I love to write. A lot. Random juices of information keep my brain pumped up. Whenever I can, I make sure different kinds of information have been exhausted in a day.
As long as things are way up my alley, or even just spike up some interest--ask me to write about anything I agree with, and I'll do it. Here's one I came up with a few months ago.
Brace yourself.
If you're in for some essay treat, then read on.
Court-Mandated Mediation: a Solution or an Expense?
Alternative Dispute Resolutions that are being suggested at present is Court-Mandated Mediation. Still just like any other alternative, this Court-Mandated Mediation should only be used as a tool, and not as an actual and absolute solution into getting cases solved.
Court-Mandated Mediation: A Concept
The mediator has the function of resolving a dispute that would result favorable to the parties involved. If in this process, no resolution has still been made, then it is advisable to pursue a lawsuit. (US Legal, Inc., 2011)
A skilled mediator should be able to assist the parties to objectively evaluate their respective cases and work out a resolution which meets the real needs of the parties and is acceptable to them.” (Barron, 2004) A possible reason for mediation as a viable option is that, the cost of litigation in this option, it is less expensive and painstaking or tedious. If “parties are almost certain to settle anyway, they can only maximize their benefit by settling early and minimizing their litigation expenses.” (Barron, 2004) The bottom line here is, mediation may be a good option if the parties would not want to consider long processes, expensive fees, and if they are even most certain that the situation may most likely be settled, with an objective middleman with the knowledge of the law, to settle a case.
For example, in the territories of the United States, like in Utah, there were the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Mediation Program, and Utah Court of Appeals Mediation Program that indicated more than one hundred cases referring to mediation in a year (Hon. Benson, et., al., 2002) . There was also the case of a multinational corporation, Astra Zeneca, where it paid “$150 million to settle more lawsuits claiming its antipsychotic drug Seroquel causes diabetes, pushing the amount the drugmaker has paid to resolve cases over the medicine to almost $350 million, people familiar with the accords said.” (Feeley, 2011) As Nadja Alexander in her book Global Trends in Mediation, there is a noticeable emergence of a 'collective consciousness' of mediation while enabling a glocalisation of the mediation movement: 'think globally, act locally
(2006).
It has to be seen that different states, have different ways of adapting the concept of Court-Mandated Mediation. For example, in the United States’ Florida, there are sets of rules in carrying out this kind of option. By definition, Mediation is seen as a “voluntary process in which a third-party mediator helps the disagreeing parties identify any obstacles to a settlement. Court-ordered mediation occurs when a court forces the disagreeing parties to participate in the mediation process.” (Demand Media, 2011). In the case of Florida, mediation cases have become so established, mostly attorneys would request this kind of Alternative Dispute Resolution have been chosen by attorneys, even before a case is formally brought up to court.
In the state of focus here, it has been seen that the judge would settle cases in such a way that is unfavorable for the parties, as the laws would only permit the authorities to direct resolutions, based from state-written legalities. Thus, one may even think that in the case of mediation here, what usually happens to be a win-win situation for the parties in focus, may not be actually settled in court. Perhaps in their cases, there might have been gray areas that need to be addressed, but in the court of law, this lies in simply a black or white scenario. Plus in Florida, the advantage of Mediation is that there is confidentiality among parties. That not all cases need to be public documents, to be looked into.
“Florida's Mediation Confidentiality and Privilege Act of 2004 states that ‘all mediation communications shall be confidential’ and that ‘a mediation participant shall not disclose a mediation communication to any person other than a mediation participant or a participant's counsel.’ (Demand Media, 2011)
The usual suspect for Mediation may be applied on divorces. In the United Kingdom, the case of Mediation on Divorces has become mandatory. “Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said too many divorce cases are coming before judges, straining Britain's legal system and costing individuals — and in some cases the government — hefty fees.” (The Associated Press, 2011) The figures of 2009, showed that “there were 114,000 divorces in England and Wales, but around 137,000 British court cases dealing with the fallout from separations — including hearings on access to children and financial settlements.” (The Associated Press, 2011)
With the figures rising up of divorces that needed to be settled in court, when they should have been quietly settled in a less tedious and expensive way, it was ruled that Mediation is a good option to take here. Although there have been minority questions being asked of whether this might be a good course of action to take, because there are just cases that may have been fully and duly settled, with the presence of the court of law. Still, mediation in the case of many divorces in the United Kingdom seemed feasible enough to take. With price comparison, it would take only about £535 ($860) for Mediation to happen, while £2,820 ($4,540) is what it takes to be spent for divorces that would end up in court. (Specialist Mediation Services & Training, 2011)
What Advantages Do Mediation Procedures Have?
It seems like Mediation has been a good option for many cases that involve families as well. “Undersecretary for the Ministry of Justice Jonathan Djanogly said when announcing the changes, that mediation was ‘a quicker, cheaper and more amicable alternative’ to the over-worked family courts.” (Specialist Mediation Services & Training, 2011) The role of the “mediator facilitates communications, promotes understanding, focuses the parties on their interests, and seeks creative problem solving to enable the parties to reach their own agreement.” (Find Law, 2011)
It is important that by the time Mediation is considered, whether they are through mutual agreement between parties, or mandated through the court, the goals may be: to “create an equitable, legally sound, and mutually acceptable divorce agreement; avoid the expense and trauma that often accompany litigation; and minimize hostility and post-dissolution controversy.” (Find Law, 2011) One of the opportunities in considering Mediation is that it “also allows couples to avoid the risks of trial, protects confidentiality, and decreases stressful conflict. Mediation may also protect the children of a marriage from the pain of parental conflict.” (Find Law, 2011)
Since the parties work to create their own agreements, couples who mediate their divorce settlement often find better circumstances than those who go to trial. Moreover, the couples learn skills to help them resolve future conflicts as well. (Find Law, 2011) Still, on the other side of the spectrum, one may find that Mediation may not only the solution to every case’s predicament. The process of Mediation may not be as helpful when a specific party just cannot “express opinions fully and without fear, or when the parties refuse to compromise or mediate in good faith. Additionally, some legal commentators are concerned that mediators may be unable to handle the complex financial arrangements involved in some divorce agreements.” (Find Law, 2011)
The Mediation process starts when parties agree to have the option settled, or when the court of law vetoes the option of going through the ordeal of the lengthy judicial system. When the decision for Mediation is made, it is important to find a mediator. There are countries that have community-based or court-annexed mediation centers. Should the court orders Mediation, there may be a mediator to be appointed, or parties may agree to have a qualified mediator. “Both lawyers and non-lawyers serve as mediators… (they) help the parties meet, explore options, and negotiate a mutual settlement to resolve their dispute. Mediators do not determine who is right or wrong.” (Find Law, 2011) What mediators do is that they help the parties reach a solution on their own that works for them.
