The material in this article is general legal information for educational use only. It should not be treated as legal, financial, or tax advice, and reading it does not form an attorney-client relationship. Legal rules vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Questions about a specific matter belong with a qualified professional. The author and publisher disclaim liability for actions taken in reliance on this content.
Key Facts
- National overview: Available official sources do not identify the exact title of the January 2013 ABA Now item linked from the slug 2013mm104a.
- National overview: The verified historical anchor is the ABA House of Delegates archive portal, which lists a 2013 Midyear Meeting in Dallas, Texas.
- National overview: The slug appears to refer to a Midyear Meeting item, but the current record does not confirm whether it was a resolution, report, or another meeting document.
- National overview: A later ABA Resolution 104A discussed the Singapore Convention on Mediation, but that later topic is not a verified match for this January 2013 archive slug.
- Federal level: According to UNCITRAL, the United States signed the Singapore Convention on Mediation on 07/08/2019, which shows that convention topic belongs to a much later timeline.
- State level: No State-specific legal rule can be tied to this archive entry because the underlying 2013 subject was not recovered from a primary source.
- National overview: ABA archive materials may describe policy positions or meeting documents, but they are not themselves binding Federal or State law.
- National overview: Because the original page content was not recovered, any specific legal topic attached to 2013mm104a would be speculative.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- What this archive recovery page can confirm
- What remains unresolved
- Why the slug likely points to a meeting item
- Why later Resolution 104A materials are not a safe match
- Historical archive context compared with current legal status
- What this means for Federal and State legal information
- Why archive recovery still matters
- Related archive context on TheFirstFile
- Bottom line
- Sources
What this archive recovery page can confirm
This page is an archive recovery entry for the missing ABA Now URL `abanow.org/2013/01/2013mm104a/`. Available official sources do not identify the exact title of that January 2013 item, and they do not confirm its precise subject.
The strongest verified historical anchor is the ABA’s Informational Reports portal. That official portal states that House of Delegates information reports were issued at Annual and Midyear Meetings from 2003 through 2019, and it lists the 2013 Midyear Meeting – Dallas, TX.
That evidence supports a careful historical description: the slug likely points to a meeting-related ABA item from the 2013 Midyear Meeting period, but the exact item numbered 104A was not identified in the fetched official record.
What remains unresolved
Several points are still unknown from the current source record:
- The original title of the ABA Now page
- The exact item type
- The legal or policy topic discussed on the missing page
- Whether the missing page summarized a resolution, a report, or another meeting document
Because those points remain unresolved, this article stays narrow. It preserves the historical frame without guessing at a subject that the official evidence does not actually show.
Why the slug likely points to a meeting item
The format `2013mm104a` strongly suggests a shorthand tied to a 2013 Midyear Meeting item. Even so, the evidence only supports that inference at a general level. The fetched ABA portal confirms the existence of the 2013 Midyear Meeting archive context, but it does not identify item 104A by title in the recovered material.
That distinction matters. An archive recovery article can describe what the record supports, but it should not turn a plausible inference into a stated fact.
Why later Resolution 104A materials are not a safe match
One possible false lead appears in a current ABA article, The Singapore Convention on Mediation: Why It Matters and Where the U.S. Stands. According to that ABA article, the Singapore Convention was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in December 2018 and signed by the United States on August 7, 2019.
UNCITRAL’s official UNCITRAL treaty status page separately confirms the U.S. signature date as 07/08/2019.
Those dates create a clear mismatch with a missing ABA Now slug from January 2013. So while a later ABA Resolution 104A topic exists, the available official sources do not support treating that later mediation treaty material as the same item as `2013mm104a`.
Historical archive context compared with current legal status
| Question | What the sources support |
|---|---|
| Was there an ABA archive context for a 2013 Midyear Meeting item? | Yes. The ABA archive portal lists the 2013 Midyear Meeting in Dallas, Texas. |
| Did the fetched official sources recover the exact title of `2013mm104a`? | No. |
| Did the fetched official sources prove that `2013mm104a` was a resolution or informational report? | No. That remains unverified. |
| Is the later Singapore Convention material the same as the January 2013 slug? | No verified source supports that match. |
| Does this archive entry establish current binding law? | No. An ABA archive item is not itself controlling Federal or State law. |
What this means for Federal and State legal information
Because the original topic was not recovered, no current legal rule can be reliably attached to this archive entry. That includes Federal statutes, Federal regulations, court rulings, or State-specific rules. The safest supported statement is simply that the missing page appears tied to ABA meeting materials, not that it establishes any present legal obligation.
This is also why the article avoids presenting ABA commentary or institutional positions as binding law. ABA materials can be historically important and influential, but they are separate from controlling Federal and State legal sources.
Why archive recovery still matters
Even when a legacy page cannot be fully reconstructed, documenting the limits of the record is useful. It preserves a verified historical frame for future research and reduces the risk of attaching unrelated legal topics to an old slug.
That is especially important with numbered meeting items. Similar numbering can reappear years later in a different legal or policy setting, and a shared item number alone does not prove that two materials are the same document.
Related archive context on TheFirstFile
Related archive-recovery coverage on this site includes election reform and other ABA issues addressed in 2008 and ABA rule of law discussion from the 2008 World Justice Forum. Those entries are related by archive type and publisher history, not by proven topical identity with `2013mm104a`.
Bottom line
The current official record supports only a limited conclusion. `2013mm104a` appears to be a missing ABA Now page connected in some way to the 2013 Midyear Meeting archive context, but the exact title, item type, and subject remain unverified.
The later ABA Resolution 104A material about the Singapore Convention on Mediation is a separate, much later topic. According to the ABA article and UNCITRAL treaty records, that convention framework belongs to the 2018 to 2019 period and after, not January 2013.
Until the original page or another primary source is recovered, no more specific Federal or State legal information can be safely tied to this archived slug.
