data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5e14/d5e149bdf5a30c98c258b00fff6dd3725cb471c9" alt="Law Self logo"
Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mediation
In a dispute, parties may be unable to
resolve their outstanding issues because of their inability to find common
ground. Litigation can be competitive and turn into a zero-sum game, where one
group benefits and another doesn’t. Lawsuits may not be the best manners in
which to resolve disputes.
Our legal system provides other methods
of dispute resolution, including negotiation, mediation and arbitration, that
can all be done by the parties themselves or under court supervision. This presentation
will focus on the mediation method of dispute resolution.
Mediation is negotiation facilitated by
a neutral third party, called the mediator, who does not have a stake in
the outcome of a dispute. Instead, the mediator helps the parties find common
ground and assists with drafting a settlement agreement.
What is mediation?
Mediation is a key part of the civil
litigation system in both state and federal courts, and is an integral dispute
resolution tool for disputes involving federal agencies.[1] The most common disputes
that lead to mediation are those involving contracts, family law matters, and
personal injury or employment disagreements.[2] In a survey of U.S.
business leaders, many recognized mediation’s advantages and preferred mediations
in commercial transaction disagreements, even over other alternative dispute
resolution methods. Specifically, the executives surveyed in the study believed
that mediation preserves commercial relationships better than arbitration and
that mediation was superior to arbitration in saving time and money.[3]
Mediation can be an informal meeting
that only lasts a couple hours, or can be a scheduled settlement conference
that lasts an entire day. This meeting can be held at a neutral location, such
as the mediator’s office. Mediation is voluntary to both parties and is
nonbinding, meaning that the mediator cannot force either party to follow a
certain course of action, or do something that either refuses to do. This distinguishes
mediation from an arbitration, where the arbitrator, like a judge, can hand
down a decision that binds the parties to follow a course of action.
Who is the mediator and
what is her role?
Because mediators have no
decision-making authority and cannot impose a decision, there are no legal
requirements on who can serve as mediators.[4]
The mediator is, however, typically a
trained professional who has extensive qualifications that allow her to foster
settlement and assist the parties in negotiating a settlement that is tailored
to meet each side’s needs. Due to mediation’s widespread popularity, both the
American Bar Association and the Association for Conflict Resolution have
assisted many states in designing mediator certification standards.[5] to become a certified
mediator, mediators may be required to have a minimum of 20 to 50 hours of
general mediator training and mediation experience either as a co-mediator or
observer.[6] While there is no
requirement that parties use certified mediators, mediators with this level of
training are often more effective. Parties often have enormous resources
invested in a dispute and the marginal additional cost of a certified mediator
is usually considered acceptable considering the increased chance of a
successful resolution such a mediator may provide.
This neutral third party helps parties
reach a mutually agreeable settlement by identifying issues, exploring areas of
agreement, and finding areas of compromise.[7] Typically, the mediator will
allot time to each party to provide an account of the circumstances that have
led to a dispute. After this accounting of the facts, a mediator helps each
party discover shared interests and discover resolutions that can promote
mutual gain.
What are the benefits of
mediation?
Mediation has numerous advantages over litigation,
arbitration and negotiation without use of a mediator. First, lawyers, judges, and other
decision-makers find that one of the greatest benefits of mediation is that it
can foster cooperation and understanding. Mediators examine the causes of
conflict and develop solutions. To reach a successful conclusion, the parties
must collaborate with one another. Litigation, by contrast, is more likely to breed
hostility and mistrust between disputing parties because the parties are
competing with one another to “win.”
Second, mediation is a cost-effective
way of resolving a dispute.[8] It is much less expensive
than litigation and it offers a relatively predictive cost, all of which is
paid to a mediator. In Arizona, for example, trained mediators typically charge
around $250 per hour.[9] Litigation fees can be exorbitant not only
because of attorney’s fees, but also because of fees associated with filing a
suit and paying ancillary litigation costs.
Third, a mediation can be a much quicker
process than litigation. Mediations aren’t cumbersome processes and each
mediation session may last two to three hours. This is especially helpful in
family law cases, where prolonged law disputes can have psychological and
emotional costs for the children involved. Studies have found that trials,
which can take months to prepare for and weeks to conduct, have a detrimental
effect and cause tension for children.[10]
Fourth, mediation provides a
confidential forum for resolving disputes. Private information that may have to
be revealed to the judge, jury, or public during a trial remains private during
mediation since mediation is conducted behind closed doors.[11] Furthermore, while the
ultimate decision in a trial becomes part of the public record, an agreement
reached by the parties can remain private. Mediation’s privacy can be especially
appealing to divorcing spouses or if the facts underlying a dispute are of an
intimate nature.
Finally, mediations put dispute
resolution into the hands of the disputing parties. Since there are no complex
rules of procedure and evidence, parties have a great deal of flexibility and can
adjust the breadth of the mediation to discuss whatever topics that they think are
important.
Mediations, though with many benefits,
are not always the best way to resolve a disagreement because parties sometimes
need a legally-binding outcome that will create obligations to solve their
problems. Despite this, a mediation can often help settle controversies while
also decreasing aggression and animosity between parties.
[1] Nancy Welsh, “Stepping Back Through the Looking
Glass: Real Conversations with Real Disputants About Institutionalized
Mediation and Its Value”, 19 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 573, (2004).
[2] James Cohen and Peter Thompson, “Disputing Irony: A
Systematic Look at Litigation About Mediation”, 11 Harv. Negotiation L. Rev.
43, (2006).
[3]
Don Peters, “It Takes Two to Tango, and to Mediate: Legal Cultural and Other
Factors Influencing United States and Latin American Lawyers’ Resistance to
Mediating Commercial Disputes”, 9 Rich. J. Global L. & Bus. 381, (2010).
[5]
Paula Young, “Take It or Leave It. Lump It or Grieve It: Designing Mediator
Complaint Systems that Protect Mediators, Unhappy Parties, Attorneys, Courts,
the Process, and the Field”, 21 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 721. (2006).
[6]
See “Guidelines for the Training and
Certification of Court-Referred Mediators”, Office of the Executive Secretary
of the Supreme Court of Virginia, (2011).
[7]
Kenneth Gumbiner, An Overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution, in Alternative
Dispute Resolution: The Litigator's Handbook 1, 2 (Nancy F. Atlas, Stephen K.
Huber & E. Wendy Trachte-Huber eds., (2000).
[8] Marvin M. Bernstein, Child Protection Mediation: Its
Time Has Arrived, 16 CAN. FAM. L. Q. 73, 115-116 (1998).
[9]
“How much does a mediator cost in Arizona?,” http://azmediator.com/how-much-does-a-mediator-cost-in-arizona/.
[10]
Krystle Jordan, “Need to be Heard: Increasing Child Participation in Protection
Mediation Through the Implementation of Model Standards”, 47 Fam. Ct. Rev. 715,
(2009).
[11]
Jonathan Harkavy, “Privatizing Workplace Justice: The Advent of Mediation in
Resolving Sexual Harassment Disputes”, 34 Wake Forest L. Rev. 135, (1999).