At present, there have been mentioned advantages of going through chosen or court mandated Mediation. Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly claims, “Mediation already helps thousands of legally-aided people across England and Wales every year, but I am concerned those funding their own court actions are missing out on the benefits it can bring." (Pasadena Family Law Attorneys, 2011) In the United States alone, this process has been nrelatively supported for eighty years by the American Arbitration Association. Moreover in Paris, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) at Paris, offers mediation and conciliation ser-vices.
“Mediation and conciliation have been provided by the Arbitration Conciliation Advisory Commission (ACAS) in the UK for over 40 years and the London City Disputes Panel has provided commercial mediation services since 1994.” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000) Countries in the West are not the only ones that are for Mediation proceedings. “In the People's Republic of China mediation is the primary method of resolving commercial disputes.” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000) Furthermore, Mediation now accounts for 20% of dispute settlement business in Australia. To be more specific, “Mediation removes the threat of expensive litigation should a dispute arise and enhances the commercial spirit of co-operation, maximising the concepts of dispute management and dispute resolution” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000).
This is as contrasted to the prevailing mania of distrust and litigation fever. Mediation also provides a viable and valuable security against default. Still, “in the event that the mediation fails the adjudicative ADR process provide a fail safe mechanism which guarantees to bring the dispute to an end.” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000) Also there are leading Fortune 500 multinational companies that claim about the advantages of having Mediation as an option. Internationally, it can enhance international trade and international commercial relations, which enable both commerce and nations to maximise their participation in the global economy.
For example, in the United States of America and increasingly in the United Kingdom, “government designed dispute resolution systems are being introduced. In order for businesses to retain control of dispute settlement, industry and commerce would be well advised to consider seriously embracing a system of ADR, designed and tailored to meet its needs” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000) From most protagonists’ perspective, “court systems of most countries are legalistic, formal, slow, expensive, public and only enforceable within the jurisdiction of the court, which may be of little use if the losing party has all his assets in another jurisdiction.” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000) What is more, there are less than 7.5% of litigants that ever succeeded in maintaining commercial relations following a judicial dispute. There is no common private international law (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000).
Most theorists and practitioners of the industry say that currently, Mediation has given the United Kingdom an annual total of £1.4bn while the cost of the services that would help achieve it as at a mere £15m. This is how much savings the court has made than having to go through so much processes that in the end it would entail most parties so much anxiety. According to John Sturrock, conflict amongst parties “is an inevitable part of all aspects of human endeavour. In some cases, it provides creative tension to help generate innovative thinking.” (2011) Still, with the situation however, it can escalate into a vicious cycle of antagonism and destruction as parties cling to and defend positions and lose sight of their real interests or original objectives. (Sturrock, 2011) If sanctions are taken the traditional way, it leads to “taking up 20 per cent of leadership time and resulting in 370 million working days lost. This can have a hugely detrimental impact on performance and company valuation in the private sector. In the public sector, it can lead to wasted money, poorer outcomes and political disillusionment.” (Sturrock, 2011)
Furthermore, it is stated that “Mediation has been developed over 25 years in many contexts, from family disputes to neighbourhood conflict and from the workplace to commercial settings. It is used in many countries, including England and Scotland, the US, Australia and New Zealand, and has a significant success rate.” (Sturrock, 2011) If one observes, in the latest audit of UK mediation, the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), it has been found that 75 per cent of cases were settled on the day of mediation and 14 per cent shortly thereafter.
Another advantage of having Mediation is that it is useful in the public sector. This is because it is “a creative process that is more likely to allow the relationship between the parties to continue and develop. This can be particularly important for two public sector organisations relying on each other in a supply chain where both have to continue to do business with each other” (Sturrock, 2011). One clear advantage that can be seen here is that, with so many savings out of tedious court and judicial proceedings, there can be funds that will be allocated for better projects and more helpful ones in the long run. Even further, “Mediation can also help to build a culture of more collaborative problem-solving, which could have wider economic benefits by improving overall productivity and lead to better economic performance.” (Sturrock, 2011) Plus, “a country that builds a reputation as a place where disputes are minimised and resolved quickly, creatively and cheaply will be a more attractive place to work and invest in.” (Sturrock, 2011)
What Are the Possible Disadvantages of Mediation?
Still, in any kind of tool, there may be different disadvantages to watch out for, when employing the use of Voluntary, or Court-Mandated Mediation. For example, there have been noticed issues of Mediation processes in New Jersey. The voiced concerns were “a low rate of resolution and docket-clearing (around 30%), failure to receive mediator reports within the time limits, excessive time spent by court administrators filing paperwork, tracking down delinquent mediators, granting extensions of time and preparing OSCs for relatively small fee amounts.” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011) There were also “other demands on court administration in support of a program that, in a time of resource constraints, is less mission-critical than other court operations.” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011)
Other than the ones that were just mentioned, there were also additional ones. “The assignment of mediators by the court constrains the growth of a quality-driven market in the State,” also both “good and poor mediators have the same number of assignments, resulting in many parties and counsel having poor experiences in mediation.” There were even complaints saying, “the last mediator I had just wanted to split the baby.” More complaints include: “The two-hour period announces to counsel that the court considers mandatory mediation as, in reality, a condition precedent to continued litigation, and it is therefore widely viewed as such (Mr. Mediator, please advise when one hour is up and we will be on our way.) “As a consequence, mediation is considered “do-gooder” work for volunteers, retirees and wanna-bes, not requiring professional skills “So what do you do for a living, Mr. Mediator?” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011)
It seems in these findings, it can be said that although at times it can be very helpful to have a mediator in the mediation process, at least to have competent ones, there are wanna-bes. This means that there may be individuals who may take advantage of the situation, of the proliferation of the process, that in the end, the sense of justice will not be served, and may even add up to the frustrations and anxieties of adding another case on the belt of the parties that had original issues to settle with, in the first place.
