Abstract:
A method for dispute resolution comprises the steps of receiving on a server a plurality of users connected to the server via a communications network, engaging, upon notification of a dispute by a first one of the users, software guiding the first user through procedures for initiating the dispute resolution process, wherein the software gathers plaintiff information from the first user corresponding to the dispute and receiving from the first user a first proposed a rule governing behavior in situations corresponding to the dispute in combination with the steps of notifying a second one of the users identified by the first user as a party to the dispute of the initiation of the dispute resolution process, soliciting from the second user defendant data corresponding to the dispute and one of a second proposed rule governing behavior in situations corresponding to the dispute and proposed modifications to the first proposed rule and determining a result of the dispute resolution process based upon the plaintiff data, the defendant data, the first proposed rule and the one of the second proposed rule and the proposed modifications to the first rule.

Description:
FIELD OF INVENTION  
         [0001]    The current invention relates to methods and systems for dispute resolution.  
         BACKGROUND  
         [0002]    Current methods for resolving disputes such as legal proceedings, arbitration, and mediation are unattractive to a large number of people and/or unsuitable to a wide range of disputes due to their intricacies, costs, and the long periods of time required to arrive at decisions. For example, these proceedings may require participants to travel to examine witnesses and/or documents and to personally participate in proceedings, entailing scheduling difficulties, travel time and costs, etc.  
           [0003]    Furthermore, the formality of these proceedings may discourage users from employing them in a wide range of situations.  
         SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
         [0004]    The present invention is directed to a method for dispute resolution comprising the steps of receiving on a server a plurality of users connected to the server via a communications network and engaging, upon notification of a dispute by a first one of the users, software guiding the first user through procedures for initiating the dispute resolution process, wherein the software gathers plaintiff information from the first user corresponding to the dispute in combination with the steps of receiving from the first user a first proposed rule governing behavior in situations corresponding to the dispute, notifying a second one of the users identified by the first user as a party to the dispute of the initiation of the dispute resolution process, soliciting from the second user defendant data corresponding to the dispute and one of a second proposed rule governing behavior in situations corresponding to the dispute and/or proposed modifications to the first proposed rule and determining a result of the dispute resolution process based upon the plaintiff data, the defendant data, the first proposed rule and the one of the second proposed rule and the proposed modifications to the first rule.  
           [0005]    The present invention is further directed to a system for resolving disputes comprising a server accessible to a plurality of users via a communications network, the server including a processor executing case management software upon notification of a dispute by a first one of the users, the case management software guiding the first user through procedures for initiating the dispute resolution process, wherein the case management software gathers plaintiff information from the first user corresponding to the dispute and receives from the first user a first proposed rule governing behavior in situations corresponding to the dispute and a communications arrangement notifying a second one of the users identified by the first user as a party to the dispute of the initiation of the dispute resolution process and soliciting from the second user defendant data corresponding to the dispute and one of a second proposed rule governing behavior in situations corresponding to the dispute and proposed modifications to the first proposed rule providing a forum through which one or more of the plurality of users may adjudicate the dispute based upon the plaintiff data, the defendant data, the first proposed rule and the one of the second proposed rule and the proposed modifications to the first rule. 
       
    
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0006]    [0006]FIG. 1 shows a network employing an exemplary dispute resolution system according to the present invention;  
         [0007]    [0007]FIG. 2 shows a server on which the dispute resolution system according to the invention may be run;  
         [0008]    [0008]FIG. 3 shows an exemplary first data storage device for use in accord with the system of FIG. 1;  
         [0009]    [0009]FIG. 4 shows a flow chart indicating the procedure for registering with the system according to the present invention;  
         [0010]    [0010]FIG. 5 shows a flow chart indicating the procedure by which a user (plaintiff) initiates a dispute resolution process according to the invention;  
         [0011]    [0011]FIG. 6 shows a flow chart indicating the procedure by which the plaintiff indicates desired decision-making parameters;  
         [0012]    [0012]FIG.7A shows a first part of a flow chart indicating the procedure by which additional parties to the dispute (e.g., defendants) are brought into the dispute resolution process;  
         [0013]    [0013]FIG. 7B shows a second part of the flow chart of FIG. 7A;  
         [0014]    [0014]FIG. 8 shows a flow chart indicating a witness participation procedure according to the present invention;  
         [0015]    [0015]FIG. 9 shows a flow chart indicating a panelist participation procedure according to the present invention; and  
         [0016]    [0016]FIG. 10 shows a flow chart indicating an observer participation procedure according to the present invention.  
