My recent posting was on large commercial providers of mediation services, which prompted questions about low cost or free mediation services. 

Community mediation programs provide mediators for a wide variety of disputes. These vary from center to center but can include disputes between neighbors, landlord and tenants, roommates, homeowner’s associations, consumers and merchants, communities, families and workplaces. Community mediation programs do handle many what some would call minor disputes, but community mediators have assisted in major ones as well. 

Community mediation programs typically provide sessions at no charge; some accept a minimal charge on a sliding scale. Most will not turn anyone away for lack of funds. Some encourage donations; some are supported by local United Way and grants. 

The mediators are highly trained and experienced. Furthermore, as volunteers they are doing this because they are motivated to support their community. I would say some of the most talented I have met were community mediators.

In addition to mediation as the centers rely heavily on volunteers, they provide training, and that training is available to anyone in the community. Like their mediation services, the training classes are low or no cost.

Many community mediation programs also sponsor peer mediation programs in their local schools. These programs train youth to act as mediators. School-based peer mediation programs have been documented to reduce both verbal and physical conflicts while saving counselor and administrator time. 

By 1975 there were about a dozen community mediation programs; today there are an estimated 400 or more mediation centers handling some half a million disputes annually.

One way to find a local program is to do an internet search for “neighborhood mediation [insert your city name]” and “community mediation [your city name].” Be aware that the results may also include private mediators who charge for their services.

I’ve received several comments that my focus seems to be on lower court and community cases. What about the “big disputes” we read about today? Is that the same kind of mediation? Yes, and one good example is the NFL player concussion cases. 

In 2011, Ray Easterling, Jim McMahon and five other players filed a federal lawsuit against the NFL. Since that time, thousands of other former players also filed lawsuits, all contending they had experienced repeated concussions throughout their careers. Attorneys for the players alleged that the NFL was aware of the risks from repetitive brain injuries and deliberately concealed those risks from the players. The NFL responded that it had issued warnings based on available medical knowledge of the time. The NFL also contended that player safety was and is governed by collective bargaining agreements between the league and the players. By 2013, more than 4,500 former players had filed lawsuits.

District Court Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the federal judge overseeing the cases, ordered attorneys for the players and the NFL to meet with Layn Phillips, a retired federal judge, as the mediator in the case. Judge Brody also ordered both sides from publicly discussing the mediation. We do know that the mediator spent two months going back and forth between the parties.

It is assumed that many of the players were dealing with health concerns and might have preferred a settlement over years of litigation with no guarantee of the outcome. And it can be assumed that while the NFL may have felt less financial pressure, the owners may have wanted to avoid the discover process which could have revealed information that might hurt the league reputation.

In major cases such as this, attorneys are involved and litigation has started or is anticipated. The parties have entrenched positions, have a large pool of financial resources, or an important value is involved--or all of the above. By participating, the parties demonstrate their desire to avoid major publicity by choosing to use a mediator with similar experience and/or legal background as most attorneys posses.

These factors do affect the process. In most other mediation, individuals “at the table” do most of the talking and decision making since they are directly involved in the dispute. They may have consulted legal and other advisors, but ultimately, they will make their own conclusions. Even in an major case, it is more likely the individuals are doing the talking and negotiating while attorneys represent the involved parties.

And because parties often want the mediators who are able and willing to share legal opinions, retired judges and experienced attorneys are often preferred options. Given this, many of the mediators in major cases will use some form of the evaluative style of mediation. When former judges are mediators, they often share how they might have ruled if they were presiding over the case. 

But yes, it is still mediation in the end and an effective alternative to extended litigation.