With the scenario presented in New Jersey, things were needed to be settled some more. “Word is that some changes are in the offing. New Jersey courts may, in the future, order parties to select a mediator of their own choice, with a default appointed in the event of failure to do so.” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011) On the other hand, hundreds of attorneys recently took training in foreclosure mediation. This is so that “the court roster of mediators will continue to be of speckled quality and the very good mediators will float in a diluted pool. (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011) In this case, the competence and integrity of the mediators should be kept with close watch. Moreover, there were a couple of discussions with business court judges in other states that suggest a different trend: “court-ordered mediation conducted by mediators of the parties’ choice or else drawn from among a very select roster, and paid by the parties at market rates for their professional services.
Mediators who overcharge are dealt like mechanics who overcharge: they do not get re-hired.” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011) As an effect, the settlement rates get higher; the process is taken more seriously because the participants are paying for it; “mediator reputations are subject to a robust, quality-driven professional market; and the court does not involve itself in anything other than receiving a yes/no report at the end.” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011)
Another disadvantage that may occur is that forced Mediation may not serve the best interests of the children of couples that go through, specifically, divorce. There are family solicitors that mentioned and “have warned that government plans to divert private law disputes over children away from the courts and towards mediation may not lead to child-focused outcomes.” (Baksi, 2010) This is one of the trends that have been happening, as courts would mandate families, or couples going through disputes like contact and residence arrangements. There has to be the awareness on the effects these may still have on children.
“Figures from the Ministry of Justice show that in 2009 there were 137,480 children involved in private law applications, an increase of 14% on the previous year.” (Baksi, 2010) Jenny Beck, the head of the family team at London firm TV Edwards, mentioned: “Mediation is a voluntary process through which parties can try to reach agreement in relation to arrangements for children. While it is hoped that the adults present focus on prioritising children, I am aware of cases where this sadly doesn’t happen.” (Baksi, 2010) She added, the emphasis of the court is different, as courts must consider, definitely and ultimately. the best interests of children, having regard to the factors outlined in the Children Act. Jenny Beck also said: “If parents can together reach a child-centred solution, then mediation is far preferable to court, but if they cannot, there needs to be state intervention through the courts.” (Baksi, 2010) Also, Law Society chief executive Des Hudson talked about the important role played by solicitors in providing advice and helping to resolve such disputes.
“The solicitors help parties make decisions which are practical and in the interests of children – this is particularly so when there is an imbalance of power between partners or where emotions are high,” he mentioned. (Baksi, 2010) Still, there is another opinion mentioned by Suzanne Kingston, the head of the family department at London firm Dawsons, as she said: “If the mediator is good, they should reflect to the parties what a court is likely to do and consider, and ensure the children’s views are not ignored. The benefits of mediation, she said, are that the parties are more likely to preserve their relationship, it forms a good basis for co-parenting, it is cheaper, and can deliver more creative solutions.” (Baksi, 2010)
Certainly, from what have been so far seen, especially the ones that concern the most important unit of society, which is the family, Mediation as an option has to be thoroughly thought out. Yes, it is an option that is good to consider as it cuts expenses and lessens anxieties, but with the wrong set of litigators that parties may be exposed to, there may be negative effects in the end.
On the other hand, there is another opinion considered by Paul Randolph. He states: “Imagine for a moment that mediation is a product—a stain remover—that can be purchased from any supermarket. Almost all who have used it praise it highly.” (Randolph, 2010) He continues, the product being pushed “’does what it says on the tin’: it is cheap, quick, is easy to use, and saves time, cost and energy. On the adjacent shelf is another stain remover called litigation.” (Randolph, 2010) He still says with the analogy, almost all who have used the product, litigation, “are highly critical of it: it frequently fails to deliver its promise of success: it is extremely costly, very slow, and takes up huge amounts of time, money and energy.
Yet people queue up to purchase litigation, and leave mediation on the shelf. Why?” (Randolph, 2010) In this case, yes, there still are different sectors and parties within societies that do not go after the thrusts of Mediation, and what else it can offer. This defies all market trends, as confirmed by Professor Dame Hazel Genn in her research into the Automatic Referral to Mediation Pilot Scheme at Central London County Court. In this research there was “approximately 80% of cases, one or both parties objected to mediation. Other research also shows that people are not as enthusiastic about mediation as the government, the judges, and the mediation community think they ought to be.” (Randolph, 2010) Tracing back to efforts in the past, it was all a matter of education, as there are still too many who remain ignorant about mediation, and who merely need to be informed.
“Indeed, in his Final Report on Civil Costs, Sir Rupert Jackson recommends that there should be a serious campaign to ensure that all litigation lawyers and judges are properly informed of how ADR works, and the benefits that it can bring” (Randolph, 2010) Still, there have been sayings that Mediation, and being educated about it, has taken the country in focus, which is United Kingdom, have been taking twenty years in the making. Still, Randolph claims, education is not the sole answer to take Mediation possible here.
One angle is human nature. “As a species, we are not programmed to compromise, we are programmed to win—and in winning we want to see blood on the walls! We have an innate aggression, which, when we are in dispute, transforms itself from a mere instinct to “survive” into an acute need to crush the opposition.” (Randolph, 2010) This is why in a court battle, what usually happens is parties no longer act rationally or think commercially; instead they are driven by an emotional craving to triumph over their opponent. These emotions are not only strictly applicable to squabbles over property boundaries or family assets. There was a survey in October 2007 by the Field Fisher Waterhouse. With this, it was “found that 47% of the respondents (chief executives and in-house lawyers) involved in commercial litigation, admitted that a personal dislike of the other side had driven them into costly and lengthy litigation” (Randolph, 2010).
In the case that had biological angle, it can be seen that aside from the need to educate, biological reasons, and the abuse of power among the mediators, there really are clear reasons of whether parties would like to go through the process of continuing voluntary Mediation.
