Most disputes that arise out of continuing relationship start with a misunderstanding. As the dispute escalates, the parties ruin chances to return to a mutually beneficial relationship. Mediation lets them clear up the misunderstanding and return to a mutually beneficial relationship, something not available to them in court. Judges develop a sense of when a case can be or should be settled. Follow that instinct.
Mediation is cheap compared to litigation.
By carefully and selectively ordering it, judges can reduce expenses, let the parties develop their own solution, and free judicial time for disputes that can only be resolved in court. The meeting proved to be comprehensive, instructive and at times, inspirational. Sessions on ethics for mediators and for advocates, best practices for family mediators, diversity concerns in mediation, proposed revisions to the Uniform Arbitration Act, peer mediation, defining the role of judges in ADR, and state regulation of ethics and professional responsibility in court-connected ADR programs gave the ADR Commission members plenty of food for thought. The opening panel on Innovative Ideas for Dispute Resolution was lead by Harvard Professors Frank Sander, Robert Mnookin, Roger Fisher, and Sheila Heen. This proved to be a provocative discussion of where we have been and where we are going in dispute resolution.