilities
in Japan, Korea, and Singapore, we do guarantee to make repairs available by mail from a central
location in those countries. As most game players would have to be sent through the mails for
repairs in any event, we do not regard this as a material deviation from the Sakura Company
proposal. Furthermore, we should be pleased to increase the royalties from sales of SP2 in
Japan, Korea, and Singapore to eighteen percent (18%), which would, in any event, result in a
proposal, taken as a whole, exceeding the terms offered by Sakura Company. The increase in
royalties will more than offset any possibility of lost sales in said countries as a consequence of
the absence of local repair facilities.
Additionally, we further propose to exceed the terms of Sakura Company’s offer by
beginning some distribution of Sp2 as of October 1, 2007, rather than waiting until January 1,
2008. We will be able to achieve this due to the fact that, unlike Sakura Company, we already
have production and distribution facilities in operation.
97
Please advise us as to when the specifications for the Sp2 products will be available.
Despite our current differences, we believe that we can cooperate profitably in the future. We
look forward to hearing from you on an urgent basis regarding the details of our acceptance.
Yours very truly,
/s/ Simon Lim
President
98
D-7
INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
5618 Freeport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
December 18, 2006
Simon Lim
233 Tian He North Road
Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China
Dear President Lim,
We have received your letter of December 3, 2006. I have reviewed your letter very
carefully, together with our legal counsel and the executive committee of our board of directors.
It is our conclusion that your proposal amounts to a counteroffer which does not match or
exceed the terms proposed by Sakura Company. In our view, the location of the repair facilities
is a material term of the proposal, as it should greatly increase our sales in developing markets.
Your offer of a small additional royalty in the untested markets was generous but, in our opinion,
not the equivalent of the Sakura Company terms. We also note that you made no reference to the
liquidated damages provision of the Sakura Company proposal.
We decline to accept your counteroffer.
It is our assumption that this closes the matter of the Sp2 license. We do look forward to
working with you on continued sales of the Smartplug products, pursuant to our agreement of
January 15, 2004. We believe that the introduction of Sp2 will actually spur the sales of the
Smartplug line which, as you know, has not been doing well.
Very truly yours,
RECEIVED
22 December 2006
PHOENIX ENTERPRISES, INC
/s/ George Taylor
Chief Executive Officer
D-8
December-24-2006 FROM PHOENIX ENTERPRISES TO 01017085558500 P. O1
TELEFACSIMILE COVER SHEET
PHOENIX ENTERPRISES
233 Tian He North Road
99
Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China
FAX: 071-374-2333
DATE: 24 DECEMBER, 2006
TOTAL PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET)
TO:
1
GEORGE TAYLOR, INTECH ELECTRONICS
FAX NO:
FROM:
SIMON LIM, PHOENIX ENTERPRISES
COMMENTS:
You misunderstood my letter of December 3, 2006. We exercise our right of first refusal and
accept all terms contained in your proposed agreement with Sakura Company. We intended no
counteroffer, but only sought clarification of certain provisions and to suggest reallocation of the
benefits to Intech above the level provided for in the Sakura offer.
Repeat: We will meet exactly all arrangements you had intended with Sakura Company,
including repair locations and/or liquidated damages. Had suggested additional royalty as
alternative subject to your approval, but not as counteroffer or substitute. Repeat: You are
bound by Right of First Refusal, which we accepted by letter on December 3. This telefacsimile
reconfirms.
If this transmission is incomplete or if you are not the party for whom it is intended, please contact Phoenix Enterprises at
the Telefacsimile number listed above.
100
D-9
INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
5618 Freeport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
December 28, 2006
Simon Lim
233 Tian He North Road
Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China
Dear President Lim,
I have received your fax of December 24, 2006. Unfortunately, your attempted exercise
of your right of first refusal arrived after the expiration of the option period. We are already
irrevocably committed to Sakura Company.
We have reviewed your original letter (dated December 3, 2006), and we continue to be
of the opinion that it constituted a counteroffer, and not an acceptance of all of the terms in the
Sakura Company proposal.
Again, we continue to look forward to working with you on the Smartplug project. We
believe that your sales should be enhanced somewhat by the Asian introduction of Sp2, which
we expect to take place some time next year. We will, of course, advise you of the timing of our
plans for Sp2, so that you can take best advantage of the new campaign.
We regret that things did not work out as you had hoped.
Very truly yours,
/s/George Taylor
President
101
D-10
JANUARY-1-2007 FROM PHOENIX ENTERPRISES TO 01017085558500 P. O1
TELEFACSIMILE COVER SHEET
PHOENIX ENTERPRISES
233 Tian He North Road
Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China
FAX: 071-374-2333
DATE: 1 JANUARY, 2007
TOTAL PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET)
TO:
1
GEORGE TAYLOR, INTECH ELECTRONICS
FAX NO:
FROM:
SIMON LIM, PHOENIX ENTERPRISES
COMMENTS:
Further to your letter of December 28, be advised that we consider your action to violate our
contract, in that we effectively exercised, and do hereby exercise, our right of first refusal per
paragraphs 9 and 10.
Unless you reverse your position, we shall have no choice but to pursue arbitration.
If this transmission is incomplete or if you are not the party for whom it is intended, please contact Phoenix Enterprises
Industries, Inc., at the Telefacsimile number listed above.
102
D – 11
PHOENIX ENTERPRISES, INC.
FROM THE DESK OF TAN KAR-SENG
17 September, 2003
FROM: TAN KAR-SENG
TO: SIMON LIM
RE: INTECH ELECTRONICS
I have been haggling with Intech over the amount of royalties that we are willing to pay for
the licensing of the Smartplug products. I am pleased to report that their initial position was
quite reasonable, and I think that I shall be able to persuade them to go even lower still. We are
already, however, well within the acceptable range. From a purely tactical point of view, then, I
expect that I shall eventually find myself “caving in” to their demands. That being the case, I
thought that you might suggest some sort of last concession that I should ask for in exchange for
agreeing to their royalty terms. It obviously couldn’t involve money, but there must be some
provision that you would like to see in the contract. Perhaps the timing of payments or
something similar to that?
103
D-12
PHOENIX ENTERPRISES, INC.
FROM THE DESK OF SIMON LIM
19 September, 2003
TO: TAN KAR-SENG
FROM: SIMON LIM
RE: INTECH CONTRACT TERMS
Congratulations on the progress of the Intech negotiation. I haven’t really in mind any
additional terms for the Intech contract. You seem to have already obtained an exclusive license to
Smartplug along with a quite reasonable royalty. The exclusive license is really the heart of the
entire matter; do be sure that we are protected for the extended term and that we have access to any
modifications that they introduce in America. Frankly, their other products (at least the ones that I
have seen) don’t stand to be worth a farthing to us.
Once we are producing Smartplug it would hardly make sense for us to tool up to produce anything
else.
I suppose that we could request a right of first refusal on their subsequent products. That way
we would be protected in case they came up with any interesting innovations. If nothing else, we
might be able to barter away such an option if there is a new product on the horizon.
Do what you think is best, but do not risk our primary objective. Ring me up or drop by if
you have any questions.
Handwritten note:
March 20 –
Simon says
- Royalties good
- First refusal for
new equipment
- Can we get out
after 5 years???
104
D - 13
INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
5618 Freeport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
October 16, 2003
TO:
GEORGE TAYLOR
FROM:
CARL ADAMS
RE:
PHOENIX ENTERPRISES LICENSING DEAL
I attach for your review a copy of a letter (dated October 10, 2003) that I recently
received from Tan Kar-Seng, my counterpart at Phoenix Enterprises. We have been going back
and forth over royalties, and I think that we have finally reached agreement on extremely
favorable terms. One thing bothers me, though.
In the course of the negotiations both sides threw up a lot of smoke screens, asking for ridiculous
terms like cash payments up-front. That’s standard negotiating. Now they’ve come up with a
“right of first refusal” request. I can’t tell whether that’s another smoke screen, or whether it’s
really something we should worry about.
We want to give them an exclusive license over all of our Smartplug products and their
progeny. Does this right of first refusal add anything to that? Aren’t they entitled to all
conceivable products once we give them the exclusive license? If so, why would they care about
the additional provision?
Am I missing something here? Does this somehow affect the length of the contract?
We’re already going with them for 10 years. You’re the boss; tell me what to do.
105
D-13a
Phoenix Enterprises, Inc.
233 Tian He Road
Guangzhou 510613, P.R. China
10 October, 2003
Carl Adams
5618 Freeport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
Dear Carl:
Your royalty terms are acceptable, as is the mutual abandonment of requests for front-end
payments. We can accept a re-negotiation of royalties for the potential five year extension, but
we should expressly refer this issue to arbitration, in addition to having a general arbitration
clause, in the event that we fail to agree.
In view of the higher royalties, however, we shall have to insist on the insertion of a
clause providing a right of first refusal with regard to the distribution in Asia of all future Intech
products. If we are to carry the full cost of a continent-wide distribution and advertising
network, then we must have an option on all future Intech products, whether or not they are
covered by our exclusive right to improvements on “Smartplug” and its progeny.
This seems to be our last hurdle. What do you say?
Yours truly,
/s/ Tan Kar-Seng
106
D-14
INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
5618 Freeport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
October 17, 2003
TO:
CARL ADAMS
FROM:
GEORGE TAYLOR
RE:
PHOENIX ENTERPRISES CONTRACT TERMS
You were right to contact me on the “right of first refusal” question. Although I don’t see
a problem with it, I was glad to have the opportunity to look over Tan’s letter.
I see the exclusive license to the Smartplug products as covering only the games and
cassette decks that make direct use of the Smartplug technology, plus any peripheral or spin-off
material. For example, the Smartplug license would cover any games that we produce for the
Smartplug deck. It would also cover things like posters, toys, and magazines based on those
games.
The exclusive license wouldn’t cover products that are unrelated to Smartplug videos.
For example, if we went into the (non-video) pinball machine business, Phoenix Enterprises
wouldn’t have a claim to distribute our products under the exclusive license for Smartplug.
When we complete our next generation of video games (Smart2 or whatever), as opposed to just
improving the Smartplug, that shouldn’t be covered either.
Smart2 will use an entirely unrelated technology, which should be specifically excluded
from the deal. It might cost a fortune to develop, so we have to be free to put it up for bid. It
wouldn’t hurt to make sure that Phoenix Enterprises understands this distinction, although I
wouldn’t press it on them at the risk of blowing what seems like a very good deal for us on the
royalties.
That’s all fairly academic, though. We have no objection to giving Phoenix Enterprises a
right of first refusal on all of our future products, so long as the terms are reasonable, and they
have proven that they can do the job. Make sure that they have to exercise their rights in writing
within 30 days, and that should take care of any problems.
107
D-15
INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
5618 Freeport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
INTRA-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To:
Carl Adams
From: George Taylor
Date: October 16, 2006
Re:
SP2 Contract with Sakura Company
I have reviewed the Phoenix Enterprises contract with our attorneys. Unfortunately, they
are of the opinion that paragraphs 9 and 10 clearly give Phoenix Enterprises the right to match
any proposal that we receive for the Asian distribution of Sp2.
And that’s the case even if we can get out of the Smartplug contract on the basis of
unsatisfactory performance!
Our only hope is that Phoenix Enterprises won’t exercise their option, which is unlikely
given that Sp2 will probably devastate their Smartplug operations.
We have two alternatives, as I see it. First, we can try to buy out Phoenix Enterprises’
option, though I doubt that we could afford to pay the true value of the distribution rights to Sp2.
More promising is the possibility of structuring Sakura Company’s offer in such a way
that Phoenix Enterprises will be unable to match it. Sakura Company is as strong in Singapore,
Korea, and Japan as Phoenix Enterprises is weak, so we can place a premium on sales and
service in these countries. In other words, we can fit the contract terms so that only Sakura
Company can fulfill them.