What ramifications could there be with these findings and analysis? It takes a lot of thinking on the part of parties that would employ mediators. The Mediators that truly do their work can be indeed learned from. On January 18, 2011, there was a Diane Rehms show, and this included the noted Georgetown University communications scholar Deborah Tannen. She defined civility as “’not taking an adversarial stance and making the other guy your enemy,’ and that people need to be open to having erred and to revision. Even our experts seem to describe civil discourse by what it is not.” (Hanson, 2011) Furthermore, the important hallmarks of civil discourse, that is a method used by efficient mediators are: “1) some ability to engage in criticism of one's self, 2) recognizing that there is some level of humanity on the other side, and 3) the belief that we are all fallible. (Hanson, 2011)
There have been so many, as in numerous discussions of Mediation being used especially in Divorce. “It must be acknowledged that collaborative law has its place in helping to stem the flow of family cases through the doors of litigation, but to talk of it as “revolutionising” divorce practice would be misleading. If anything, family law mediation has already achieved that pinnacle.” (Clarke, 2008) However, nobody seems to want to acknowledge the success of Mediation.
As long as things are way up my alley, or even just spike up some interest--ask me to write about anything I agree with, and I'll do it. Here's one I came up with a few months ago.
Brace yourself.
If you're in for some essay treat, then read on.
Court-Mandated Mediation: a Solution or an Expense?
Alternative Dispute Resolutions that are being suggested at present is Court-Mandated Mediation. Still just like any other alternative, this Court-Mandated Mediation should only be used as a tool, and not as an actual and absolute solution into getting cases solved.
Court-Mandated Mediation: A Concept
The mediator has the function of resolving a dispute that would result favorable to the parties involved. If in this process, no resolution has still been made, then it is advisable to pursue a lawsuit. (US Legal, Inc., 2011)
A skilled mediator should be able to assist the parties to objectively evaluate their respective cases and work out a resolution which meets the real needs of the parties and is acceptable to them.” (Barron, 2004) A possible reason for mediation as a viable option is that, the cost of litigation in this option, it is less expensive and painstaking or tedious. If “parties are almost certain to settle anyway, they can only maximize their benefit by settling early and minimizing their litigation expenses.” (Barron, 2004) The bottom line here is, mediation may be a good option if the parties would not want to consider long processes, expensive fees, and if they are even most certain that the situation may most likely be settled, with an objective middleman with the knowledge of the law, to settle a case.
For example, in the territories of the United States, like in Utah, there were the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Mediation Program, and Utah Court of Appeals Mediation Program that indicated more than one hundred cases referring to mediation in a year (Hon. Benson, et., al., 2002) . There was also the case of a multinational corporation, Astra Zeneca, where it paid “$150 million to settle more lawsuits claiming its antipsychotic drug Seroquel causes diabetes, pushing the amount the drugmaker has paid to resolve cases over the medicine to almost $350 million, people familiar with the accords said.” (Feeley, 2011) As Nadja Alexander in her book Global Trends in Mediation, there is a noticeable emergence of a 'collective consciousness' of mediation while enabling a glocalisation of the mediation movement: 'think globally, act locally
(2006).
It has to be seen that different states, have different ways of adapting the concept of Court-Mandated Mediation. For example, in the United States’ Florida, there are sets of rules in carrying out this kind of option. By definition, Mediation is seen as a “voluntary process in which a third-party mediator helps the disagreeing parties identify any obstacles to a settlement. Court-ordered mediation occurs when a court forces the disagreeing parties to participate in the mediation process.” (Demand Media, 2011). In the case of Florida, mediation cases have become so established, mostly attorneys would request this kind of Alternative Dispute Resolution have been chosen by attorneys, even before a case is formally brought up to court.
In the state of focus here, it has been seen that the judge would settle cases in such a way that is unfavorable for the parties, as the laws would only permit the authorities to direct resolutions, based from state-written legalities. Thus, one may even think that in the case of mediation here, what usually happens to be a win-win situation for the parties in focus, may not be actually settled in court. Perhaps in their cases, there might have been gray areas that need to be addressed, but in the court of law, this lies in simply a black or white scenario. Plus in Florida, the advantage of Mediation is that there is confidentiality among parties. That not all cases need to be public documents, to be looked into.
“Florida's Mediation Confidentiality and Privilege Act of 2004 states that ‘all mediation communications shall be confidential’ and that ‘a mediation participant shall not disclose a mediation communication to any person other than a mediation participant or a participant's counsel.’ (Demand Media, 2011)
The usual suspect for Mediation may be applied on divorces. In the United Kingdom, the case of Mediation on Divorces has become mandatory. “Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said too many divorce cases are coming before judges, straining Britain's legal system and costing individuals — and in some cases the government — hefty fees.” (The Associated Press, 2011) The figures of 2009, showed that “there were 114,000 divorces in England and Wales, but around 137,000 British court cases dealing with the fallout from separations — including hearings on access to children and financial settlements.” (The Associated Press, 2011)
With the figures rising up of divorces that needed to be settled in court, when they should have been quietly settled in a less tedious and expensive way, it was ruled that Mediation is a good option to take here. Although there have been minority questions being asked of whether this might be a good course of action to take, because there are just cases that may have been fully and duly settled, with the presence of the court of law. Still, mediation in the case of many divorces in the United Kingdom seemed feasible enough to take. With price comparison, it would take only about £535 ($860) for Mediation to happen, while £2,820 ($4,540) is what it takes to be spent for divorces that would end up in court. (Specialist Mediation Services & Training, 2011)
What Advantages Do Mediation Procedures Have?