     
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION  
       [0017]    An automated system according to the present invention is illustrated for managing an online, trial-like or arbitration-like dispute resolution process including preliminary pleadings and discovery. The system includes, among other things, a search engine, secured management software, an accessible database of templates for legal pleadings, an accessible database of case specific information, and a step-by-step procedure for collecting and organizing personal information pertinent to the case file and a database of archived cases for use as precedents and a jury or panel system for rendering decisions. In the figures, like elements will be provided with the same reference numerals.  
         [0018]    [0018]FIG. 1 shows a communications network  60  employing an exemplary embodiment of a system according to the present invention, which provides a real time forum for multiple parties to participate in a dispute resolution proceeding. This system allows for various users to exchange data with a server  10  via the communications network  60  which may be, for example, the Internet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), an intranet, etc. The users may include for example, a plaintiff  20 , a defendant  30 , witnesses  40 , panelists  50  and observers  70  at separate computers coupled to the communications network  60 . The panelists  50  maybe a jury selected as specified below or a panel of arbitrators having particular expertise or experience specified by the parties in a manner similar to that employed in the selection of a custom panel (described below). The process for arbitration will be identical to that of the below-described dispute resolution processes employing a jury (including the jury deliberation and voting processes) except for the substitution of a panel of selected arbitrators for jurors. In the exemplary embodiment described herein, the procedure is an automated process resembling the structure of civil trials or arbitration proceedings in the United States. However, those skilled in the art will understand that the same automating and data management structures may be implemented in a wide variety of arrangements to provide dispute resolution procedures resembling various existing processes or ones which are completely new. Furthermore, although the exemplary embodiment is described as operating on a central server with a plurality of users coupled thereto via a communications network, those skilled in the art will understand that a system according to the present invention may be implemented as a peer-to-peer system where the required software is resident on individual user computers which communicate directly with one another to participate in a dispute resolution process. It is also possible for all of the software running such a system to be run on a single user computer which accommodates all of the users (e.g., plaintiff  20 , defendant  30 , witnesses  40  and panelists  50 ).  
         [0019]    The plaintiff  20  initiates the dispute resolution procedure by contacting the server  10  and registering with the system, after which the plaintiff  20  may prepare and file a complaint with the assistance of the case wizard software described in more detail below which asks questions to bring out the relevant facts. The complaint is then forwarded to the defendant  30  for an answer by, for example, electronic mail (“email”) which defendant  30  may then answer by accessing the case wizard software  147 . Both parties may propose a rule or rules which they believe should govern behavior in the disputed situation and may present witnesses  40  to corroborate or explain the circumstances surrounding the dispute. Furthermore, any of the parties (plaintiff  20 , defendant  30  or witnesses  40 ) may submit evidence to support their claims. For example, photographs or documents may be submitted in electronic format. These documents will then be stored by the case wizard software  147  in the corresponding case specific database  133 ′ and the case wizard software  147  will then post these documents in a location accessible to the parties as well as the panelists  50  who will judge the dispute and any observers  70 .  
         [0020]    As shown in FIG. 2, an exemplary embodiment of the server  10  may include a processor  115 , a first storage device  125  (e.g. RAM), a second storage device  135  (e.g. a hard drive), an output arrangement  145 , an input arrangement  155 , and a communications device  165 . The processor  115  manages the flow of data through the system and the first storage device  125  holds this data while it is processed by the processor  115 . The second storage device  135  may store a plurality of databases (e.g., a case database  133  including a plurality of case specific databases  133 ′, a template database  137 , a database of prior cases, a database of potential panelists, etc. as shown in FIG. 3), as well as software applications (e.g., applications for operating personal computing devices such as DOS, Windows, Linux, Unix, etc.). These software applications may provide a graphical user interface allowing remote users to request and view data via the communications network  60 . The output arrangement  145  may include a monitor, audio speakers, a printer, and/or a disk drive operatively connected to the processor  115 , while the input arrangement  155  may include a keyboard, a mouse, and/or a disk drive, operatively connected to the processor  115 . The communications device  165 , which may be a network card, a modem, or any other communications device capable of modulating and demodulating signals, is provided to allow users to access the server  10  via the communications network  60 .  
         [0021]    As is known in the art, the computer which a user uses to connect to the server  10  via the communications network  60  may include a processor, a first storage device (e.g.  
         [0022]    RAM), a second storage device (e.g. hard drive), input and output devices (e.g., keyboard and monitor), and a communications device. The processor  110  analyzes data and runs software applications that operate the user computing device (e.g. DOS, Windows, Linux, etc.) and provide a graphical user interface permitting the user to request and view data. Those skilled in the art will understand that users may also connect to the communications network  60  via devices other than traditional computers (e.g., internet appliances, embedded devices, personal digital assistants (PDAs), WebTV, telephones, etc.).  
         [0023]    As described above, the server  10  may be connected to a plurality of user computers (e.g., plaintiff  20 , defendant  30 , etc.) via the communications network  60 . The server  10  employs software for accepting remote user connections as well as database management software which may, for example, be stored in data storage device  135 . This software may include a case database  133  including a plurality of case specific databases  133 ′, a template database  137 , a user database  140 , case wizard software  147  and a search engine  157  with the operation of each of these software components being described in greater detail below.  
         [0024]    Referring to FIG. 3, the case wizard software  147  manages the creation, revision, and maintenance of user personal records in the case specific databases  133 ′, and templates in the template database  137  and controls the sequence and timing of the various steps in the dispute resolution process. For example, the case wizard software determines the order and timing in which the various templates of a complaint are presented to the plaintiff  20 , the defendant  30  and other participants in the dispute resolution process. The case wizard software  147  may, for example, store a sequence and timing of events for each of a plurality of dispute resolution processes and include a corresponding list of inquiries which assist parties in providing a clear and comprehensive version of the facts. For each case, one of these stored sequence and timing files will be selected based on the details of the particular case. In addition, the case wizard software  147  may include a plurality of criteria which are compared to the case specific data (described below) in order to select the particular sequence and timing of events most suitable to a particular dispute. Specifically, the case wizard software  147  utilizes the selected sequence and timing in order to provide templates including inquiries to users which guides the users through the process of creating the documents required of them during the various stages of the dispute resolution process. As will be understood by those skilled in the art, the logical operations of the case wizard software  147  may be implemented through commercially available software applications, for example, database management systems. The search engine  157  handles queries directed by the case wizard software  147  to, for example, the template database  137  and the case database  133  and the case specific databases  133 ′. This search engine  157  is used by the processor to find templates, case specific information, timing sequence data or precedents as directed by the case wizard software  147 .  
         [0025]    For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when a user indicates that he wishes to participate in a dispute resolution proceeding, the case wizard software  147  first determines in step  200  whether the user is registered with the system. If the user is already registered, the process moves to step  300  of FIG. 5 wherein the user indicates in which manner he would like to participate in a dispute resolution proceeding. If the user has not previously registered, the case wizard software requires the user to register with the system before proceeding using steps  205 - 220 . In step  205  of the registration process, the user provides to the server  10  information including, for example, identity, contact information, demographic data, etc. which is stored in the users database  140 . Thereafter, in step  210 , the user chooses a login name and password which is also stored in the users database  140 . After this, in step  215 , the case wizard software  147  provides to the user the rules of the system and, in particular, the applicable rules of the dispute resolution system. The user is then required in step  220  to accept these rules before participating in dispute resolution proceedings. If the user accepts the rules, the process moves to step  300  of FIG. 5. If the user does not accept the rules, the registration process is ended in step  225 .  
         [0026]    [0026]FIG. 5 shows the process by which a registered user initiates participation in a dispute resolution proceeding. First, in step  300 , the user identifies himself to the system and, in step  305 , the user is asked by the system in what way he would like to participate. The user may be provided in this step with menus listing the various options (e.g., plaintiff, panel member, observer, participate in deliberation regarding a case, etc.). If the user selects “plaintiff” in step  305 , in step  310  the case wizard software  147  asks that the plaintiff  20  select an appropriate court for this dispute resolution proceeding based on factors such as the relationship between the parties to the dispute and the subject matter of the dispute. For example, the plaintiff  20  may be asked to select from a list of courts including Lovers&#39; Court, Friends&#39; Court, Roommates&#39; Court, Ex&#39;s Court, Family Court, Neighbors&#39; Court, Co-Workers&#39; Court or Plea Bargain. With the exception of Plea Bargain, procedure in each of the courts is identical and these courts differ only in the types of disputes hosted there. Plea Bargain operates in the same way as the other courts except that the plaintiff  20  is admitting culpability and asking only for a decision from the jury or panel that will determine the manner in which he should make up this wrong.  
         [0027]    In step  325 , the plaintiff  20  is asked to supply a title summary for the dispute resolution proceeding. In step  330 , the case wizard software  147  requests the identity of the defendant  30  along with the defendant&#39;s contact information (e.g., email address) and relation to the plaintiff  20  as well as the identity and email address for any other party involved in the dispute resolution proceeding. The case wizard software  147  then asks in step  335  whether the plaintiff  20  wishes to have other involved parties make statements.  
         [0028]    Thereafter, the case wizard software  147  stores the contact information (e.g., email address) for the defendant  30  and any other involved parties in the corresponding case specific database  133 ′ in step  340 . The process then proceeds to step  345  in which the plaintiff  20  is requested to provide the facts giving rise to the dispute and any additional information which may help his case. In step  350  the plaintiff  20  is asked to formulate a rule which he feels should govern behavior in situations such as that which gave rise to the present dispute. Alternatively, the case wizard software  147  may present either or both of the plaintiff  20  and the defendant  30  with a suggested rule or a set of suggested rules which either party may adopt or modify as desired. These proposed rules may, for example, include rules proposed in the past by parties to similar disputes. The case wizard software  147  then asks the plaintiff  20  in step  355  to describe any recent developments in the situation. All of the information provided by the plaintiff  20  is stored in the corresponding case specific database  133 ′. The plaintiff  20  is then asked in step  360  to specify a remedy for the situation and may be provided with suggested remedies listing, for example, monetary damages, a gift, an apology, specific performance, etc. Thereafter, the process proceeds to step  400  of FIG. 6.  
         [0029]    As shown in FIG. 6, in step  400 , the case wizard software  147  queries the plaintiff  20  for information regarding a time frame within which a decision is desired. Of course, as will be understood by those skilled in the art, the time frames within which a decision may be made may vary depending on the type of jury or panel requested or selected in the case. Thereafter, in step  405 , the plaintiff  20  is asked to select a type of jury or panel which he would like to have decide this dispute resolution proceeding. For example, the plaintiff  20  may indicate that anyone who wishes to can vote (an open jury) or that a custom designed panel (selected based on demographic and psychographic data as described below) should hear the case. If the plaintiff  20  selects an open jury, the process proceeds directly to step  420  (described below). Alternatively, the plaintiff  20  may choose a private panel and identify a list of panelists in step  410  (including the email addresses of the potential panelists) that he wants to try the case.  
         [0030]    If the plaintiff  20  chooses a custom designed panel, in step  415  the case wizard software  147  will query the plaintiff  20  for information regarding the characteristics of desired panelists. The plaintiff may be asked to specify demographic criteria which the panelists  50  should meet including, for example, data regarding age, profession, education level, experience with similar or related situations, etc. Specifically, depending on the facts of a given case, a plaintiff  20  may specify that panelists  50  should be dentists with more than 5 years of experience in addition to other criteria. Once this information has been submitted by the plaintiff  20  and confirmed accurate, the information is stored in the corresponding case specific database  133 ′ and can no longer be amended by the plaintiff  20 . In step  420 , an email is then sent to the defendant  30  notifying him of the plaintiff  20 &#39;s submission and the process proceeds to step  430  of FIG. 7.  
         [0031]    Referring to FIGS. 7A and 7B, in step  430  the defendant  30  receives the communication including a link to the dispute resolution proceeding. The link takes the defendant  30  to a page listing all of the parties which the plaintiff  20  indicated were involved and, in step  435  asks the defendant  30  to provide contact information for anyone else who was involved and to indicate whether the defendant  30  would like any of them to make a statement. At this point, the defendant  30  may also be given an opportunity to change his contact information to, for example, a more convenient email address. Thereafter, in step  440 , the case wizard software  147  provides to the defendant  30  the plaintiff  20 &#39;s claims and requests a statement of the defendant  30 &#39;s position on the facts. In step  445 , the case wizard software  147  provides the plaintiff  20 &#39;s proposed rule and asks in step  450  whether or not the defendant  30  agrees with the rule. If the defendant  30  agrees with the plaintiff  20 &#39;s proposed rule, in step  455  the case wizard software  147  asks the defendant  30  to comment on the proposed rule. For example, the defendant  30  may indicate that, although he agrees with the plaintiff  20 &#39;s proposed rule, the rule does not govern this dispute because of certain facts or circumstances which he may then set forth. If the defendant  30  does not agree with the plaintiff  20 &#39;s proposed rule, in step  460 , the defendant  30  is asked to make up his own proposed rule and is offered the opportunity to supply reasons in support of his proposed rule or indicating why the plaintiff  20 &#39;s proposed rule should not be applied to these facts. Then, in step  465  the case wizard software  147  provides to the defendant  30  the plaintiff  20 &#39;s statement on the current situation and, in step  470 , asks the defendant  30  for his statement of the current situation. Then, in step  485  the defendant  30  is asked to provide a title summarizing the dispute. Then in step  490  the defendant  30  is shown what remedy the plaintiff  20  has requested and to provide his thoughts on this remedy (i.e., will the defendant  30  consider granting this request). The defendant  495  is then asked to indicate what remedy he would like if the panel decides in his favor. In step  500 , the defendant  30  is asked to provide contact information for anyone he would like to observe this dispute resolution proceeding and in step  490  the defendant  30  is asked to review all of the case information and to indicate whether the information is correct. If the defendant  30  indicates that the information is correct, the defendant moves to step  505  which the case wizard software  147  queries the case specific database  133 ′ to determine what type of panel was selected by the plaintiff  20  in step  405 . At this point, the defendant  30  may be informed of the type of panel selected by the plaintiff  20  and asked whether this is acceptable. If the defendant  30  desires a different panel from that selected by the plaintiff  20 , the case wizard software may allow plaintiff  20  and the defendant  30  to select a panel comprised of a first number of panelists  50  meeting the plaintiff  20 &#39;s criteria and a second number of panelists  50  meeting the defendant  30 &#39;s criteria. Those skilled in the art will understand that a dispute handled by the system according to the present invention may comprise any number of parties. For example, where there is a single plaintiff  20  and a single defendant  30 , each may select one half of the panelists  50 . Where there are multiple plaintiffs  20  and/or multiple defendants  30 , the panelists  50  may be apportioned equally to the plaintiffs  20  and the defendants  30  or in any other manner desired. In addition, the plaintiff  20  and the defendant  30  may discuss the type of panel they would like (using, e.g., email and/or chat) and arrive at a mutually agreeable solution.  
         [0032]    If the panel selected is an open jury, the process is complete and the defendant  30  is advised in step  510  that the process is being submitted to the panel and provided with information including, e.g., the notice he may expect regarding a decision, and means for checking the progress of the case and the rules on deliberation. If a custom panel was selected, the case wizard software  147 , in step  515  will query the defendant  30  for information regarding the characteristics of desired panelists. Once this information has been submitted, the process proceeds to step  510  and the information is stored in the corresponding case specific database  133 ′ and, after an editing and review process, can no longer be amended by either the defendant  30  or the plaintiff  20 . If the plaintiff  20  had selected a private jury in step  405 , in step  520  the case wizard software  147  asks the defendant  30  to identify a list of panelists (including the contact information of the potential panelists) that he wants to try the case or to select from a list of potential panelists  50  selected by the case wizard software  147  based on information stored in the system, a list of desired panelists  50 . The process then proceeds to step  510 .  
         [0033]    Alternatively, the plaintiff  20  and the defendant  30  may be allowed to determine, e.g., whether they would like the jury deliberations to be available: 1) to the public at large; 2) only to the panelists  50  specified by the plaintiff  20  and defendant  30 ; or 3) selected based on the criteria specified by the plaintiff  20  and defendant  30 . The varying degrees of privacy for deliberations may be achieved using methods such as chat rooms and passwords with varying degrees of access, as is known in the art.  
         [0034]    Referring to FIG. 8, when a party is named by either the plaintiff  20  or the defendant  30  as someone having information regarding the case (i.e., a witness  40 ), the witness  40  receives, in step  550 , a communication (e.g., an email) informing him of the dispute resolution process and the rules of the proceeding and including a link which brings the witness  40  into the case. In step  555 , the case wizard software provides the witness  40  with the case title, the plaintiff  20 &#39;s complaint, other relevant facts and description of the current situation. Thereafter, in step  560 , the case wizard software  147  provides to the witness  40  the defendant  30 &#39;s response and description of the current situation along with other relevant facts. Then, in step  565  the case wizard software  147  requests through a series of questions the witness  40 &#39;s statement of the facts. The witness  40  is then provided in step  570  with a link which allows the witness  40  to further discuss the case in chat rooms or in message boards.  
         [0035]    Referring to FIG. 9, in step  600  a user which indicated in step  305  of FIG. 5 that he wished to participate as a member of a jury is asked to specify in which of the available courts he would like to serve as a panelist  50 . Alternatively, a potential panelist  50  may select options such as “first available proceeding,” etc. In addition, demographic and psychographic data may be collected from the potential panelist  50 , which data may later be used to determine which potential panelists meet the criteria selected by plaintiff  20  and/or defendant  30  in particular dispute resolution processes. In step  605 , the potential panelist  50  is presented with a the list of cases currently pending in the selected court along with links providing more information on each of the cases. In addition, those cases in which either of the parties has specified that criteria that panelists  50  must meet will be displayed to the potential panelist in a manner which indicates which of these cases the potential panelist is qualified for. After selecting a case in step  605 , the potential panelist  147  is presented in step  610  with the option of reviewing all of the submissions in the selected case, submitting a query, discussing the case with other deliberating panelists  50  or voting on a decision. If the panelist  50  makes a query, this query is posted in step  615  so that it can be viewed by any participant in the case and the panelists  50  can discuss any issues raised on their own schedules. That is, panelists  50  may reply to queries or other statements from panelists  50  at a later time and need not reply when the query is first viewed. If the panelist  50  selects “vote” in step  620 , the panelist  50  casts a vote for either the plaintiff  20  or the defendant  30  and the panelist  50  may continue to deliberate but will be prohibited from voting again. Of course, those skilled in the art will understand that during the registration process described above, users may be queried on a wide range of subjects in order to obtain information which may help to determine their fitness to serve on panels or juries where particular expertise is required. Of course, if a case requires a panel of panelists  50  or arbitrators with an expertise unrepresented or under-represented in the pool of registered users, inquiries may be made via, for example, a mass email to registered users requesting referrals to qualified people.  
         [0036]    Referring to FIG. 10, in step  650  a user which indicated in step  305  of FIG. 5 that he wished to participate as an observer  70 , or who did not qualify as a panelist or panelist  50  for one reason or another, is asked to specify in which of the available courts he would like to observe proceedings. Alternatively, an observer  70  may be asked to specify a type of subject matter or an identity of a party. The case wizard software  147  will then search for cases matching the specified criteria and present to the observer  70  additional information (or links to the additional information) on matching cases. In step  655 , the observer  70  is presented with a list of cases currently pending in the selected court, e.g., along with links providing more information on each of the cases. After selecting a case in step  660 , the observer  70  is presented with the option of reviewing all of the submissions in the selected case. Of course, those skilled in the art will understand that any of the parties (e.g., plaintiff  20  and defendant  30 ) may specify that a particular dispute resolution proceeding be closed so that submissions are not available to observers  70  and/or to all users not qualified to serve as panelists  50  in the dispute resolution proceeding.  
         [0037]    The template database  137  described above, may be in the form of a data file comprised of templates for documentation required at corresponding steps in the dispute resolution process with each template including a predefined set of fields, analogous, for example, to forms used in data gathering by attorneys in similar processes. As described above, the templates may include files for pleadings such as a complaint and an answer as well as templates for registration, the listing of witnesses, selection of the pertinent law, and for motions requesting the disposition of the case or requesting rulings on selected issues. In addition, templates may be included providing admissions and requests for admissions, requests for information from witnesses and other parties, and motions for the exclusion or admission of evidence with these issues being decided by the jury  50  or other determining body. Furthermore, the templates in the template database  137  may vary based on the type of case involved. The template database  137  is secure and can only be accessed by the processor at the request of a user, such as plaintiff  20 , defendant  30  or witness  40  and may, for example, provide template files in hyper text mark-up language (“html”).  
         [0038]    Each case specific database  133 ′ stores information for a particular dispute resolution process concerning the parties, such as the plaintiff  20 , the defendant  30 , and/or the witnesses  40  as well as information on the type of dispute involved. Information added to the templates provided to the parties by the case wizard software  147  may be added to the particular case specific database  133 ′ to supplement the data therein as the case proceeds. Further to the description above, the search engine  157  automatically queries the template database  137  for the particular template needed at any given time as directed by the timing and sequence data selected by the case wizard software  147 , e.g., a court selection template. Once this template is found, the processor  115  sends the court selection template to the plaintiff  20  who views the template right on the web page in html format. The plaintiff  20  inputs data into the court selection template using, e.g., a keyboard and a mouse.  
         [0039]    Furthermore, participants in these proceedings may check the status of a previously initiated dispute resolution proceeding at any time after the defendant  30  has answered the complaint and this answer has been stored in the corresponding case specific database  133 ′. For example, after the complaint has been submitted and confirmed, a plaintiff  20  may receive an e-mail notification that the defendant  30  has responded with an answer. Plaintiff  20  may then request defendant  30 &#39;s answer by, e.g., accessing the server  10  and making a request to the case wizard software  147 . Alternatively, a copy of the answer may be forwarded directly to the plaintiff  20 , e.g., via email. The search engine  157  then contacts the case specific database  133 ′ to obtain the defendant  30 &#39;s answer and includes in an email to the plaintiff  20  a link to an appropriate web page. Any of the parties may also check, for example, the status of jury deliberations and the voting after the defendant  30 &#39;s answer has been completed and reviewed. If the jury deliberation and voting has already ended, the inquiring party will be directed to the results page. If not, the inquiring party will be informed that the jury has not finished deliberating and voting.  
         [0040]    Those skilled in the art will recognize that there are many modifications which may be made to the described embodiment without departing from the teaching of the invention the scope of which is intended to be limited only by the claims appended hereto. For example, the preferred embodiment of this system has been described without regard to whether decisions in this forum are binding or non-binding. Those of skilled in the art will understand that such a system may be employed strictly for entertainment purposes with results that are completely non-binding on the parties. However, there is also no reason why the parties could not agree to be bound by the decisions of this system by signing a simple contract. Furthermore, as described above the system may be modified to more closely resemble any number of dispute resolution processes including, for example, civil or criminal trial processes of other countries, arbitrations, mediations, etc.