Of course, if Phoenix Enterprises meets the terms (whatever they are), we’ll have to go
with them.
In that case, we had better start thinking of ways to improve their performance.
To make sure that you fully understand the gravity of the situation, be aware that I will
personally handle all of these negotiations. You will not be involved. Should we end up stuck
with Phoenix Enterprises, you will be responsible for working some magic on their sales!
108
D-16
SAKURA COMPANY
Brooks Bldg. 7F, 1-4-1 Kudankita, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, 102-0073 Japan
_____________________________________________________________
November 1, 2006
George Taylor
Intech Electronics
5618 Freeport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
Dear George:
Following our telephone conversation, it seems to us that we can offer several “services” that
Phoenix Enterprises will not be able to match. Unlike Phoenix Enterprises, for example, we
have offices already located in Japan, Korea, and Singapore. It would require little effort or
expense to turn those offices into repair sites for Sp2 products. The cost, however, would be
much greater for a company that has no other operations in those countries.
As you pointed out, a liquidated damages provision would further add to Phoenix Enterprises’
risk, and we are willing to offer such a clause. You understand, of course, that it may take
awhile before we actually perform repairs in Singapore and Korea as opposed to Japan. We will
most likely use the offices as drop-off and distribution sites, sending the machines to Japan for
the actual work, until sufficient volume develops to justify localizing the work. I trust that you
will consider this an agreeable “interpretation.”
I shall incorporate these terms in a proposal, which I will have with me on November 9, when we
meet at your office.
Very truly yours,
RECEIVED
November 8, 2006
/s/ Takashi Motoki
INTECH Electronics,
INC.
109
D-17
INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
5618 Freeport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
November 13, 2006
Takashi Motoki
Chief Operating Officer
Sakura Company
Brooks Bldg. 7F, 1-4-1 Kudankita, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, 102-0073 Japan
Dear Takashi:
It was good meeting with you last week. I trust that you enjoyed your visit to the United
States, and I hope that you got to see more of our country than just California. Of course, if all
goes as planned, you will have many more opportunities to visit us.
We have reviewed your Proposal of November 9, and its terms are entirely acceptable to
us. As I explained to you, we do have the small problem of our old contract with Phoenix
Enterprises, but I do not expect that to present an insurmountable difficulty. They have only 30
days in which to match your offer, and I think that the expanded distribution provision and the
liquidated damages clause will be impossible for them to accept. If they do accept, of course, we
will have to go with them unless we can think of some other way to avoid their services.
I shall keep you informed of our progress with Phoenix Enterprises. I will ask them for a
waiver of their rights under the contract, but even if that is not forthcoming we will still have an
answer in 30 days.
We look forward to a long and profitable business relationship. I hope that our next
meeting can be a formal signing -- in Tokyo.
Very truly yours,
/s/ George Taylor
Chief Executive Officer
110
D - 18
INTECH ELECTRONICS, INC.
5618 Freeport Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95822, U.S.A.
December 30, 2006
Takashi Motoki
Chief Operating Officer
Sakura Company
Brooks Bldg. 7F, 1-4-1 Kudankita, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, 102-0073 Japan
Dear Takashi:
As we predicted, Phoenix Enterprises has not effectively exercised its right of first
refusal. They were compelled to present us with a counter-offer, seeking to substitute increased
royalties for the guarantee of distribution sites (and liquidated damages). Needless to say, we
chose not to interpret their proposal as “exceeding” the terms of your offer. Thus, we are now
free of that troublesome firm.
Please take this letter as our acceptance of your offer of November 9, 2006. Please
advise us of your timetable for beginning production and setting up the various distribution and
repair locations.
Very truly yours,
/s/ George Taylor
Chief Executive Officer
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
5、协商
“协商”来源于拉丁文，原意为“进行交易”。作为一种纠纷解决方式，
“协商”是最古老也是最常用的技巧。狭义的说，
“协商”就是讨价还价、交
换意见或纠纷当事人之间为达成潜在协议进行的讨论。同时，“协商”也
是一种交流过程和心理战役。随着个体的进化，也因为人性的复杂，
协商的形式也越来越多样。
我们必须区分解决纠纷的协商与促成交易的协商。比如，若双方在
汽车的价格协商上陷入僵局，那么任何他人都无法介入，无法强制买
方买车或让卖方卖车。若双方因合同纠纷陷入僵局，那么他们可能会
被迫寻求其他途径，如诉讼与仲裁，这样的第三方可以发号施令，强
制执行其决定。解决争端的协商不同于其他形式的协商，其在司法程
序的笼罩下，若双方协商失败，它可以借助司法强制执行。1
区分协商与解决纠纷的其他途径也很重要。协商是非正式的，与诉
讼和仲裁不同，前者完全由双方或其代表控制，而后两者则均由已有
的规则约束。协商没有特定的形式，也没有特定的程序和方法。只有
双方都同意了协商才可以进行，任何一方都不可以逼迫对方参与协商。
双方共同控制协商的结果。不存在中立方听取证明或提供参考决议。
双方或其代表人必须直接或间接的与对方沟通联系。为获得双方都满
意的结果，协商者必须说服彼此相信他们完全控制下做出的协商结果，
比选择由法官、陪审员或者仲裁员做出的不确定裁决要好的多。
协商与调节的不同之处在于缺少中立方的参与。协商参与者必须靠
自己解决一切问题，无论是实质性的问题、交流上的问题还是谈判风
123
格的问题。
协商与解决纠纷的其他途径的不同正说明了协商是一个参与者相
互依赖的过程。参与者即是协商结果的决定者也是其拥护者。为达成
协议，参与者必须说服彼此。若一方拒绝参与或做出决定，协商就终
止了，同时其他形式的解决程序则开始介入。或许，正是由于协商参
与者的相互依赖性，人们才更关注各种个人协商形式。2
遇到纠纷时，人们总是首先尝试协商，与其他方式相比，协商也是
最常用的，这是协商作为解决纠纷的一种技巧的最后一个特点。比如，
诽谤案件中的进攻方可能在最初的协商阶段失败了，而后提起诉讼，
然而在案件审理过程中会再次寻求协商。协商在任何时候都可能发生，
甚至在上诉阶段也可以。比如，一位很有胜算的被告很可能愿意与原
告协商达成协议，因为他想避免上诉法官做出相反判决的可能性，也
可能是为避免经过上诉的繁琐程序才能获得赔偿的麻烦。
★ 协商如何进行
协商解决争议因采取协商的人不同而有很多区别。然而，多数协商遵循