It seems like Mediation has been a good option for many cases that involve families as well. “Undersecretary for the Ministry of Justice Jonathan Djanogly said when announcing the changes, that mediation was ‘a quicker, cheaper and more amicable alternative’ to the over-worked family courts.” (Specialist Mediation Services & Training, 2011) The role of the “mediator facilitates communications, promotes understanding, focuses the parties on their interests, and seeks creative problem solving to enable the parties to reach their own agreement.” (Find Law, 2011)
It is important that by the time Mediation is considered, whether they are through mutual agreement between parties, or mandated through the court, the goals may be: to “create an equitable, legally sound, and mutually acceptable divorce agreement; avoid the expense and trauma that often accompany litigation; and minimize hostility and post-dissolution controversy.” (Find Law, 2011) One of the opportunities in considering Mediation is that it “also allows couples to avoid the risks of trial, protects confidentiality, and decreases stressful conflict. Mediation may also protect the children of a marriage from the pain of parental conflict.” (Find Law, 2011)
Since the parties work to create their own agreements, couples who mediate their divorce settlement often find better circumstances than those who go to trial. Moreover, the couples learn skills to help them resolve future conflicts as well. (Find Law, 2011) Still, on the other side of the spectrum, one may find that Mediation may not only the solution to every case’s predicament. The process of Mediation may not be as helpful when a specific party just cannot “express opinions fully and without fear, or when the parties refuse to compromise or mediate in good faith. Additionally, some legal commentators are concerned that mediators may be unable to handle the complex financial arrangements involved in some divorce agreements.” (Find Law, 2011)
The Mediation process starts when parties agree to have the option settled, or when the court of law vetoes the option of going through the ordeal of the lengthy judicial system. When the decision for Mediation is made, it is important to find a mediator. There are countries that have community-based or court-annexed mediation centers. Should the court orders Mediation, there may be a mediator to be appointed, or parties may agree to have a qualified mediator. “Both lawyers and non-lawyers serve as mediators… (they) help the parties meet, explore options, and negotiate a mutual settlement to resolve their dispute. Mediators do not determine who is right or wrong.” (Find Law, 2011) What mediators do is that they help the parties reach a solution on their own that works for them.
At present, there have been mentioned advantages of going through chosen or court mandated Mediation. Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly claims, “Mediation already helps thousands of legally-aided people across England and Wales every year, but I am concerned those funding their own court actions are missing out on the benefits it can bring." (Pasadena Family Law Attorneys, 2011) In the United States alone, this process has been nrelatively supported for eighty years by the American Arbitration Association. Moreover in Paris, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) at Paris, offers mediation and conciliation ser-vices.
“Mediation and conciliation have been provided by the Arbitration Conciliation Advisory Commission (ACAS) in the UK for over 40 years and the London City Disputes Panel has provided commercial mediation services since 1994.” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000) Countries in the West are not the only ones that are for Mediation proceedings. “In the People's Republic of China mediation is the primary method of resolving commercial disputes.” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000) Furthermore, Mediation now accounts for 20% of dispute settlement business in Australia. To be more specific, “Mediation removes the threat of expensive litigation should a dispute arise and enhances the commercial spirit of co-operation, maximising the concepts of dispute management and dispute resolution” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000).
This is as contrasted to the prevailing mania of distrust and litigation fever. Mediation also provides a viable and valuable security against default. Still, “in the event that the mediation fails the adjudicative ADR process provide a fail safe mechanism which guarantees to bring the dispute to an end.” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000) Also there are leading Fortune 500 multinational companies that claim about the advantages of having Mediation as an option. Internationally, it can enhance international trade and international commercial relations, which enable both commerce and nations to maximise their participation in the global economy.
For example, in the United States of America and increasingly in the United Kingdom, “government designed dispute resolution systems are being introduced. In order for businesses to retain control of dispute settlement, industry and commerce would be well advised to consider seriously embracing a system of ADR, designed and tailored to meet its needs” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000) From most protagonists’ perspective, “court systems of most countries are legalistic, formal, slow, expensive, public and only enforceable within the jurisdiction of the court, which may be of little use if the losing party has all his assets in another jurisdiction.” (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000) What is more, there are less than 7.5% of litigants that ever succeeded in maintaining commercial relations following a judicial dispute. There is no common private international law (National Academy for Dispute Resolution, UK, 2000).
Most theorists and practitioners of the industry say that currently, Mediation has given the United Kingdom an annual total of £1.4bn while the cost of the services that would help achieve it as at a mere £15m. This is how much savings the court has made than having to go through so much processes that in the end it would entail most parties so much anxiety. According to John Sturrock, conflict amongst parties “is an inevitable part of all aspects of human endeavour. In some cases, it provides creative tension to help generate innovative thinking.” (2011) Still, with the situation however, it can escalate into a vicious cycle of antagonism and destruction as parties cling to and defend positions and lose sight of their real interests or original objectives. (Sturrock, 2011) If sanctions are taken the traditional way, it leads to “taking up 20 per cent of leadership time and resulting in 370 million working days lost. This can have a hugely detrimental impact on performance and company valuation in the private sector. In the public sector, it can lead to wasted money, poorer outcomes and political disillusionment.” (Sturrock, 2011)
Furthermore, it is stated that “Mediation has been developed over 25 years in many contexts, from family disputes to neighbourhood conflict and from the workplace to commercial settings. It is used in many countries, including England and Scotland, the US, Australia and New Zealand, and has a significant success rate.” (Sturrock, 2011) If one observes, in the latest audit of UK mediation, the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), it has been found that 75 per cent of cases were settled on the day of mediation and 14 per cent shortly thereafter.
Another advantage of having Mediation is that it is useful in the public sector. This is because it is “a creative process that is more likely to allow the relationship between the parties to continue and develop. This can be particularly important for two public sector organisations relying on each other in a supply chain where both have to continue to do business with each other” (Sturrock, 2011). One clear advantage that can be seen here is that, with so many savings out of tedious court and judicial proceedings, there can be funds that will be allocated for better projects and more helpful ones in the long run. Even further, “Mediation can also help to build a culture of more collaborative problem-solving, which could have wider economic benefits by improving overall productivity and lead to better economic performance.” (Sturrock, 2011) Plus, “a country that builds a reputation as a place where disputes are minimised and resolved quickly, creatively and cheaply will be a more attractive place to work and invest in.” (Sturrock, 2011)
What Are the Possible Disadvantages of Mediation?
Still, in any kind of tool, there may be different disadvantages to watch out for, when employing the use of Voluntary, or Court-Mandated Mediation. For example, there have been noticed issues of Mediation processes in New Jersey. The voiced concerns were “a low rate of resolution and docket-clearing (around 30%), failure to receive mediator reports within the time limits, excessive time spent by court administrators filing paperwork, tracking down delinquent mediators, granting extensions of time and preparing OSCs for relatively small fee amounts.” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011) There were also “other demands on court administration in support of a program that, in a time of resource constraints, is less mission-critical than other court operations.” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011)
Other than the ones that were just mentioned, there were also additional ones. “The assignment of mediators by the court constrains the growth of a quality-driven market in the State,” also both “good and poor mediators have the same number of assignments, resulting in many parties and counsel having poor experiences in mediation.” There were even complaints saying, “the last mediator I had just wanted to split the baby.” More complaints include: “The two-hour period announces to counsel that the court considers mandatory mediation as, in reality, a condition precedent to continued litigation, and it is therefore widely viewed as such (Mr. Mediator, please advise when one hour is up and we will be on our way.) “As a consequence, mediation is considered “do-gooder” work for volunteers, retirees and wanna-bes, not requiring professional skills “So what do you do for a living, Mr. Mediator?” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011)
It seems in these findings, it can be said that although at times it can be very helpful to have a mediator in the mediation process, at least to have competent ones, there are wanna-bes. This means that there may be individuals who may take advantage of the situation, of the proliferation of the process, that in the end, the sense of justice will not be served, and may even add up to the frustrations and anxieties of adding another case on the belt of the parties that had original issues to settle with, in the first place.
