Michael Moffitt

Michael MoffittRoger D. Fisher Visiting Professor in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Harvard Law School

Philip H. Knight Chair in Law at the University of Oregon

Former dean of the University of Oregon School of Law, Michael Moffitt is a negotiation expert and award-winning educator. He has taught courses and programs on negotiation, dispute resolution, arbitration, advanced negotiation, the law of settlement, and civil procedure at institutions across the country, serving as a lecturer at Harvard Law School, visiting professor at Ohio State University, clinical supervisor of the Harvard Mediation Program, and associate director of Oregon’s Appropriate Dispute Resolution Center.

Moffitt spent several years as a consultant with Conflict Management Group, where he designed and delivered mediation services, negotiation coaching, and training workshops around the world. His clients have ranged from multinational corporations to tribal leaders to diplomatic academy trainees. The author of more than two dozen scholarly articles on mediation, negotiation, dispute resolution, and civil procedures, he is also co-editor of The Handbook of Dispute Resolution, an award-winning compilation featuring work by leading scholars and practitioners.

Education

B.A., Marietta College
J.D., Harvard Law School

Research interests

Dispute resolution, mediation, negotiation, civil procedure, arbitration

Selected publications

  • With Andrea Kupfer Schneider. Dispute Resolution: Examples and Explanations. 3d ed. Aspen, 2014.
  • “Islands, Vitamins, Salt, Germs: Four Visions of the Future of ADR in Law Schools (and a Data-Driven Snapshot of the Field Today).” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 25 (2010): 25.
  • “Three Things to Be Against (’Settlement’ Not Included).” Fordham Law Review 78 (2009): 1203.
  • “The Four Ways to Assure Mediator Quality (and Why None of Them Work).” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 24 (2009): 191.
  • “Customized Litigation: The Case for Making Civil Procedure Negotiable.” George Washington Law Review 75 (2007): 461.
Comments

Leave a Reply