于一个普遍的模式:：协商取向、信息交换或辩论、危机、和解或中断。11这
一模式和其中两个主要的影响因素，谈判员的实质和个人风格, 提供了一个
程序进行的概要。
协商取向是协商的第一阶段。它包括实质讨论之前所有交流，从个人合
同到书信或电话交换意见。有时诉讼在频繁地初始接触前就已被提出;但是,
协商一直在进行。协商为随后的交流奠定了开始的基调。各方从对对方的公
124
正、风格、意图, 以及能力形成印象, 并基于这种印象，准备协商。
信息的交换或辩论是程序的主体。协商者的风格决定各方是否交换信息
或辩论，这个阶段不同于协商取向阶段，从对程序事项的交流、小型对话转
变为对实质要求、期望或双方立场的交流。根据各方和问题，这个阶段可能
在一个单独时期完成，也可能持续数月才完成，取决于争议双方和争议事项。
第三阶段更像一个点而非一个期间。危机或转折最有可能在最后期限届满时
出现，比如诉讼时效期间届满时、审理日期或仲裁日期来临时。最后期限日
益临近，协商的紧张度日益增强。因为一方断定另一方没有协商的诚意或因
为一方对达成一致意见愈加失望，也会导致危机发生。统计显示, 90%的协商
发生最后 10%的时间里。12许多案件在通往庭审的法院大楼的台阶或大厅里
才得以和解，"法院大楼和解" 通常被用来描述最后时刻达成共识。对和解时
间研究的结果之一表明，32%的刑事案件在审判那天和解，另外有 36%在审
判前的二到二十天内和解。在人身伤害案里，只有 2.5%的案件在审判那天和
解, 但有 42.5%在审判日前的两到十天里和解。相似的情形也存在于商业案
件里。13
协商中断或达成和解协议是程序的最后阶段。临时中断会暂停各方之间
的直接谈判，但他们可以返回到程序开始的阶段。彻底的中断，即坚决拒绝
重新协商，则会使一方返回给对方一个解决问题的单边意见，包括寻求其它
解决纠纷的程序。如果达成和解，在这最后的阶段里，协商者将被允许就细
节达成一致意见，并形成正式协议。
谈判员的实质和个人谈判风格确定了不同阶段的协商方法。实质的谈判
风格可能是分配性或合作性的，被称为用于解决争议焦点问题的方法。另一
125
方面，竞争性或合作性的个人风格被称为谈判员的哲学。14
分配性协商以焦点问题的取向为特征。其目的是划分双方之间固定的资
源。例如，如果资源是金钱，被告失去一美元原告就会获得一美元。分配性
协商不提供折中的机会，因为一方的损失的和另一方的获取总和将是零。分
配性协商的特点是，双方把焦点集中在为解决纠纷愿意付出或希望得到些什
么。例如，在合同违约案件中，为达到谈判被告因其违约该支付给原告多少
补偿的目的，被告可能愿意承认自己的责任。各方会就金额明示他们的立场,
设计解释以获取对方让步。
合作式或者整合式协商强调的是协商中所处地位背后的动机或意图。合
作协商的前提是双方把对问题的讨价还价作为一种满足潜在利益的手段。问
题是具体的、可量化的，但利益却是抽象的动机。15例如，在人身伤害案例中，
原告可能要求从被告那里得到一明确数额的金钱赔偿, 问题是双方同意以多
少钱来解决彼此间的纠纷。但相比之下，原告的潜在意图，可能包括害怕无
法满足因受伤而带来的房租和其他的月消费。协作式将试图确定原告要求具
体金额的理由。协作式协商将寻求其他途径，以满足原告的利益。例如养老
金可让被告支付更少的总金额来解决纠纷, 但是可以满足原告比较担忧的每
月开支。
由协商者采取的个人方式（竞争的或者合作的）会对双方之间的沟通、
各自的认识、处理的过程、策略和方法产生影响。协商者所采用的方式会在
很大程度上决定他们之间产生的关系状况和彼此成功协商的能力。
沟通在个人协商中是一个好的迹象。合作沟通往往要公开,且相关信息自
由共享。竞争沟通是很警戒的，很少有信息交换。
126
合作协商者和竞争协商者通常对协商程序的看法有所不同。合作协商往
往怀着友善信任的态度，并认为这是解决问题必需的过程。他们平等的看待
对方，并认为对方也在试图寻找解决问题的途径。相反，竞争协商者倾向于
敌对、威胁的态度，并认为这一过程是有利地解决结果的障碍，毫无必要。
他们怀疑对方，不信任对方。
合作协商者和竞争协商者的目的经常也是不同的。合作协商者寻求的是
一个相互满意的结果，而竞争协商者是仅仅为自己或其代理人寻求最大可能
的利益。
调查表明，无论合作协商者还是竞争协商者，就成果而言，都既有微不
足道的，也有业绩卓越的。调查还表明，协商者采取能够呈现出新个性的协
商风格不再那么容易。最好的协商者追求的是让天生适合自己的方式更加完
美。16
★协商中举证责任
有别于诉讼, 协商并不须要指定某一方承担举证责任。而是要求，
就所提供的证据的确定性而言，双方要放弃从对方那里得到更多而自
己提供更少的可能性。这是一个个人满意度的问题，双方必须对协商
结果充分满意，否则各方将拒绝自愿的接受。因此,双方确立了主观的
举证责任。
每个人的主观需要有所不同。处理纠纷的情绪、心理和资金费用等
因素以及对终止纠纷的期望度不同，都会影响一方对和解方案的看法。
127
双方在任何时刻都可以改变自己的解决标准。
★协商中律师的角色
在协商中律师通常扮演两个角色。第一，作为法律专家，他们为当
事人提供咨询。当事人希望他们能评价主张或抗辩的优势，以及建议
采取何种手段能最好地实现当事人的目的。第二, 他们通常都是谈判
者。他们与其他当事人(或其代表)交流 ,评估信息, 并适当的改变对他
们的当事人的建议。
作为一名法律专家，律师负责对纠纷做出重要的法律结论。法律如
何规定？如果案件被诉诸仲裁或诉讼什么样的证据可以被采纳？基于
可能被采纳的证据，主张或抗辩中某些特定的部分达到要求的确定性
程度的可能性有多大？这些问题的答案有助于预见如果纠纷交给一个
中立的第三者作最后的裁决的话，可能发生什么结果。
律师对裁判程序下的结果预测，也有助于确定纠纷和解方案的价
值。例如，在人身伤害诉讼中，通常有两个争议的问题：责任(被告是
否该负责)和损害赔偿金(原告基于损害结果提出的赔偿数额)。专门研
究人身受伤案件的律师使用各种各样的方法来预言审判的可能的结
果。推荐这样一个公式通过给各个因素打分来评价案件。因素和分值
可能是：证明被告责任的难易程度( 50 分) ;原告的伤害的严重程度( 10
分)；原告资格的可靠性和可信度( 10 分) ; 由被告造成的主观印象 ( 10
分) ; 原告自己掏钱治疗损害的费用 ( 10 分) ; 原告的年龄 ( 10 分)。17
律师依据管辖区内以往类似的案例判定这个案件是否可能在这个审判
128
中胜诉。陪审团可能做出的判决通过上述化整为零打分的方法来确定，
从而形成建议解决的方案。
比如在有关诉讼的那章里所讨论的 Sara Goings 案，该案的主要问
题是在本州的法律制度下 Goings 无法确立 DDS 百货公司的责任。对
她有利的是：她受伤严重，能找到一位出色的证人，而且她已经花费
了大笔资金用于医疗费用,而要继续花费的则更多。DDS 百货公司是一
家冷淡而缺少人性的公司。但是，Goings 年事已高，这可能会带来较
低的伤害以补偿她。在其管辖区内的陪审团已补偿给受到类似伤害的
原告 40,000 至 70,000 美元。
利用上述提到的案例处理因素，她的律师可能会提出以下几点，并
得出以下结论：
最高分值
实际分值
责任
50
5
严重程度
10
8
原告资格的可能性
10
10
被告印象
10
8
费用开支
10
8
原告年龄
10
4
100
陪审团的平均判决
$55,000
129
43
判定系数
案件处理结果
X .43
=$23,650
这些预测结果的重要性是基于这样的概念：如果协商让当事人还是
感到为难的话，会出现一个替代性的裁决程序。双方仍然可以自由接
受或拒绝和解方案，但是，争议若经裁判解决可能导致的结果不确定
性，对于他们做出接受或拒绝的决定会起很大作用。在相似的情况，
当地法院和仲裁员先前的判决，为双方衡量其替代性选择假定了一种
公平的市场价值状况。因此，一对欲离婚的夫妻双方应了解当地法院
关于在解散一段长期婚姻时，对永久赡养费的处理惯例。被控告的罪
犯应该比较控辩交易和当地法院在类似犯罪中对有类似背景的被告判
处刑罚的类型。当事人从律师那里寻求信息和建议来做出这样的比较。
咨询律师在协商中的另一个责任时以保护自己当事人的方式进行
谈判。在协商一个主要矛盾时决定哪些信息该与对方分享。例如，在
合同违约的纠纷中，假设原告提出$15,000，而被告回应的和解方案时
$5,000，原告可接受的最少结果是$9,000。原告律师引导使被告律师确
信，被告要想实现最大利益，则解决这个案子应当不少于$15,000。为
支持这一主张，原告律师可能不惜放弃所有策略上的优势，公开原告
受损害的程度、损失的利润、因违约而采取替代性措施的耗费。然而，
如果原告律师将用来证明违约的信息与对方共享，则被告律师也会有
机会反驳这些证据。原告律师面临两难的境地，要么没有风险性妥协
地说服对方，要么使该案更难证明。
律师就程序的建议也必须包括决定当协商失败时，什么样的纠纷解
130
决程序能最好地为当事人利益服务。例如，涉及某种关系的纠纷，可
能这一关系会使纠纷成功解决，则应当采取一种尊重这一关系的纠纷
解决体系来处理。在离婚案中，代表一方当事人的律师就实体问题的
协商可能面临瓦解，于是，他会试图就解决纠纷的程序问题进行协商，
以避免提起诉讼。
最后，律师在协商中的作用应当放在整个诉讼系统来理解。诉讼使
双方律师形成一种分离的、竞争的状态。例如，诉讼请求迫使律师列
举特定的事项陈述寻求的特定救济，诉讼也迫使上访方阐明为何自己
的主张正确而对方错误。如果双方选择彼此合作来解决纠纷的话，诉
讼内在的对抗本质必须被克服和临时中止。
★谈判的趋势
由于协商缺少特定的规则和结构，我们很难就其程序予以革新。然
而，立法者一直努力就某些类型的协商做内容和形式上的要求。类似
地，一些律师也发展了一些所谓的解决手册来帮助他们协商。最后，
一种所谓的微型审判被设计出来帮助纠纷当事人协商形成和解协议。
一个就协商内容和形式进行立法规制的典型存在于政府劳动管理
领域。劳动者和政府管理部门的纠纷可以通过立法规定的程序来进行。
一般说来，双方被给予一定时间来进行协商。这段期间届满时，如果
18
协商未果，双方必须转入调解。如果调解也没成功的话，则要求双方
就仍然存在争议的事项提交一个旨在探明事实的第三方进行审理。在
一段时间内，事实探明者提出一个建议报告，该报告可能被接受也可
131
能被拒绝。经过一段时间则争议可能被提交另一程序，这一步的目的
是使双方进行交流。在下一步程序采取前要求经历特定的一段期间，
其设计的目的是让双方“冷静下来”进入协商。调解和事实探明为协商程
序提供了方便，也提供了一些对双方有用的信息。
联邦民事诉讼规则第 68 条也鼓励双方协商解决争议。该条规定允
许一方为另一方提出解决方案的建议。该建议可能包括金钱或财产。
如果建议不被接受，拒绝建议的一方将会得到比建议中数额更少的赔
偿金，还必须支付自建议提出之日起，提出建议者发生的费用。诉讼
当事人日益频繁地适用 68 条来避免进入庭审，法官也日益频繁地适用
68 条来鼓励协商解决纠纷。19
对协商的内容和形式进行立法规定的最后一个例子是在消费领域。
立法者正在制定成文法规制在消费领域信息共享的行为。因为人们认
为在消费领域消费者和经营者没有平等的议价权。消费信用卡就属于
这一范围。信用卡公司可以以多种方式计算和解释手续费和利率。国
会认为消费者在信用卡协商中是不平等的议价者。因此，法律规定利
率和手续费如何制定，并要求在协议达成以前明确地公布。20国会的目
的是允许消费者有准备地比较各个信用卡供应商提供的项目。
解决手册作为人身伤害中协商的工具越来越频繁地被采用。21解决
手册是原告法律顾问准备展开案件的一个小册子，揭露了原告可以用
来确立被告法律责任的证据，和原告受伤有关费用的证明文件，它指
示了有关伤害的未来利益损失，对于争论以达成和解有重要作用。小
册子的内容仅限于律师的假想。图片经常被用来说明伤害状况，或比
132
较受伤前后的生活状况，经常还包括一些独立的部分，涉及案件适用
的法律，重申原告地位所代表的力量。对小册子的一些批评是它们潜
在地暴露了原告律师不愿暴露给被告律师的一些公开理论或技巧。22
1
Mnookin&Kornhause,法律阴影下的控辩交易：离婚案件，88Yale L.J.950(1979).
见Jian R.Fisher 和W.Ury 的“强硬式与温柔式” 谈判的讨论，得到对方肯定：不用付出的谈判
2
13（1981）；G.Williams的“合作式和竞争式” 谈判：法律协商与和解 46（1983）；C.Craver的二
十个谈判的普通技巧：有效的法律谈判和和解
同注释 2.
11
12
Colosi副总统的讲话在美国仲裁协会、华盛顿州教育协会 1985 年 4 月 20 日的讲话。
13
G.Williams 在 1980 年 10 月 8 日至 11 日的“协商和和解推进美国法律进程”年会上的讲话。
14
15
同注释 2.
A.Maslow,人类动机理论，40Psych.rev.370(1943)
同注释 2.