With the scenario presented in New Jersey, things were needed to be settled some more. “Word is that some changes are in the offing. New Jersey courts may, in the future, order parties to select a mediator of their own choice, with a default appointed in the event of failure to do so.” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011) On the other hand, hundreds of attorneys recently took training in foreclosure mediation. This is so that “the court roster of mediators will continue to be of speckled quality and the very good mediators will float in a diluted pool. (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011) In this case, the competence and integrity of the mediators should be kept with close watch. Moreover, there were a couple of discussions with business court judges in other states that suggest a different trend: “court-ordered mediation conducted by mediators of the parties’ choice or else drawn from among a very select roster, and paid by the parties at market rates for their professional services.
Mediators who overcharge are dealt like mechanics who overcharge: they do not get re-hired.” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011) As an effect, the settlement rates get higher; the process is taken more seriously because the participants are paying for it; “mediator reputations are subject to a robust, quality-driven professional market; and the court does not involve itself in anything other than receiving a yes/no report at the end.” (Resourceful Internet Solutions, 2011)
Another disadvantage that may occur is that forced Mediation may not serve the best interests of the children of couples that go through, specifically, divorce. There are family solicitors that mentioned and “have warned that government plans to divert private law disputes over children away from the courts and towards mediation may not lead to child-focused outcomes.” (Baksi, 2010) This is one of the trends that have been happening, as courts would mandate families, or couples going through disputes like contact and residence arrangements. There has to be the awareness on the effects these may still have on children.
“Figures from the Ministry of Justice show that in 2009 there were 137,480 children involved in private law applications, an increase of 14% on the previous year.” (Baksi, 2010) Jenny Beck, the head of the family team at London firm TV Edwards, mentioned: “Mediation is a voluntary process through which parties can try to reach agreement in relation to arrangements for children. While it is hoped that the adults present focus on prioritising children, I am aware of cases where this sadly doesn’t happen.” (Baksi, 2010) She added, the emphasis of the court is different, as courts must consider, definitely and ultimately. the best interests of children, having regard to the factors outlined in the Children Act. Jenny Beck also said: “If parents can together reach a child-centred solution, then mediation is far preferable to court, but if they cannot, there needs to be state intervention through the courts.” (Baksi, 2010) Also, Law Society chief executive Des Hudson talked about the important role played by solicitors in providing advice and helping to resolve such disputes.
“The solicitors help parties make decisions which are practical and in the interests of children – this is particularly so when there is an imbalance of power between partners or where emotions are high,” he mentioned. (Baksi, 2010) Still, there is another opinion mentioned by Suzanne Kingston, the head of the family department at London firm Dawsons, as she said: “If the mediator is good, they should reflect to the parties what a court is likely to do and consider, and ensure the children’s views are not ignored. The benefits of mediation, she said, are that the parties are more likely to preserve their relationship, it forms a good basis for co-parenting, it is cheaper, and can deliver more creative solutions.” (Baksi, 2010)
Certainly, from what have been so far seen, especially the ones that concern the most important unit of society, which is the family, Mediation as an option has to be thoroughly thought out. Yes, it is an option that is good to consider as it cuts expenses and lessens anxieties, but with the wrong set of litigators that parties may be exposed to, there may be negative effects in the end.
On the other hand, there is another opinion considered by Paul Randolph. He states: “Imagine for a moment that mediation is a product—a stain remover—that can be purchased from any supermarket. Almost all who have used it praise it highly.” (Randolph, 2010) He continues, the product being pushed “’does what it says on the tin’: it is cheap, quick, is easy to use, and saves time, cost and energy. On the adjacent shelf is another stain remover called litigation.” (Randolph, 2010) He still says with the analogy, almost all who have used the product, litigation, “are highly critical of it: it frequently fails to deliver its promise of success: it is extremely costly, very slow, and takes up huge amounts of time, money and energy.
Yet people queue up to purchase litigation, and leave mediation on the shelf. Why?” (Randolph, 2010) In this case, yes, there still are different sectors and parties within societies that do not go after the thrusts of Mediation, and what else it can offer. This defies all market trends, as confirmed by Professor Dame Hazel Genn in her research into the Automatic Referral to Mediation Pilot Scheme at Central London County Court. In this research there was “approximately 80% of cases, one or both parties objected to mediation. Other research also shows that people are not as enthusiastic about mediation as the government, the judges, and the mediation community think they ought to be.” (Randolph, 2010) Tracing back to efforts in the past, it was all a matter of education, as there are still too many who remain ignorant about mediation, and who merely need to be informed.
“Indeed, in his Final Report on Civil Costs, Sir Rupert Jackson recommends that there should be a serious campaign to ensure that all litigation lawyers and judges are properly informed of how ADR works, and the benefits that it can bring” (Randolph, 2010) Still, there have been sayings that Mediation, and being educated about it, has taken the country in focus, which is United Kingdom, have been taking twenty years in the making. Still, Randolph claims, education is not the sole answer to take Mediation possible here.
One angle is human nature. “As a species, we are not programmed to compromise, we are programmed to win—and in winning we want to see blood on the walls! We have an innate aggression, which, when we are in dispute, transforms itself from a mere instinct to “survive” into an acute need to crush the opposition.” (Randolph, 2010) This is why in a court battle, what usually happens is parties no longer act rationally or think commercially; instead they are driven by an emotional craving to triumph over their opponent. These emotions are not only strictly applicable to squabbles over property boundaries or family assets. There was a survey in October 2007 by the Field Fisher Waterhouse. With this, it was “found that 47% of the respondents (chief executives and in-house lawyers) involved in commercial litigation, admitted that a personal dislike of the other side had driven them into costly and lengthy litigation” (Randolph, 2010).
