Continuing UMA "concerns," therefore, have a certain vestigial or residual character, often reflecting views taken in battles that were fought within the drafting sessions - sometimes fiercely - but which were incapable of producing a majority among the UMA drafters. Professor Brian Shannon's criticisms largely echo these discussions, and in this Article I seek to respond to some of them - after first extending my greatest appreciation to Professor Shannon for his willingness to be the "skunk in the parlor" of this symposium edition by generally aggregating those criticisms." In Part I, I give some of the unpublished history of the UMA effort in the hope that it may facilitate greater understanding of the drafting process. In Part II, I categorize Professor Shannon's criticisms into three distinct (but sometimes overlapping) classes - general criticisms of the Act, criticisms of specific provisions in the Act, and criticisms of what is not in the Act - and I respond to those criticisms. Finally, in Part III, I provide some suggestions to state legislators for integrating the UMA into their laws with minimal disruption.
Richard C. Reuben,
Sound of Dust Settling: A Response to Criticisms of the UMA, The,
2003 J. Disp. Resol.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2003/iss1/7