16
17
Sindell，在和解和控辩交易中衡量人身伤害案件的公式，美国审判法律 1981
18
19
20
68 条应用于制裁拒绝和解建议而追求更好的司法裁决的原告的民事权利，
关于计算和公开消费信用卡供应商的费用的规则
21
Thomasch,和解和控辩交易中达成协议的目的和技巧
22
Speiser,和解和控辩交易中的心理和艺术
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
6 调解
调解一般被简单定义为被积极推动的协商，一个公允的第三方（调解人）
努力促成争议方或其代理人参加协商，以寻求其争议的解决。争议方仍然对
争议的解决负责。调解人的角色只是定位于提出争议方均可接受的方式，来
为协商的进展提供帮助。有时，调解人仅仅只是提供一个协商讨论的机会或
只是负责协商会议的召集。更多的时候，调解人是对争议方寻找可供解决争
议的共同基础进行帮助，提出替代方案，对达成协议的过程进行监督以及最
终协议的起草。调解既可以在双边争议中出现以寻求一个问题的解决，也可
以在多边争议中出现以寻求多个问题的解决。争议方可以亲自参加到调解协
商中来，也可以委托代理人参加。调解在绝大多数情况下是一种自愿程序，
但在某些司法管辖区域内，调解是法律规定的或法院指定的。
调解具有多种特性。第一，它是私人性的（相对性），即使是法院指定
，
调解（经常出现于离婚诉讼中）或法定调解（经常出现于劳动争议诉讼中）
其也不具有公开性，其进展只为争议方及调解人知晓。
第二，调解是秘密的，体现在两个方面。一方面是争议方必须与他们的
调解人保持和谐的关系并愿意向其透露一些他们可能不愿公开或被其不信
任的人知晓的信息。另一方面是在随后的调解中，无论争议方还是调解人都
不会泄露调解进行中的有关事项。调解的首要目标就是鼓励争议方提供任何
有益于解决争议的信息。如果争议方担心调解中被共享的信息可能在随后的
程序被使用（从而对己方构成不利），例如作为审判程序中的证据，那么他
们将可能不愿意透露相关信息。
调解的第三个特性是调解程序一般由争议方和调解人创设并控制。如果
145
调节是争议方自愿的，则调解协商的相关人员必须决定调解将在何时何地进
行、相关费用以及调解程序本身的全部细节。调解协商开始之前，争议方和
调解人通常会就调解适用的规则进行商议，规则可以涵盖以下事项：争议方
是相互直接进行协商还是通过调解人为中介间接传达自己的意图（或报价）；
调解人是否被允许单独会见争议方，以及协议的形式。即使在法定调解中，
当协商无果或者法院指定调解作为审判的先决条件情况下，争议方及调解人
仍可以控制其调解程序的许多细节。
最后，和协商一样，调解是一种“向前看”的程序，反观裁判程序——诉
讼和仲裁——均需要对发生在过去的案件事实进行调查。基于此调查，再依
据可适用的法律、合同条款或者公共政策创设和分配权利义务。对此而言，
调解注重各方将来用以解决其争议的行为。对发生于过去的事实认定不是调
解的焦点所在。实际上，确定过去行为责任所在的努力只会为其他可以接受
的争议解决方式增加麻烦。
自愿调解
在自愿调解中，争议各方有义务进行程序创设、调解人选任、调解协商
所适用的调解规则的选定以及对协议的协商。在以下情况下争议方通常普遍
接受自愿调解：争议方之间存有一种尚不断发展的关系，并希望或需要维护
这种关系。例如各方基于合同或习惯存在的一种不断发展的关系——商事关
系（或称业务联系）
。
自愿调解还常用于婚姻解除的情形。在有关婚姻解除的争议中，双方均
想在子女监护权、探视权、赡养义务等问题的处理上保持主动。尽管存有这
146
种欲求，或者说正是由于这样的欲求，站在婚姻破裂边缘的夫妻通常不可能
有任何的交流。更不用说进行有效的协商了。中立方的出现经常会使这种协
商成为可能。调解人可以提供的帮助包括讨论焦点的调整、情绪安抚以及提
议的整理。使得争议方可以只针对提议做出反应而避免双方直接的接触。除
了帮助夫妻解决和离婚有关的当前问题，调解还能帮助他们发展一种协作的
能力来处理未来可能产生的有关子女抚养的问题。
通常在处理国际争议中，调解是唯一有效的争议解决手段，有时是争议
方自愿将争议提交调解，其他时候则是由美国或其他国家派出调解人或调解
小组前往争端地区以说服争议方加入商定的协议。
自愿调解正在不断为很多其他领域所接受，其中包括产品争议（或称消
费争议），产品制造者将与消费者之间的产品争议——上至汽车、下至电脑
——均提交调解处理。许多全国性的商会也提供调解服务以处理消费者申
诉。
在解决环境争议方面，调解的使用频率正在增加。为了解决问题，调解
程序常会施加压力以使争议方同意妥协。故环境方面的调解是有争议的，但
当环境标准已经制定出来而争议焦点主要集中于履行的方式时，这方面的批
评就销声匿迹了。
有证据表明，自愿调解对于解决来自于学校、教堂、工厂、政府部门内
部以及政府部门之间的争议也是有帮助的。同时，由于争议方之间常存在相
当程度的不信任，使得在解决私人争议时，调解也常常被选用。
最后，如果法院和被害人同意，一些刑事争议也通过自愿调解的方式得
以解决。一般刑事调解的采用，须同时具备以下两个条件：1.被害人与被告
147
人之间存有尚不断发展的关系并希望得以保持。2.被控犯罪行为被界定为轻
罪。经调解的解决方式，如被告人同意寻求毒瘾或酒瘾的治疗方法，可以导
致刑事指控被撤销。
自愿调解的工作模式
争议方决定选用调解方式解决争议，一般是由于如果没有第三方介入，
仅仅通过争议双方无法达成解决争议的协议。一旦他们合意选用调解，那么
他们首先必须选择调解人。确定调解人的方式有很多，一些人选择在电话号
码簿上对其调解服务广而告之。其他人则依靠律师、顾问、牧师的推荐。由
于调解人通常是从学术界人士中抽取，所以地方学院和大学经常会持有数份
调解人的名单。同样，州级、市级、县级社会服务机构有时会持有调解人的
资料。州调解调停服务机构有时会让争议方转而求助于提供调解服务的个
人。最后，虽然美国仲裁协会主要业务范围侧重于商事或劳动领域，但其也
会持有数份调解人的名单。
调解成功有赖于争议方选择为双方信任和尊敬的调解人。一些调解人在
调解中起指导作用并积极参与到协商中来，给出建议、提出替代方案、尽全
力使争议方达成争议解决的协议。其他调解人则更多地把他们的角色定位于
一个调停人（或者说调和人），其职责就是为争议方提供一个坐下来讨论的
机会，使争议方能够解决他们的分歧。有时，参加调解的争议各方在最终选
择一名帮助他们解决争议的调解人之前，必须先会见几个预期的调解人。
不同于诉讼，调解程序并没有规定形式和一套要求争议方必须遵守的规
则。所以，没有两个完全相同的调解过程，每个调解程序都会反映出争议方
148
的需求和预期以及调解人的风格。尽管如此，大多数调解程序还是由以下三
个环节组成：程序的介绍和基本规则的确立、争议问题和意见的逐步展开以
及对协议的协商。虽然与有经验的争议方合作可能会使程序相对来说进行地
快一点，但每个环节都十分复杂。
1.程序的介绍和基本规则的确立
参与调解的争议方仍要对他们争议的解决负责，他们不能把责任转移到
参与争议调解的调解人身上。因此，介绍程序阶段一个最重要的方面就是调
解人对争议方进行调解程序中所应承担责任的教育以及对调解人角色的阐
明。调解程序介绍所需时间取决于争议方的经历和社会经验。
即使参加调解的争议方已对调解程序有了很好的了解和认识。但由于他
们可能带有敌意或者具有不对等的谈判技能，从而阻碍协商的成功，大多数
调解人会在调解初期密切关注争议各方的态度和谈判技能，他们直接面对来
自争议方的敌意并试图使争议方适应其工作任务——解决一个或几个让其
付诸调解的问题，并避免使用通常无用的指责。一些调解人也认为他们有责
任帮助争议各方发展有效并更平等的谈判技能，如果谈判技能的失衡十分明
显，一些调解人则会建议中止调解，同时，谈判技能逊色的一方会受到提升
其技能的外在帮助。
在调解的第一个环节中，最重要的程序就是基本规则的确立，调解基本
规则等同于诉讼中的程序规则，其指导调解的进行、约束争议方和调解人，
为了适应具体调解程序的需要，基本规则并不都是完全一致的，但通常都会
包括以下几个问题的回答：
1.
调解会议的召开日期，每次会议的会期，调解会议召开地点，是否
149
限定召开几次会议仍无法解决争议就将采取替代方案。
2.
在调解中何种行为是可接受的或不可接受的，为了有助于调解达到
目的，何种承诺是各方愿意做出的，各方是否应当在调解程序前请
教法律顾问，如果一方不能参加调解会议，其应向其他争议方和调
解人发出何种通知。
3.
各方愿意实现何种解决协议，协议是否应当是要式的，协议是否可
以作为合同被起诉，是否可作为解决方案草案而提交给法院，如果
是的话，那么在起草协议中，调解人扮演何种角色。
4.
调解人应当遵守何种规则，调解人是否可以单独会见争议方，如果
可以的话，此种会见中传达的信息是应为其他争议方共享还是保密，
调解人是否可以被邀请就争议解决提出自己的建议，还是只能为协
商提供便利。
5.
如果争议方在调解中达成了协议，但随后发现需要就某些问题重新
协商，那么其重开协商或调解应遵守什么程序。
6.
调解费用如何负担
基本规则还应包括诸如此类的对争议方影响重大的其他规则。基本规则
形式上提供了调解程序的框架以及强调了争议方在争议解决中的支配地位。
确立基本规则是争议方在签订协议前的第一次实践机会，在此预备阶段
的协议为之后实质问题方面协议的达成铺平了道路。
一些调解人采用合同的形式为争议方和调解人起草基本规则，并在协商
开始前签署。该合同将约束争议各方并成为他们在协商中的权利义务的证
明。
150
在调解的第一环节，争议方尚有几项重要决定可以做出：一是其争议是
否将提交调解以寻求解决。到第一环节结束前，原来不了解调解的争议方已
经充分意识到在调解中其仍对解决争议的程序和解决协议的同意保有控制
权，其不能将其争议移交一个中立方解决。另一个重要决定就是他们是否选
择了一个合适的调解人，如果任一方认定调解人或调解程序是不可接受的，
他们有权利并有义务寻找一名合适的调解人或寻求解决争议的其他方式。
2.争议问题和意见的逐步展开
在基本规则确立以及表面上争议方了解调解程序之后，大多数调解人开
始帮助争议方认定争议中的事实和问题。如果争议是多变的或涉及多方利
益。那么此环节将会十分复杂。常见的有环境方面的争议、涉及监狱的争议
和许多商事争议。争议方有时在争议问题相关事实方面不一致，有时他们甚
至不愿与其他争议方交谈。
在争议问题和意见逐步展开的环节中，至少有三个层次的问题需要调查
研究：直接具体的问题、根本利益和需求以及原则和价值观念。
争议方参加调解的原因就是因为那些直接具体的问题。例如在合同争议
中，这样的问题可能包括电脑芯片供货方用外国产芯片替代合同所要求的美
国产芯片。在离婚争议中，具体问题可能包括夫妻中谁将取得子女监护权或
谁将继续居住家中。
根本利益与需求是争议方在具体问题中采取态度的背后诱因。刚提到的
合同争议中，供货方的根本利益可能在于与海外芯片制造商建立或维护一种
不断发展的关系，由于担心美国产芯片会变得十分昂贵，供货方可能会试图
151
在海外市场确立自己的地位。在离婚争议情况下，父母一方可能担心子女监
护权的失去会破坏父子或母子关系，父母的旨在维护与子女关系的根本利益
会在子女监护权问题解决之前加以仔细研究。
争议方也会将原则和价值观念带入调解中，有时候这些原则和价值观念
会使争议的解决成为泡影。有时候，如果调解后的解决方案能够得以执行下
去，那么这些原则和价值观念就必须加以保护。例如，前述电脑芯片合同纠
纷案件中，买方可能是由于观念形态而不是财政原因更喜欢美国产芯片，其
与供货方之间争议的成功调解需要对这观念形态进行坦诚讨论。同样，离婚
调解中的夫妻可能会在子女宗教培养的重要性方面存在巨大分歧，所以，有