In the case that had biological angle, it can be seen that aside from the need to educate, biological reasons, and the abuse of power among the mediators, there really are clear reasons of whether parties would like to go through the process of continuing voluntary Mediation.
What ramifications could there be with these findings and analysis? It takes a lot of thinking on the part of parties that would employ mediators. The Mediators that truly do their work can be indeed learned from. On January 18, 2011, there was a Diane Rehms show, and this included the noted Georgetown University communications scholar Deborah Tannen. She defined civility as “’not taking an adversarial stance and making the other guy your enemy,’ and that people need to be open to having erred and to revision. Even our experts seem to describe civil discourse by what it is not.” (Hanson, 2011) Furthermore, the important hallmarks of civil discourse, that is a method used by efficient mediators are: “1) some ability to engage in criticism of one's self, 2) recognizing that there is some level of humanity on the other side, and 3) the belief that we are all fallible. (Hanson, 2011)
There have been so many, as in numerous discussions of Mediation being used especially in Divorce. “It must be acknowledged that collaborative law has its place in helping to stem the flow of family cases through the doors of litigation, but to talk of it as “revolutionising” divorce practice would be misleading. If anything, family law mediation has already achieved that pinnacle.” (Clarke, 2008) However, nobody seems to want to acknowledge the success of Mediation.
Furthermore, a truly collaborative process must, in the view of Clarke, include mediation under its umbrella. Kenneth Clarke believes that there are many unsung heroes of the Mediation process, which makes the litigation process more efficient and cost saving. Clarke further says, Family Law Mediation goes far beyond what any other form of ADR can achieve. This is because of its fully integrated holistic approach grounded in a totally neutral legal framework. It can be said also that there is so much more that can and should be done to make mediation more widely available. “More must be done to implant mediation in the cultural psyche of the legal community. Mandatory assessment for mediation (not to be confused with mandatory mediation) within the court system, as adopted by many American states, would be a start.” (Clarke, 2010)
What can then be learned out of the ramifications that were told on Mediation as an option to dissolve most disputes that happen in different territories? John Sturrock in his other article said, every citizen has a part to play in a process’s success. For lawmakers engaged in managing disputes and differences at all sorts of levels, “the really interesting development will be the extent to which leaders and parties can move towards a genuinely collaborative way of discussing the issues and addressing inevitable tensions.” (Sturrock, 2010) Of course, this should mainly depend, and hugely on their ability in the pressured situations, as they are already experiencing to think in terms of mutual interest rather than partisanship. (Sturrock, 2010) It is also good to consider about the potential to transform how we do things (as Sturrock says about United Kingdom as a territory). “But it takes skill, training, a new way of thinking and changed attitudes. It also takes a shift from cynicism and scepticism towards a genuine belief that most people are actually trying to do their best in the situation in which they find themselves.” (Sturrock, 2010)
So Much Learned, Yet So Much to Still Discover
In this document, so much about Mediation has been tackled, and yes, it has been contributing a lot to how litigation processes have been fast tracked in the court of law. As so many developments have been happening, it is no wonder that there is so much laws to be laid clear and to remind people of.
In the case of globalization, of so much that has to be done and still, yet to discover, the law should not be falling behind. After all, it is supposed to be all-encompassing as well. This is how much Mediation has helped present-day society as well, from different countries.
Still, as has been previously discussed, the most important thing here is to see that although Mediation has its pros and cons, it should be seen as a tool, an important process by which the goals should be importantly considered for the society, more than anything.
Bibliography
Alexander, Nadja. “Global Trends in Mediation.” Kluwer Law International, 2006.
Associated Press, The. “U.K. divorce mediation becomes mandatory.” The Associated Press,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/02/23/divorce-mediation-uk.htmlref=rss Accessed March 14, 2011)
Baksi, Catherine. “Forced mediation 'may not serve interests of children” Law Society,
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/forced-mediation-039may-not-serve-interests-children039 Accessed March 14, 2011)
Barron, Richard. “Which Cases Are Most Suitable For Court Ordered Mediation.” Resourceful
Internet Solutions, http://www.mediate.com/articles/barronMR1.cfm (Accessed March
14, 2011)
Hon. Benson Dee V. “Mediation: Practice and Procedure in State and Federal Courts Utah
State Bar, Mid Year Meeting March 22, 2002.” Mediation Practice and Procedures,
http://www.utahbar.org/sites/midyear/html/mediation__practice___proc_.html
Accessed March 14, 2011)
Clarke, Kenneth. “News flash - compulsory mediation?” Laceys Mediation. http://www.laceysmediation.co.uk/news/press-article-family-mediation.html (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Demand Media, Inc. “Rules for Court Ordered Mediation in Florida” Demand Media, Inc.,
http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_7499128_rules-court-ordered-mediation-florida.html Accessed March 14, 2011)
Feeley, Jeff. “AstraZeneca Said to Pay $150 Million to Settle About 6,000 Seroquel
Suits.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-01/astrazeneca-won-t-face-immediate-trials- of-seroquel-cases-amid-mediation.html (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Find Law. “Divorce Mediation, Overview.” Find Law http://family.findlaw.com/divorce/divorce-process/divorce-mediation.html
Accessed March 14, 2011)
Hanson, Merri L. “What Political Leaders Can Learn From Mediators About Civil Discourse.” Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc, http://www.mediate.com/articles/hansonM3.cfm (Accessed March 14, 2011)
National Academy for Dispute Resolution (UK) “Sources of Dispute Resolution Services”, http://www.nadr.co.uk/background/sources.php (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Portfolio Media. “Mediation Ordered In Lehman Derivatives Feud.”
http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/118654/mediation-ordered-in-lehman- derivatives-feud (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Philipps, Peter. “Court-Mandated Mediation: Lessons Learned In New Jersey?” Resourceful Internet Solutions, http://www.mediate.com/articles/phillipsPbl20110131.cfm (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Randolph, Paul. “Compulsory mediation?” New Law Journal, http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/litigation-v-mediation (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Schweitzer, Donald “UK Orders Mandatory Mediation for Divorcing Couples.” Pasadena Family Law Attorneys, http://blog.pasadenalawoffice.com/Pasadena-Family-Law -Blog/2011/March/UK-Orders-Mandatory-Mediation-for-Divorcing-Coup.aspx (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Specialist Mediation Services & Training. “Mandatory Mediation in Family Disputes.” ADR,
(http://www.adrgroup.co.uk/about-news.asp?id=84&start=0 (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Sturrock, John. “Mediation Saves The UK An Annual £1.4bn While The Cost Of The Services That Help To Achieve It Is A Mere £15m.” Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc.
