June 5, 2015

TO: PAUL CROUSHORE, SUPERVISING ATTORNEY
FROM: JESSICA WIMBERLY, PARALEGAL
SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS

In analyzing the case facts for clients Debbie Evans and Aaron and Barb Conway, it has been determined that an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) would not be a suitable strategy for the resolution and outcome of the case. Debbie Evans and already legally married couple Aaron and Barb Conway are seeking a marriage license to wed in the State of Utah. This is in violation of Utah’s anti-bigamy statute in place (Title 76 Chapter 7 Section 101). The issue we are presenting is the statute violation on our client’s civil rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; due process and freedom of religion. My determination on not recommending an ADR is based on the supporting facts and following points. Common methods of ADR include mediation and arbitration, where negotiation assisted by a third party plays a prominent role in each. Parties to ADR procedures generally agree that a negotiated settlement is worth pursuing before investing in civil litigation proceedings. ADR is often used and successful to resolve disputes among businesses, employers and employees, and businesses and consumers; in most instances, the parties have an equal balance of power. ADR may not be the most appropriate method of dispute resolution, in a civil rights violation, since there are potential consequences to parties that have unequal bargaining power. In