关子女监护权的直接具体问题的解决，离不开对夫妻各方关于宗教教育的原
则和价值观念的深入探究。
对争议中三个层次问题的调查探究可能会变得十分情绪化并暴露出一
些争议方之间很深的心理分歧。在其他争议解决的场合，争议方和决策方会
尽力忽略情感问题而只关注于“事实”。而调解倾向于把事实看作是产生争议
的双方关系的次要方面。采用这一更宽泛的对待争议问题的看法，可以使包
括引起调解程序的问题在内的很多问题得到解决。
调解第二环节的另一个重要工作是鉴别出谁正受到以及谁将受到争议
和争议解决的影响。调解中的争议是否限于争议方之间或者说在寻求争议解
决的同时是否应考虑其他人及其他利益。在离婚调解中，除了夫妻，受影响
的子女、父母、亲属，甚至朋友都是明显的利害关系人。离婚调解人的道德
准则要求调解人在调解中保护子女的利益。商事争议也会涉及到直接争议方
以外的利益。例如，如果一家会计师事务所的合伙人就其合伙协议产生了争
152
议，当他们就新协议展开协商时，他们需要考虑其雇员和客户的利益。
调解中争议方只有在他们就争议问题的广度和深度有了一个清晰的认
识之后才会开始考虑和研究争议解决方面的意见。在这关头，许多调解人会
提供一个献计献策的会议。争议方对他方提出的解决建议采取防御姿态是很
正常的。为了能够在桌面上得到多样化的意见，调解人会进行一项旨在征求
意见或想法的会议，并不对这些意见或想法进行评估。争议方（一些个案中
还有调解人）可以提出任何想象得到的解决办法，并以此来激发灵感提出更
多的办法。之后，通过冷静的评估、鉴定，证明一些办法、意见可以实施。
调解协议中，法律规则具有相当的作用。例如离婚的夫妻可能不同意或
不希望法院对离婚的认可。如协议规定有监护权的父母一方可以让子女不去
上学并且没有经批准的家庭教育计划，那这协议就违反了学校出勤规定。
不过，自愿调解中，争议方对法律在协商中的作用有相当大的自由裁量
权。例如，一个餐馆的合伙协议要求每个合伙人每周要工作近 50 小时。一
个合伙人声称其他人每周只工作 35 小时，以法律视角来看，这个抱怨的合
伙人有权提起诉讼来解散该合伙。然而，由于餐馆财政上经营良好并且合伙
人均给餐馆带来了独特的技术，考虑到其他合伙人的利益，合伙并不当然解
散，调解不会强迫争议方实现其法律权利。
除了争议方和调解人的情感消耗之外，争议问题和意见逐步展开的过程
也十分复杂和浪费时间。争议性质以及争议方态度和技能将决定需要多少次
会议来完成这个环节。调解人通过帮助争议方以简要的中立的语言来重新表
述争议问题和解决意见，并在进入下一环节之间让争议方对他们需要处理的
问题有一个清晰的认识方式来结束本环节。
153
3.协议的协商
调解中本环节的目标就是在基本规则下使争议方以给定的方式就争议
解决达成协议。通常意味着是书面协议。在更早的程序阶段，无论争议方看
上去取得了多大的进展，在就订立意向性协议这一点上，协商也很容易陷入
停顿。
为了帮助争议方达成协议，调解人经常使用一个技巧，那就是求助于他
们在调解初期已经确立的一些优先考虑的事项。如果他们就基本原则达成了
一致，那么参照那些原则就能为解决其他争议提供一个框架。例如，工会和
资方代表可能会在调解初期同意在工作场所保障言论自由。那么，如果争议
方不能就什么材料可以上雇佣方的公告板达成一致的话，那么基于言论自由
原则的一致同意就可能成为一个有用的参考。
一旦争议方对争议解决方案表示赞同，调解人将负责起草协议或计划的
工作。绝大多数调解人努力做出一份能够被各方理解的清晰明确的文件。全
美律师协会的家庭法部所采用的标准要求调解人强烈建议对经调解的离婚
协议进行独立的法律审查。一些州的律师协会的职业责任规范已采纳或正在
采纳：要求作为调解人的律师建议，争议方寻求对经调解的协议进行法律审
查。一些调解人赞同这一趋势，认为来自外部的法律或者财政的审查给予了
争议方对其协议的信任并对协议条款的遵守产生了额外的激励。其他一些调
解人则坚定认为独立审查会破坏调解程序，担心其成本太高以及担心一些律
师至少会怀有通过诉讼或仲裁会赢得更多利益的希望而劝他们的委托人不
要同意调解协议。
有时，争议方发现，他们在调解结束时写下的协议被证明是令人不够满
154
意的。起草的协议可能没有包括足够的条款或随后出现了争议方在原先协议
中没有预料到的问题。因此，许多调解人会建议协议包括一个可以重开调解
的条款。如果争议方知道他们能够重回调解来解决分歧，他们可能会互相避
免采取更多的对立姿态。重新协商通常会比原协商更快地结束。因为争议各
方已经适应了一同工作以及遵守先前已确立的基本规则。
律师在调解中的作用
律师在调解中有四种主要的作用，即作为调解人、作为争议方在调解程
序中的代理人、对其委托人进行训练以使其能够亲自参加到调解中来、审查
调解中制定的协议。
大量律师把从事律师业务的一部分时间拿出来用于调解的相关工作。通
常大多数都是有关离婚案件的调解，夫妻要求律师对他们离婚问题的解决提
供帮助。提供调解服务的律师声称他们法律方面的培训可以为调解提供非常
好的知识背景，同时，由于双方相互对于协议满意的可能性，使得调解通常
较之诉讼、仲裁更能实现皆大欢喜的结果。
当委托人是集团性的时候，如公司、工会、利益集团或政府单位，律师
也会作为代理人参加到调解中来。律师的职业观念使其擅长于协商，同时对
于法律权利义务的了解，使其能够胜任这个角色。如果其委托人是个人并且
争议涉及到可能的不断发展的关系时，律师则很少以代理人身份出现，在商
定解决协议的会议中，律师作为代理人出席需要依据主持会议的法官所确立
的程序。
律师在调解中所扮演的第三人角色是通过提供法律咨询、技能培训或兼
155
而有之的方式帮助其委托人为调解做准备。例如在商事领域中，通常会有以
下几种情况：委托人在参加调解之前需要律师的法律咨询；企业所有者可能
对调解感觉很轻松并且了解所有可能提出的不同意见的商事结果，但对一些
法律后果却不是很清楚，律师也会与其委托人一起工作以帮助他们提升调解
中所需的有效谈判技能。在离婚的情形中律师的此角色也是很普遍的，一个
将参加调解的人可以会见律师，学习在调解程序中更加有效的参与方式。
最后，律师经常被要求审查调解协议。调解中的争议方需要知道他们协
商达成的协议是合法并不违反自己的利益的。对协议的独立审查能使他们对
协议的公正性有更大的信任。有时由于争议方忽略了一些审查律师认为重要
的东西，导致法律审查会就此重开调解协商。在得到法律方面的咨询后，争
议方会就律师发现的问题重新调解。
尾注
1 W. Davies & P. Fouracre, 《欧洲中世纪早期的争议解决》236-237 页 (1987).
2 J. Folberg & A. Taylor, 《调解——非诉方式解决冲突的综合性指导方针》1-7 页
(1984).
3 见 J. Auerbach, 《可以没有法律的正义么？》 35-36 页 (1983).
4 R. Coulson, 《商事仲裁——你需要了解的东西》8 页 (1986).
5 Ch.347, 44 Stat.577 (1926) (编纂修订于 15 U.S.C. §§21, 45; 18 U.S.C. §373; 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1291-1294; 45 U.S.C. AA 151-163, 181-88 (1982)).
6 45 U.S.C. §§ 154, 183 (1982).
7 29 U.S.C. § 172 (1982).
8 《调解程序的探索： 离婚和家庭调解实践标准》, 1986 A.B.A. Sec. Fam. Law 24
156
(standard IIID).
9 Id. at 32-33 (standard VIA).
10 Pirie, 《律师调解员: 职业责任问题还是职业问题？》, 63 Canadian B, Rev. 378 页,
383 页 (1985).
11 W. Brazil, 《民事诉讼的解决》 (1985).
12 Will, Merhige & Rubin,《法官在解决程序中的角色定位》 75 F.R.D. 203 页(1978); 见
Schiller & Wall, 《司法解决技术》, 5 Am. J. Tr. Ad. 39, 41-44 页 (1981).
13 Friedman & Anderson, 《离婚调解的力量》, 3 Cal. Law. 36(7) (1983).
14 R.Shonholtz, 《邻里关系司法论坛:邻里关系的集中表现》(1983).
15 See J. Beer, 《邻里关系的调解》 (1986).
16 Ford Foundation,《争议解决的新途径》(1978).
17 见 Fiss, 《解决的反对》, 93 Yale L.J. 1073(1984).
18 见 Goldberg,《集体合同中申诉的调解》, 77 Nw. U. L. Rev. 170, 281-293 页 (1982).
参考文献
《美国律师协会，职业责任的示范章程》(1980).
《美国律师协会，离婚和家庭调解实践标准》(1986).
J. Auerbach, 《可以没有法律的正义么？》 (1983).
J. Beer, 《邻里关系的调解》 (1986).
J. Beer, 《家庭争议中律师调解员的实践标准, 争议解决论坛 5》 (1984).
W. Brazil, 《民事诉讼的解决》 (1986).
《国家事务局, 公共调解部门》 (1983).
R. Coulson, 《商事仲裁——你需要了解的东西》 (1986).
W. Davies & P. Fouracre, 《欧洲中世纪早期的争议解决》(1987).
157
《争议处理研究计划, 民事案件中法官调解员的出现，威斯康星州立大学工作文件》
(1984).
Fiss, 《解决的反对》, 93 Yale L.J. 1073(1984).
J. Folberg & A. Taylor, 《调解——非诉方式解决冲突的综合性指导方针》(1984).
Ford Foundation, 《争议解决的新途径》 (1978).
Friedman,《调解: 减少对律师和法庭依赖实现正义的途径》 (1980).
Friedman & Anderson,《离婚调解的力量》, 3 Cal. Law. 36(7) (1983).
Fuller,《调解的形式和功能》, 44 S. Cal. L. Rev.305 (1971).
Goldberg, 《集体合同中申诉的调解》, 77 Nw. U. L. Rev. 170 (1982).
Lerman, 《虐待妻子案件的调解:非正式争议解决方式对于妇女的不利影响》, 7 Harv.
Women’s L. J. 57 (1984).
C. Moore, 《调解程序》(1986).
Phillips & Piazza, 《公共利益争议中调解的作用》, 34 Hastings L. J. 1231 (1983).
Pirie, 《律师调解员: 职业责任问题还是职业问题？》, ＂63 Canadian B, Rev. 378, 383
(1985).
Riskin, 《调解和律师》,＂43 Ohio St. L. J. 29 (1982).
Schiller & Wall, 《司法解决技术》, 5 Am. J. Tr. Ad. 39, (1981).
R.Shonholtz, 《邻里关系论坛:邻里关系的集中表现》 (1983).
W. Simikin & N. Fidandis, 《调解和动态的集体谈判》 (1986).
Will, Merhige & Rubin, 《法官在解决程序中的角色定位》, 75 F.R.D. 203(1978).
3 自愿仲裁
自愿仲裁是将争议提交给一个中立、非官方的决策者（仲裁员），争议
158
方放弃对提交到仲裁的争议结果的控制。但仍就仲裁员或者仲裁员小组在解
决争议中适用的标准和程序保持控制力。自愿仲裁可以适用于实际上所有的
非刑事争议，普遍使用于因合同解释或者履行而发生的争议。
自愿仲裁在很多方面有别于诉讼。首先，仲裁是私人性的，其进行完全
不受公众的关注，其地点和时间的选择以便利争议方为目的；第二，争议方
可以自行选任其仲裁者。虽然争议方经常选用退休的法官或律师来仲裁争
议，但仲裁员仍需不能是法官甚至律师。争议方可能更喜欢选择一个其争议
标的所涉方面的专家作为仲裁员，无论其是不是一名律师。他们也会选用仲
裁员小组而不是单个仲裁员。
第三，较之诉讼程序，仲裁程序中，争议方具有更大的控制力。他们能
控制诸如仲裁何时开始、仲裁裁决书是仅具有劝告性的还是具有约束力的、
证人是否可以传唤以及出庭后的起誓作证、案情摘要是否应提交以及记录是
否在收到新证据之后仍保持公开等细节。这些细节，一般会在合同的仲裁条
款或者争议产生后起草的仲裁协议中讲清楚。
第四，仲裁给予争议方选择将在争议解决中仲裁员适用标准的权利。例
如，一个买卖合同的仲裁条款可能有如下表述：仲裁员达成的协议应是基于
在仲裁审理中证据被各方出示的情形下一个公平的协议。一些仲裁条款指示
仲裁员依赖争议产生的交易或者行业习惯，其他的则指导仲裁员遵守适用的
法律。如果争议方的合同没有提及争议解决应适用的标准，仲裁员往往会依
据美国仲裁协会的商事仲裁规则中的标准。美国仲裁协会是一个私人争议解
决机构，是一个为商事、劳动、公共部门等争议提供帮助的仲裁员和调解人
提供服务的信息交换中心。
159
最后，争议方负责与自愿仲裁有关的一切费用，包括仲裁员服务费和一
切其他支出。公共纳税人不负责任何费用。
自愿仲裁的工作模式
合同解释或履行的争议的处理基础在争议发生前就已经存在了。想要在
合同中包含仲裁条款以保持对以后的争议解决程序和标准的控制力的争议
方会在合同起草阶段就面临那些问题。常被包含在仲裁条款的协商中的问题
有以下几种：
1. 合同哪个条款为仲裁授权？一些条款表述是一般性的，要求仲裁用于
“此合同下产生的一切分歧和争议”。其他则特别规定包括或排除一些能
够通过仲裁解决的事项。
2. 仲裁何时开始？争议一方采取什么手段可以引起仲裁？当仲裁被要求
开始时，各方的义务是什么？
3. 谁可以作为仲裁员？有时争议方在合同起草阶段就仲裁人选达成了一
致，但他们就选择一名仲裁员或者仲裁员小组的程序达成一致意见则
更为普遍。
4. 仲裁员的权力和职责是什么？合同可能对以下事项具体规定：仲裁员
须在审理之后多久内作出仲裁裁定，仲裁员服务费的负担以及争议方
是否可以在仲裁审理前交换证据资料并出示。
5. 仲裁适用的程序是什么？例如，各方是否可由其顾问代表出席？证人
是否应进行交叉询问？各方是否可以做出开始陈述以及最后陈述？是
在陈述之前还是在之后提交案情摘要？传闻证据是否可以被采纳？
160
6. 仲裁在何处进行？是否须进行仲裁审理记录？仲裁表决作出的形式以
及需要阐明的管理上的细节。
如果合同中的各方想要在其合同中加入仲裁条款但不想自己设计程序，
他们可以协商一致选用美国仲裁协会的商事仲裁规则解决一切争议。此情况
下，一个典型的仲裁条款可以做如下解读：
选用仲裁解决直接来自于该合同或者与其有关的一切争议或主张或者
合同的违约时，应适用美国仲裁协会的商事仲裁规则，并且基于仲裁员作出
的裁定，认定的争议事实可以在对合同具有管辖权的一切法院得到援用。
如果合同要求采用仲裁，但仲裁条款既没有包含参照适用的美国仲裁协
会的商事仲裁规则的条款，也没有详细规定仲裁员或仲裁员小组的选任的情
况下，许多法律规定仲裁员可以进行指定。一旦指定，除非为仲裁条款本身
所限制，仲裁员将被推定具有与法官同等基本权限来管理程序。
一些产生于缺乏仲裁条款的合同的争议、许多与合同无关的其他民事争
议以及那些争议方之前没有同意提交仲裁的争议均可以在争议产生之后选
用仲裁程序。争议方将争议提交仲裁所依据的协议是仲裁程序发生的全部要
件。提交仲裁的协议可以采用以上建议的任何形式。
由于仲裁是由争议方控制的私人性争议解决程序，并没有一个可以适用
于所有仲裁的普遍性规则。然而，仲裁程序一般会沿用几个共同的步骤，这
些步骤对程序运行给出了一个总体上概述。
第一步是争议一方通知另一方其想要将争议提交仲裁的意图。这一步叫
做“要求仲裁”，并且一般为书面形式。此要求会对争议预想的救济方式以及
可主张地损害总额（如果有的话）做出简要介绍。如果是选用美国仲裁协会
161
的商事仲裁规则的，还必须和美国仲裁协会地区办事处提交一份仲裁要求的
副件。通常，对方的回复也需要采书面形式。在这一阶段，争议有时能够非
正式地解决。例如，一方可能没有意识到争议存在，并且可能愿意采取措施
避免仲裁要求。有时收到仲裁要求的一方会因为争议方的合同没有规定特别
问题的仲裁或该问题的仲裁违反法律或者公共政策，而认为争议是不可仲裁
的。那么是否可以仲裁，则必须由诉讼解决。
如果争议方在仲裁要求及回复的交换之后，就可仲裁争议的存在达成一
致，那他们就必须就仲裁员或者仲裁员小组的人选达成一致意见。仲裁条款
可以指示谁来审理争议，更普遍的是仲裁条款规定了选任仲裁员或者仲裁员
小组的程序。美国仲裁协会、联邦调解调停服务机构（或州一级的类似组织）
以及全国仲裁员学会都可以提供具有执业资格的仲裁员名单。
一旦争议方有了一份预期的仲裁员名单，他们就将选择审理其争议的人
员。有代表性的程序是争议方将被提供一份名单，一般为 5 人，并被告知划
去其中不可接受的四个，仲裁员就此产生。如果争议方更喜欢选用仲裁员小
组，则通常是由各方选择一名仲裁员，并由选出的仲裁员就选择一个中立的
第三人作为主席达成一致。
争议方一般会给予仲裁员决定审理时间和地点以及其他程序性事项的
权力。由于仲裁首先是一个查明事实的程序，证据的准备阶段对于争议方来
说十分重要。包括相关数据和文件的收集以及合适证人的准备。仲裁的审前
活动和证据开示形式上类似于诉讼中的相关程序，通常由于仲裁员在事实查
明方面的专业知识或者仲裁条款做出的限制而能够有效组织起来。自愿仲裁
中争议方经常会在仲裁审理之前的某个时间交换证据资料和证人名单。
162
仲裁员或者仲裁员小组对仲裁审理行为负责。除了召集会议和指导程序
进行等一般工作，仲裁员还有对争议方及其代理人保持管制的工作。仲裁审
理的环境常常没有审判程序那么正式，但仍会保障证人发言和争议双方做出
陈述的权利。
仲裁审理的主持类似于审判程序，其中各方对其做出的有利于己方具有
说服力的陈述、他方的弱点的指出、以及将争议解决移交给中立的决策者的
行为负责。仲裁审理程序基本沿用审判程序的框架：各方做出一份开始的陈
述及最后的陈述，各方还可以传唤己方证人和出示己方文件材料，各方还有
对对方证人进行交叉询问的机会。因此，大多数律师可以毫不费力地在仲裁
会议中使用其法庭上的技巧。
诉讼中，争议方（当事人）可以在审理前进行争议解决协议的协商。同
样，在仲裁程序中，解决协议通常可以在仲裁审理前达成。因为当争议方在
收集用于仲裁审理中出示的证据资料时，他们能够更好地决定是否应将争议
提交仲裁员。
然后，审判程序和仲裁程序之间还是有很大的不同的。第一，仲裁员常
在已事先排定的仲裁程序中被赋予较之法官更大的自由裁量权。体现在以下
几个方面：程序性规则的确定、延期审理的批准、传票的发出、证据的采纳
以及作出裁定时证据的衡量。第二，仲裁审理可以不采用正式的证据规则和
程序规则，仲裁员可以自由听取传闻证据，而在法庭审理中如果一方当事人
对传闻证据提出反对意见，则其就会被排除。仲裁员被推定对提出的证据有
能力进行合理适当权衡。第三，仲裁员由争议方选任并负担其服务费。第四，
仲裁程序不在法庭进行，其可以在仲裁员办公室或任何便于争议方并为其接
163
受的地方。
仲裁通常没有法庭审判那样具有戏剧性。仲裁审理的目的是澄清事实。
非正式性、仲裁审理的地点以及仲裁员的专业知识有助于减少法庭上基于陪
审团利益而出现的戏剧性。放宽的程序规则以及证据的直接出示对仲裁整体
效率的提高有很大贡献。
审后程序的改变取决于仲裁协议和仲裁员。审理之后，一些仲裁员要求
争议方提交概述其证据和主张的案情摘要或备忘录。为了提交额外的证据，
一些审理程序可以由仲裁员决定或基于争议方申请而重开。在某些情况下，
仲裁员为了保证裁定按预期执行，会保持对该争议的管辖。
争议方通常决定仲裁员做出解决争议书面裁定的时限。一般允许的时间
为 30 到 45 天。仲裁员常在个案中就制作一份恰当合理的裁定书享有相当大
的裁量权。裁定的一般形式有合同条款的实际履行、工作权利的恢复、金钱
性损害赔偿。如争议方另有具体说明，仲裁员也可以作出一份折中裁定。
自愿仲裁中作出的裁定是争议的终局性解决。多年以来，州和联邦的法
院对自愿仲裁的裁定审查表示出越来越多的不满。偶尔上诉法院会撤消其裁
定，但除非上诉法院能够证明裁定时通过以下方式获得的：欺诈、贿赂或施
加非法的影响；仲裁员受贿或不公正仲裁；仲裁员在程序管理中有渎职犯罪
行为或仲裁员超越法律或仲裁协议授权范围。仲裁裁定的撤销意味着程序要
在换用新的仲裁员、仲裁员小组后重新开始。
虽然法院不愿审查裁定的合理适当性，但他们并没有对执行裁定表示出
不情愿。法律赋予自愿仲裁在司法执行上同样的权力。法院有同执行法院判
决的同样权力来执行自愿裁定。
164
在自愿仲裁中律师的作用
律师在自愿仲裁中扮演着一个重要的角色。首先,他们进行谈判,起
草合同。第二，他们代表当事人进行仲裁.。第三，他们充当仲裁员。
律师在起草合同时具有非常重要的作用。清晰，准确的书面合同，
是一个避免纠纷的最好的方法。起草合同的律师要善于谈判，要善于起
草合同，并善于帮助客户预见应纳入合同的问题。在起草阶段，双方需
要决定当出现争议时候是否使用仲裁，将哪些事项提交仲裁，以及仲裁
程序如何开展等。如果当事人之间出现的纠纷不受合同关系约束，律师
将在谈判和起草协议时，决定当发生争议时是否提交仲裁中扮演着重要
角色。
尽管并非所有自愿仲裁的当事人会选择聘请法律顾问，大部分聘请
法律顾问是因为自愿仲裁通常具有约束力。尽管在仲裁听证会相对不拘
于形式，但在仲裁庭的成功辩护同样需要那些具有有效法庭辩护技能的
专业人士。因此，大部分律师都比较自如地在仲裁庭代理客户进行仲裁。
许多律师会担任仲裁员的角色。当事人及其代理人倾向于选择接受
过法律培训的仲裁员。举例来说，一位律师可能会被认为比大多数非执
业律师能够更好地衡量传闻证据。律师如果希望自己的名字出现在州或
全美仲裁协会的名单上，这些律师往往必须经过见习或培训的过程。为
了增加被当事人选定的机会，他们还必须建立中立和公正的信誉。许多
律师会把传统法律服务和作为自愿仲裁的仲裁员的角色结合起来，而另
外的一些人则是来自法律教学领域。
165
自愿仲裁的趋势
种种迹象表明，仲裁仍将是一个普遍的解决纠纷的方式。尤其是
随着当事人想尽量避免漫长的法院程序和与诉讼有关的引人注目的新
闻报道时，它的运用将会越来越广泛。但是有一些迹象表明，作为传统
隐私领域之一劳动仲裁, 可能会变得更加公开和变得要受先例的约束，
这种情况与新闻系统在法律报道方面的发展类似。
新闻系统报道法律事件大约起源于 13 世纪；到 19 世纪中叶，对于
个案全程报道付诸实践。报道的一个重要的作用是利用先例约束案件适
用的法律。在当代，根据已判决的案例裁判案件（尊重先例），现在已
经认为是理所当然的事。
一些私人公司，如商业票据交换所和国家事务局，正在出版几件劳
动法仲裁的报道。这些报道中含有劳动仲裁所确认的书面意见和仲裁裁
决。当事人和仲裁员必须同意出版，同时出版者必须确定该案件足够典
型值得报道。报道中的大多观点看起来与司法意见类似：在简要地介绍
了案情和解释用以解决这一争端的标准后，仲裁人将解释仲裁结果以及
为何如此仲裁的原因。报道中还包含仲裁员名单和他们的资格情况。
尊重先例的原则也开始出现在仲裁决定中，有些仲裁员已经开始援
用已报道的案件作为自己作出决定的理由。不是所有的仲裁员对此发展
持积极的态度。他们争辩说，劳动仲裁的一个主要优势是尊重隐私，缔
约双方有机会根据合同决定纠纷应该如何解决，以及运用什么标准解
决。他们声称仲裁员应该依据合同内容解决纠纷，而不是参照其他案件
166
来解决争议。
2 诉讼
诉讼是美国正式的争端解决程序，由政府司法部门负责和并由税收
支持其运作。它从诉讼的立案开始，并以撤诉或诉讼裁判的执行结束。
诉讼试图寻求回答关于争议的三个问题：案件的事实是什么? 有关法律
是什么? 法律如何适用于这些事实? 对这些问题的回答需要通过一系
列的程序：庭前准备、审判，和审判后的行为，这些都以证据法和程序
法的相关规定为依据。律师，特别那些经过法律训练和被准许出庭的律
师，在诉讼过程中扮演着中心的角色。
诉讼体现了对抗制的原则。而除了一些行政事务，法院一般不主
动提起诉讼。法院只对争议双方所采取的行动做出回应，并依据争议双
方陈述作出判决。争端双方通过一定的诉讼行为负责诉讼的启动：提起
诉讼，在整个诉讼过程中提出了解决方案，针对自己对手的一些证据提
出反对意见，在审理或听证中说服法庭，如果在审判未胜诉时提出上诉。
法院的职责只在于负责审判程序和作出判决。
与所有的争端解决程序一样，诉讼有几个显著的特点：首先，诉讼，
在解决某特定纠纷后，可以起到为整个社会立法的作用。上诉法院的决
定将成为判例，当将来要面临着类似事实的时候，审判法院应遵循这些
判例所确立的原则。诉讼是唯一可以为以后的争议解决建立纠纷解决程
序和规则。因此，如果争议方的其中一方的目的是为了澄清,修改或宣布
适用于特定事实的法律规则，那么必须通过诉讼的程序。
167
第二，诉讼会有官方强制力的参与。一旦官司已经立案，妥善援引
法院的权威, 起诉的个人或者必须要参加诉讼程序，或者承担疏于防御
而导致的结果。导致的后果范围从缺席判决到藐视法庭而受到传讯(包括
一张拘传许可)不一而足。
第三，诉讼是严格依据（通过立法或通过法院程序确定的）程序规
则和证据规则进行的。程序规则支配着诉讼的进行；支配证据的证据规
则由法官或陪审团来考虑衡量。例如，程序错误可能导致错误部分的制
裁或者导致取消其结果。而未能遵循了证据规则的证据材料不能被法庭
纳入质证的范围。争执双方，在程序规则的制定和颁布或者使用于案件
的证据规则方面，没有自己的发言权。争议双方只能对那些可能会违反
特定法律的行为提出异议。
第四，诉讼是唯一的具有明确执行力的纠纷解决程序。法院可以发
布命令，并使警方在他们管辖权范围内执行这些命令。法院发布的命令
范围包括：可以责令特定人以证人身份出庭，在诉讼结束后强制执行判
决。对于那些不服从法庭命令的人，可能导致轻则罚款，重则监禁的制
裁的后果。
最后，诉讼是一个要向公众公开的过程。除非极例外情况，法庭文
件，记录，法庭庭审过程都要向公众开放。在这里，新闻报道并不少见。
州法院和联邦法院的上诉决定，也都会通过出版系统出版，并广泛传播。
此外，诉讼也是一个国家税收支持的公开的程序。尽管争执双方通
常须支付自己的律师费以及某些诉讼费用，但他们为使用法院服务的付
费普遍低于比法院系统实际运行的成本。法院的设施，为政府的司法系
168
统工作的法官和其他必要的工作人员等等，也都是用纳税人的钱来支持
的。
169
__________________________________________________________________
CHINA
ARBITRATION ADVOCACY
HANDBOOK
______________________________________________
170
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Trial Persuasion
Opening Statement
Direct Examination
Cross Examination
Impeachment
Closing Argument
Teaching Arbitration
Advocacy to Law Students
© University of the Pacific - McGeorge
School of Law
171
I. Overview of Trial Persuasion: Definition and Significance
A. Defined
In the adversarial system, each side presents its case in a way designed to persuade the fact-finder
(decision-maker), whether arbitrator, judge or jury, that its version of the facts makes more sense
than the opponent’s such that its side should prevail. Some of the pivotal elements of persuasion
include:
1.
The credibility of the side’s witnesses and evidence (documents, displays, etc.);
2.
A coherent Case Theory and Case Theme:
-Case Theory is a succinct statement by each side of what happened and why it
happened. (See Section C below.)
-Case Theme is a short, easy-to-remember version of the Theory, a “bumper-sticker”
incorporating a powerful moral sense of right and justice, and appealing to the fact-finder’s
desire to arrive at a just result.
3.
The trustworthiness of the attorney presenting that side’s case, and the power of his belief in
his side’s case, which he must embody in his presentation. Trustworthiness equals
credibility.
B. Use of Persuasion in an Arbitration/Trial Setting
Over the course of the week we will focus on ways to teach advocacy students techniques to be
effective advocates in an arbitration, including how to present one’s witnesses to maximize their
credibility and persuasive effect. There is a direct correlation between the lawyer’s demeanor in the
courtroom and the effectiveness of his witness when testifying.
As to the attorney’s trustworthiness and belief:
1.
The attorney must be reliable in all aspects of the trial presentation: well-prepared, timely,
equipped with the pertinent law and facts to support his arguments, and appropriately
argumentative on behalf of his case. (committed to his position and reasonable in his
presentation).
2.
The attorney must show his belief in his case by the strength of his voice; by the energy of
his examinations and other courtroom activities; and by his unflagging attention to detail.
3.
As is evident from the above observations, it has been well said that
“trial work is 10% inspiration, and 90% perspiration.”
172
II. Opening Statement
A. Defined
Opening Statement is generally considered to be limited to a factual outline of the case to be
presented. Its function is to provide an overview of the case so that the fact-finder / decision-maker
will be better able to remember the facts in context as they come into evidence through the witnesses
and documentary evidence. However, most experienced trial lawyers also consider the Opening
Statement as the first - and best - opportunity to orient the decision-maker to the emotional appeal of
their case. They intend that, by the end of their Opening Statement, the decision-maker will have an
inclination, whether conscious or subconscious, that right and justice lie on their side of the case.
B. Techniques
1.
Always start with a statement of your Theme and Theory. Those elements summarize the
first impression that you want your case to make on the decision-maker. This first moment of
attention is not a time to waste on bland observations like, "This is a rather simple case," or,
"You will hear a lot of evidence today on both sides of the issue ...” Instead, tell the factfinders with the first words out of your mouth why they should view the case in your side's
favor.
2.
In the body of your opening statement, keep the factual summary simple and confined to the
essential facts. The decision-maker cannot memorize the entire case through an oral
presentation before she has met and assessed the participants. Instead, she needs the facts in
outline form so that she can categorize and organize the facts as she hears them through the
presentation of evidence. The clearer an outline you give, the better able the decision-maker
will be to remember your side's facts.
3.
Make the opening statement factual, instead of argumentative. It is more persuasive to
describe your case using vivid facts than to attempt to persuade, at the outset of a case, by
arguing inferences, conclusions, or appeals to sympathy, emotion, or calls for justice.
Those argumentative and oratorical devices are reserved for Closing Argument. (The
initial statement of Theme and Theory is argumentative, but is generally considered a
permissible deviation from the rule against argument.)
4.
The Opening statement should tell the “story” of your client’s case in an interesting
manner that grabs the fact-finder’s attention and makes him want to hear the evidence to
follow.
5.
To the extent possible, eliminate relying on notes when you deliver your opening
statement. While having notes with you that contain your outline is certainly permissible,
try to avoid reading them as you present your case to the fact-finder. Instead, engage in
eye contact with the fact-finder as you persuasively convey though your factual recitation
why your client should prevail.
173
6.
End your opening statement by letting the fact-finder clearly know what outcome you are
seeking in the case. At an arbitration, for example, that would mean telling the fact-finder
that at the end of the presentation of evidence you will be asking the panel to find in favor
of your client and to award damages in the amount of _____.
174
III. Direct Examination
A. Defined
Direct examination consists of a lawyer asking witnesses in his case questions that establish facts and
elements needed to win the case, and the witnesses answering those questions in a clear and
persuasive manner. During direct examination the fact-finder will be assessing the witnesses’
credibility and reliability. Typically, these are “friendly” witnesses, in that they affirmatively
support the side’s case or, at least, take no position favoring one side over the other.
B. Techniques
1.
The goal is to have the WITNESS tell the story - tell what he saw, heard, or knows. The
more he does the talking and the attorney stays “in the background,” the better.
2.
The best way to keep the focus on the witness is to use open-ended questions that require the
witness to give a detailed answer. Try to begin most of your questions with the following
words:
WHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
WHY
DESCRIBE
TELL US
3.
Scientific studies show that listeners remember best what they hear FIRST and LAST.
Thus, the principles of “PRIMACY” and “RECENCY” (“first” and “last”) suggest that
you should begin and end your direct examination of a witness with a relatively important
topic.
4.
For effective presentation, the attorney and witness must have repeatedly practiced the
examination before the arbitration. The fewer surprises in the courtroom the better. Also, if
counsel works with the witness outside the arbitration, the witness will be more confident
when presenting her testimony in the arbitration. From the first moment the witness begins
testifying, the fact finder will be assessing her credibility on the stand. The more confident
she feels and seems in her presentation of facts, the more believable she will be.
5.
The questioner must take an active interest in the answers the witness is giving. This is one
of the hardest parts of direct examination, because the attorney and witness have practiced
the exam, and the attorney already knows the answers. Direct eye contact with the witness
helps greatly to give the message that the attorney is listening closely and with interest. As
with opening statement, the lawyer should avoid looking at notes when asking questions in
the proceeding. Instead, the lawyer should convey a sense of “I’m hearing this for the first
time” when directing the witness.
175
6.
A standard outline for a fact witness on direct examination is to spend the first part of the
questioning on the witness’s background, then “set the scene” for the fact-finder, and
finally to have the witness tell the story of the case. With respect to setting the scene, the
witness may describe the parties to the action, the nature of the action, the physical layout where the action took place, and other descriptions that give the fact-finder context
for the story that follows.
7.
If there are relevant exhibits in the case, having a witness describe specific exhibits and
make use of them when explaining relevant facts in the case, makes the story come to
life in a more vivid and persuasive manner.
8.
As you witness recounts facts, make sure that you break up the testimony with short
questions. Letting a witness talk, uninterrupted, for any length of time runs the risk of
boring the fact-finder and leading to statements by that witness that are harmful rather
than helpful to your client’s case. It is your job as counsel to control the examination
through your carefully placed, short, open questions, rather than relinquishing control to
the witness.
176
IV. Cross Examination
A. Defined
Cross examination is the questioning of the other side’s witnesses. It may have one or more of
several goals:
1.
To diminish the harmful effect of the witness’s direct testimony.
2.
To obtain information that is helpful to the cross examiner’s side.
3.
To reduce the credibility of the witness.
B. Techniques
1.
Because the witness is typically unfriendly to the cross examiner’s case, firm control of the
witness is essential. Otherwise, the witness takes the opportunity to strengthen his testimony
on behalf of that witness’s side.
2.
In contrast to direct examination, where the focus of the examination is on the witness,
during cross examination the focus is on the lawyer. In effect, the cross-examining attorney
becomes the witness; through carefully crafted questions that contain factual assertions, the
lawyer’s goal is to control the witness to the point where the majority of the witness’s
answers are confined to one of two words: “yes” or “no.” A successful cross is one where
the witness effectively confirms the correctness of the cross-examining attorney’s assertions.
3.
The primary method of control is the use of “leading questions,” which are defined as onefact, delaratory statements with a question mark at the end. In other words the “questions”
are really assertions of fact followed by a phrase requiring a response. For example:
- You left the office at 4:00 pm, didn’t you?
- You took a bus, didn’t you?
-You were alone on that bus?
- The window on the bus was open?
- You saw a car drive by?
- The car was metallic green in color?
4.
Never ask an open-ended question (questions that begin with the words: “who, what, where ,
when, why, describe, tell us...”) during cross examination. Use of open questions on cross
will often result in the witness effectively wresting control of the examination from the
lawyer and providing evidence that is harmful to your client’s case.