(http://www.mediate.com/articles/sturrockJ13.cfm (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Sturrock, John. “We All Have A Part To Play In Coalition Success . . . Or Failure.”
Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc. http://www.mediate.com/articles/sturrockJ15.cfm(Accessed March 14, 2011)
UK Mediation Blog. http://www.ukmediation.net/blog/ (Accessed March 14, 2011)
US Legal, Inc. “Arbitration and Mediation Law & Legal Definition.” US Legal, Inc., (http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/arbitration-and-mediation/ (Accessed March 14, 2011)
What can then be learned out of the ramifications that were told on Mediation as an option to dissolve most disputes that happen in different territories? John Sturrock in his other article said, every citizen has a part to play in a process’s success. For lawmakers engaged in managing disputes and differences at all sorts of levels, “the really interesting development will be the extent to which leaders and parties can move towards a genuinely collaborative way of discussing the issues and addressing inevitable tensions.” (Sturrock, 2010) Of course, this should mainly depend, and hugely on their ability in the pressured situations, as they are already experiencing to think in terms of mutual interest rather than partisanship. (Sturrock, 2010) It is also good to consider about the potential to transform how we do things (as Sturrock says about United Kingdom as a territory). “But it takes skill, training, a new way of thinking and changed attitudes. It also takes a shift from cynicism and scepticism towards a genuine belief that most people are actually trying to do their best in the situation in which they find themselves.” (Sturrock, 2010)
So Much Learned, Yet So Much to Still Discover
In this document, so much about Mediation has been tackled, and yes, it has been contributing a lot to how litigation processes have been fast tracked in the court of law. As so many developments have been happening, it is no wonder that there is so much laws to be laid clear and to remind people of.
In the case of globalization, of so much that has to be done and still, yet to discover, the law should not be falling behind. After all, it is supposed to be all-encompassing as well. This is how much Mediation has helped present-day society as well, from different countries.
Still, as has been previously discussed, the most important thing here is to see that although Mediation has its pros and cons, it should be seen as a tool, an important process by which the goals should be importantly considered for the society, more than anything.
Bibliography
Alexander, Nadja. “Global Trends in Mediation.” Kluwer Law International, 2006.
Associated Press, The. “U.K. divorce mediation becomes mandatory.” The Associated Press,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/02/23/divorce-mediation-uk.htmlref=rss Accessed March 14, 2011)
Baksi, Catherine. “Forced mediation 'may not serve interests of children” Law Society,
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/forced-mediation-039may-not-serve-interests-children039 Accessed March 14, 2011)
Barron, Richard. “Which Cases Are Most Suitable For Court Ordered Mediation.” Resourceful
Internet Solutions, http://www.mediate.com/articles/barronMR1.cfm (Accessed March
14, 2011)
Hon. Benson Dee V. “Mediation: Practice and Procedure in State and Federal Courts Utah
State Bar, Mid Year Meeting March 22, 2002.” Mediation Practice and Procedures,
http://www.utahbar.org/sites/midyear/html/mediation__practice___proc_.html
Accessed March 14, 2011)
Clarke, Kenneth. “News flash - compulsory mediation?” Laceys Mediation. http://www.laceysmediation.co.uk/news/press-article-family-mediation.html (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Demand Media, Inc. “Rules for Court Ordered Mediation in Florida” Demand Media, Inc.,
http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_7499128_rules-court-ordered-mediation-florida.html Accessed March 14, 2011)
Feeley, Jeff. “AstraZeneca Said to Pay $150 Million to Settle About 6,000 Seroquel
Suits.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-01/astrazeneca-won-t-face-immediate-trials- of-seroquel-cases-amid-mediation.html (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Find Law. “Divorce Mediation, Overview.” Find Law http://family.findlaw.com/divorce/divorce-process/divorce-mediation.html
Accessed March 14, 2011)
Hanson, Merri L. “What Political Leaders Can Learn From Mediators About Civil Discourse.” Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc, http://www.mediate.com/articles/hansonM3.cfm (Accessed March 14, 2011)
National Academy for Dispute Resolution (UK) “Sources of Dispute Resolution Services”, http://www.nadr.co.uk/background/sources.php (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Portfolio Media. “Mediation Ordered In Lehman Derivatives Feud.”
http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/118654/mediation-ordered-in-lehman- derivatives-feud (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Philipps, Peter. “Court-Mandated Mediation: Lessons Learned In New Jersey?” Resourceful Internet Solutions, http://www.mediate.com/articles/phillipsPbl20110131.cfm (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Randolph, Paul. “Compulsory mediation?” New Law Journal, http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/litigation-v-mediation (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Schweitzer, Donald “UK Orders Mandatory Mediation for Divorcing Couples.” Pasadena Family Law Attorneys, http://blog.pasadenalawoffice.com/Pasadena-Family-Law -Blog/2011/March/UK-Orders-Mandatory-Mediation-for-Divorcing-Coup.aspx (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Specialist Mediation Services & Training. “Mandatory Mediation in Family Disputes.” ADR,
(http://www.adrgroup.co.uk/about-news.asp?id=84&start=0 (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Sturrock, John. “Mediation Saves The UK An Annual £1.4bn While The Cost Of The Services That Help To Achieve It Is A Mere £15m.” Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc.
(http://www.mediate.com/articles/sturrockJ13.cfm (Accessed March 14, 2011)
Sturrock, John. “We All Have A Part To Play In Coalition Success . . . Or Failure.”
Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc. http://www.mediate.com/articles/sturrockJ15.cfm(Accessed March 14, 2011)
UK Mediation Blog. http://www.ukmediation.net/blog/ (Accessed March 14, 2011)
US Legal, Inc. “Arbitration and Mediation Law & Legal Definition.” US Legal, Inc., (http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/arbitration-and-mediation/ (Accessed March 14, 2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment