Amy Schmitz

Amy Schmitz

Professor Amy J. Schmitz joined the University of Missouri School of Law and the Center for Dispute Resolution as the Elwood L. Thomas Missouri Endowed Professor of Law in 2016. Previously she was a Professor at the University of Colorado School of Law for over 16 years. Prior to teaching, Professor Schmitz practiced law with large law firms in Seattle and Minneapolis, and served as a law clerk for the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.


Professor Schmitz teaches courses in Contracts, Lawyering, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), AI, Data Analytics and the Law, Arbitration, International Arbitration, and Consumer Law. She has been heavily involved in ODR teaching and research for a long time and is a Fellow of the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, as well as the Co-Chair of the ABA Technology Committee of the Dispute Resolution Section and the ODR Task Force.  Recent speaking engagements include various webinars and events around ODR with the American Bar Association, ODR Forums in New Zealand, Paris and the U.S., Universities in Munich and Augsburg, Germany, Cyberjustice Lab in Montreal, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Washington, D.C.; University of Leicester in England; Stanford Law School; and many other universities and conferences throughout the world. She serves on the Association of American Law Schools Executive Committee on Commercial and Consumer Law, was an External Scientific Fellow of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, and is a researcher with the ACT Project exploring AI and ODR. She also has taught in France, South Africa, and Oxford, England, and has been an expert and liaison for the United Nations working group seeking to create a global ODR mechanism (UNCITRAL WG III). Professor Schmitz has published over 50 articles in law journals and books, and a book, The New Handshake: Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Consumer Protection, with Colin Rule.




Contact Amy Schmitz

Website: law.missouri.edu/person/amy-j-schmitz/

Articles and Video:

Arbitration Conversation No. 7: Prof. Sarah Cole of the Moritz College of Law at OSU (06/29/20)
Check out the latest episode of the Arbitration Conversation, where Amy interviews Prof. Sarah Cole of the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.

Arbitration Conversation No. 6: Amy interviews Mohamed Abdel Wahab of the Cairo University Faculty of Law (06/26/20)
Check out the latest episode of The Arbitration Conversation where Amy Schmitz interviews Mohamed Abdel Wahab on arbitration in Egypt.

Arbitration Conversation No. 5: Amy interviews Prof. Tom Stipanowich of the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law (06/19/20)
Check out the latest episode of The Arbitration Conversation where Amy Schmitz interviews Tom Stipanowich about mixed mode arbitration and his concept of "arbigotiation" which keeps the door open to negotiated or mediated resolutions within an arbitration process.

Arbitration Conversation No. 4: Amy interviews Prof. Ben Davis of University of Toledo College of Law (06/17/20)
In this episode Amy Schmitz interviews Ben Davis about diversity in arbitration, with a particular focus on the new Diversity and Inclusion Policy that was recently issued by ICCA (the International Council of Commercial Arbitration).

Arbitration Conversation No. 3: Amy interviews Prof. Bob Bailey of Mizzou Law (06/16/20)
In this episode of Arbitration Conversation Amy Schmitz interviews Prof. Bob Bailey of Mizzou Law on the new unanimous Supreme Court decision (authored by Justice Gorsuch) around the enforceability of arbitration for gig workers in the transportation sector and the interpretation of the FAA's applicability in state court.

Arbitration Conversation No. 2 - Amy chats with Professor David Larson (06/15/20)
In this episode of Arbitration Conversation Amy speaks with Professor Dave Larson of the Mitchell Hamline School of Law on accessibility in mediation, arbitration, and online dispute resolution

“Business Pays” Rule in California Facing Challenges (06/15/20)
On January 1, 2020, a new law in California took effect to provide rights to consumers and employees facing arbitration. The law requires that the business must pay the initial fees or costs of arbitration where the employees or consumers are to arbitrate any claims related to their contracts or state/federal law... The question is whether this will be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) where the arbitration emanates from a contract impacting interstate commerce, which is true in most contracts.

Arbitration Conversation No. 1 - Amy chats with Svetlana Gitman (06/14/20)
In this episode of Arbitration Conversation Amy speaks with Svetlana Gitman of the American Arbitration Association

Welcome to the Arbitration Conversation! (06/12/20)
The Arbitration Conversation is a periodic web series where Prof. Amy Schmitz interviews leading thinkers in arbitration around the world. Stay tuned for new episodes each week!

Contract Exclusions Count (06/09/20)
New arbitration case denying a motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violation of the 12-year-old Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act

Discovering Documents from Nonparties in Online Arbitration? (06/09/20)
Should a court have the authority to force non-parties to arbitration to comply with the summons and provide testimony that would be transmitted via video conference? If testimony is taken via video conference it might not "be in the physical presence" so the arbitrator wouldn't technically be compelling their “attendance before” the arbitrator.

New NAA Opinion on Requiring Video Hearings (06/05/20)
What if one party in an arbitration refuses to use videoconferencing? Should arbitrators be able to order a video hearing over a party's objection?

American Exceptionalism in Consumer Arbitration (05/28/13)
“American exceptionalism” has been used to reference the United States’ outlier policies in various contexts, including its love for litigation. Despite Americans’ reverence for their “day in court,” their zest for contractual freedom and efficiency has prevailed to result in U.S. courts’ strict enforcement of arbitration provisions in both business-to-business (“B2B”) and business-to-consumer (“B2C”) contracts.