WHAT MAKES MEDIATION DIFFERENT?

I occasionally receive inquiries from people asking “what’s the difference” between mediation and another form of dispute resolution. At the risk of over simplification, these are the major differences I present:

In mediation, a neutral party facilitates communication and helps the disputing parties work out a mutually agreeable solution. What makes mediation different from other forms of dispute resolution is that it is the parties themselves who must develop the solution.

In arbitration, a third party reviews evidence, hears arguments, and renders a decision, which typically cannot be appealed. Various documentation can specify that any disputes under contract will be resolved by this process. Courts may also refer cases to arbitration.

In a settlement conference, parties meet with a neutral decision maker , typically a judge, to engage in negotiation. Settlement conferences can be voluntary or court ordered.

In neutral evaluation, disputing parties make presentations to a neutral individual who then offers a confidential evaluation of the dispute and may or may not assist the parties in negotiation.

In private judging, a non-judicial officer selected and compensated by the parties decides a case.

The next question is typically “which is best?” I tell people it depends on the parties, the nature of the dispute, where the parties are in the process, and most importantly, how much the disputing parties want to be involved themselves in making the final decision.