5.
Confine cross to those points you need for your Closing Argument (see below), including
good points for your side, weaknesses in the points the other side has made through their
witnesses, and credibility problems that make this witness less believable when testifying.
When you have done your best to make those points, STOP ASKING QUESTIONS! A
177
cross-examination that makes the same point over and over tends to lose its effectiveness and
offers the witness a chance to explain away “bad” answers for the other side.
6.
If a witness fails to answer your carefully crafted one-fact question, and instead gives the
answer SHE wanted to give, try repeating your question verbatim after she completes that
answer. If she still refuses to answer the question posed, try asking your question, again,
word for word, a third time. By the second or third time the witness will usually get back on
track and under your control as the examining lawyer.
7.
Just as with Opening Statement, Closing Argument and Direct Examination, the concept
of primacy and recency applies to cross examination. In other words, start and end your
cross examination with important points.
178
V. Impeachment
A. Defined
In general, the term “impeachment” covers (includes) a variety of techniques whose purpose is to
draw into question the credibility of the witness being examined. It is, therefore, almost exclusively
used on cross-examination, although technically there is no rule against its being used on direct
examination of one’s own witness (e.g., if the witness is “hostile” or “adverse” to the questioner).
B. Techniques
1.
There are nine generally-listed modes of impeachment:
i. Bias – the witness favors the other side (e.g., the witness thinks all policemen are honest);
or prejudice – the witness disfavors the side of the questioner (e.g., the witness thinks all
African-Americans are dishonest).
ii.. Affiliation with the other side – e.g., the witness is the defendant’s brother.
iii. Poor ability to observe – the witness was unable to see/hear clearly, for reasons of
position, eyesight, hearing, etc.
iv. Poor ability to remember – the witness is old, or otherwise memory-impaired.
v. Poor ability to recount – the witness does not really know what he is talking about (e.g.,
the witness describes the car as a Toyota, but also admits that it has a symbol that looks
like a blue-and-white propeller = BMW).
vi. Interest in the outcome – e.g., the witness will make or lose money depending on which
side wins.
vii. Conviction of crime – the witness has a criminal record.
viii. Reputation for poor truthfulness.
ix. Prior inconsistent statement – the witness has earlier (before trial) said something directly
contradictory to her present testimony.
2.
The first eight modes of impeachment are done by the usual forms of question to the witness
on cross, i.e., leading questions; or, in some cases, by asking another witness (W2) about the
witness (W1) whose credibility is being impeached. For example, W2 can be called to the
stand to testify that he knows that W1’s reputation for truthfulness in the community is poor.
3.
The last mode of impeachment – by prior inconsistent statement (“PIS”) – requires a specific
set of steps:
179
3.
4.
a.
Recommit the witness to what he said on direct – to show the jury what
specific part of the witness’s direct testimony you are about to attack as NOT
truthful.
b.
Accredit (make believable) the circumstances (situation) under which the
witness made the prior statement – to show the jury that the prior statement is
more trustworthy than the present (direct) testimony.
c.
Confront the witness with the prior statement – to show the jury that the
present (direct) testimony is NOT truthful.
As an example, suppose you represent the Plaintiff/driver of a Toyota (“π/T”) who claims
that the Defendant/driver of a Suzuki (“∆/S”) went through a red light and hit π/T. A
bystander (“B”) at the scene told the investigating police officer that he saw ∆/S go through
the red light – therefore, also confirming that your client π/T had the green light. At trial,
however, you are surprised to see B take the witness stand and testify, on direct examination
for ∆/S, that ∆/S had the green light, and it was π/T who went through the red light. Your
impeachment by PIS would go like this:
a.
Recommit the witness to what he said on direct – “Mr. B, you told this jury
on direct examination that ∆/S had the green light, did I hear that right?”
b.
Accredit (make believable) the circumstances (situation) under which the
witness made the prior statement – “You gave a statement to the investigating
officer, didn’t you? In that statement you told the truth? This was
immediately following the accident you had just seen? So your memory of
the accident was fresh? You tried your best to tell the officer exactly what
you had seen, didn’t you? After the officer wrote down what you told him, he
gave you the chance to read it over? You took that time, didn’t you, to read it
over? Then you signed it? And by signing it, you meant to show that your
statement was accurate? And complete?”
c.
Confront the witness with the prior statement – “This document I am showing
you is your statement to the officer, isn’t it? This is your signature here?
Please watch as I read, so that you see I am reading it accurately: it says,
‘I saw the ∆/S come northbound on State Street and go right through the red
light.’ I read that correctly, didn’t I?”
Some impeachments by PIS depend not on what WAS said on the prior occasion, but on
what was NOT said. This is called “impeachment by omission.” The idea is that the witness
would have said the detail if it were so, and the fact that they did not is proof that they did not
really have that detail at the time, but added it later. In our example, if B testifies on direct
that your client π/T was going at a high rate of speed up to the intersection, but did not tell
that to the officer, that seems unbelievable – B surely would have given such an important
detail at the time if it were true. So the Confrontation goes: “Please look with me at your
statement to the officer. It doesn’t say anywhere in this statement, does it, that π/T was going
180
fast? And it certainly doesn’t contain the words ‘at a high rate of speed’ that you used on
direct examination – does it?”
181
VI. Closing Argument
A. Defined
In Closing Argument, the attorneys summarize the case presented and make their last attempts to
persuade the fact-finder that the arbitration should be decided in their side’s favor. The goals here
are to compel the decision-maker to take a positive view of one side’s evidence, to weave the
evidence together to show how it fits within the applicable law, and to persuade the decision-maker
that a ruling for that side is the fair and just result.
B. Techniques
1.
Do not try to tell the whole story – to recount every detail of evidence you elicited during the
arbitration. Instead, focus on the one or two central issues that will decide the case in your
client’s favor. Once you have done so, recount selected facts you proved that help establish
why these pivotal issues should be resolved in your client’s favor.
2.
Try to reduce your closing argument to an outline rather than a fully written-out speech. The
result will free you from extensive reliance on notes and in turn from reading the closing
rather than truly communicating with the fact finders by talking conversationally and
engaging in continuous eye contact. It is important to address the decision-maker directly,
candidly, and from the heart: too much reliance on notes inhibits persuasive presentation
during closing.
3.
When arguing your client’s case though the presentation of issues and facts, make use of
visual evidence: photographs, diagrams, lists of pertinent items of evidence. Studies show
that we assimilate much more information visually than aurally. What we see tends to
convince us more than what we hear.
4.
Speak with a voice that conveys conviction, compassion, and fervor. If you believe in your
client’s case, and convey that belief through your voice, you will necessarily present your
closing argument persuasively.
5.
Acknowledge the difficult areas of your case, those areas that strengthen your adversary’s
case, and give the best explanations you can as to how these areas can be harmonized with a
verdict in your client’s favor. Candor works better than cowardice.
6.
Refer directly to the points of law that tie most closely to your analysis of the facts.
7.
Give the fact-finders guidance with respect to deciding which witnesses were credible, and
which gave testimony that had too many holes: show through your argument why one
witness should be believed more readily than another.
8.
Tell the fact-finders what the correct result should be before concluding your closing
argument. That means directly articulating the verdict you are seeking rather than leaving
anything to mystery.
182
VII. Teaching Arbitration Advocacy to Law Students
Goal: This is a “learning by doing” teaching methodology where in each class session,
individual students perform portions of an arbitration (opening, direct, cross, closing),
after which the professor provides constructive comments geared toward improving that
student’s litigation skills. While one student plays the role of lawyer, another plays the
role of witness. At the end of each class, every student will have performed and received
individual critique but will also have benefited from witnessing the professor’s critiques
of all other members of the class.
A. Teaching Case Analysis and “Brainstorming”
The first step in teaching Arbitration Advocacy is to have the class engage in case analysis and
brainstorming. Case analysis is a technique that should inform your students’ preparation of all
work throughout the case. Brainstorming is a technique for familiarizing yourself with the facts
of the case and developing a coherent and persuasive case theory and case theme. It is also an
extremely effective and accessible means of analyzing your case in detail. To facilitate thorough
cases analysis, you will need to guide your students through a detailed breakdown of all the facts
in the case. The focus during brainstorming will be on legal theory, factual theory, and
persuasive theory.
Teaching Steps:
1. Instruct students that the first step in thorough case analysis is to read every document, review
all witness statements, and assess any other evidence related to the case.
2. Next, divide the class into two groups, those representing the plaintiff and those representing
the defendant. Separate the groups into two rooms. Each group, out of the others’ hearing,
should be instructed to state all the facts favorable to its client’s side, the so-called “good facts.”
Have a member of the group record each fact on a large pad at the front of the class as it is called
out.
3. Once all the “good facts” have been recorded, have the same students state all the “bad” facts;
facts that at first glance seem unfavorable to their client’s side. Again, record these facts as the
students articulate them.
4. Now instruct the students to select the three strongest facts and three most harmful facts from
the written lists. Their next step is to weave these facts together in a manner that provides a
coherent case theory. Call on one student to stand and state a theory of the case that promotes
the strongest facts and best accommodates the most harmful facts.
183
B. Techniques for Critiquing Student Performances
Four Part Structure of Critique by Professor on Individual Student Performance:
1. “HEADLINE” the point you are about to make:
“I want to talk to you about avoiding leading questions on direct examination.”
When providing the student with this headljne, be clear and focused about what you want to
address with the student who has just performed in the Arbitration/Trial.
2. “PLAYBACK” the words the student used that you are about to comment on:
“During your direct examination your question was ‘You didn’t go anywhere that day
and instead stayed at home for eight hours and slept, didn’t you’.”
By repeating to the student the exact words she used during the part of her performance that you
are about to address you can be sure that both she and the rest of the class are focusing on the
advocacy point you are about to make.
3. “PRESCRIPTION”:
Give the student an explanation of how they can fix the problem you isolated during
your playback. You should actually illustrate the correct way of conducting that portion of the
arbitration. For example, to illustrate how to avoid leading on direct examination, your
prescription might be: “Ms. Jones, if you start your questions on direct with the words who,
what, where, when, how, describe, tell us, then you won’t run into a problem with leading the
witness. So here you could ask the witness: ‘Where were you on June 10th? What were you
doing? How long did you stay in the house that day?’”
4. “RATIONALE”:
Explain to the student why your prescription is more effective and persuasive than the
way the student performed the exercise. In the “leading questions on direct” scenario, you might
say: “ Ms. Jones, if you ask open questions rather that telling the witness the answer through
leading questions, the focus will be on her and not on you the lawyer. That means she will be
telling the story of her case rather than you and will be much more persuasive to the fact-finder.”
184
C. How to Facilitate Effective Critiques by Professor
1. Contemporaneous note-taking by Professor:
While each student-lawyer is performing the professor should write down that student’s
words verbatim. That way the professor will be able to give an accurate “play-back”
when providing a critique.
2.
Tone, focus, and content of critique by, and focus of, Professor:
-
Voice should be enthusiastic when delivering constructive critique
Focus should be on the particular student’s experience and confidence level
Teach the group along with the student
Professor should critique a point that can be readily fixed (e.g., give
enough guidance so the student can actually change his behavior the next time
he performs)
- Critique should be concise, not wordy
- Professor should confine herself to one or two points per performing student
- Comments should be lawyer-centered and not personal or attacking
3. Things to avoid during critiques:
- Giving too many points during a single critique
- Telling anecdotal stories of your own advocacy experiences
- Including in your critique “I would do it this way” rather than suggesting more
generally another way to go about conducting that direct/cross, etc.
- Questioning the student in a derisive manner by asking: “What were you thinking???”
- Giving a mixed message by starting the critique with “that was great” then proceeding
to give 6 corrections to make it better
- Giving the same performance critique repeatedly before the same group of
students during the same class
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200