E-ADR eliminates the uncertainties of presenting a case to a judge. The parties involved design the method of dispute resolution and choose the ground rules. This kind or combination of flexibility and accommodation greatly speeds-up the process of resolving disputes.
Mediation is a process in which a neutral third party helps the parties reach a resolution of their dispute(s), or to narrow down the differences between them.Arbitration is a process whereby an arbitrator hears evidence from the parties and makes an award which can be binding and enforced by a Court of law.
Conciliation is an alternative out-of-court dispute resolution instrument. Like mediation, conciliation is a voluntary, flexible, confidential, and interest-based process. The parties seek to reach an amicable dispute settlement with the assistance of the conciliator, who acts as a neutral third party.
The main difference between conciliation and mediation proceedings is that, at some point during the conciliation, the conciliator will be asked by the parties to provide them with a non-binding settlement proposal. A mediator, by contrast, will in most cases and as a matter of principle, refrain from making such a proposal.
Yes, but it is tricky and not advisable. Conflicting parties may choose what is sometimes called ‘binding mediation,’ though many professional neutrals (the arbitrator or mediator) do not recommend creating such a situation in which one neutral assumes both roles.
In ‘med/arb’, with the consent of the parties, the mediator first attempts to help the parties settle their dispute(s). If this effort proves unsuccessful, the parties agree that the mediator may then act as an arbitrator and render an award. In ‘arb/med’, the neutral first acts as an arbitrator who, after hearing the evidence, renders an award which is kept secret. The parties then attempt, with the help of the neutral acting as mediator, to settle the case. If they are unsuccessful, the award is revealed, and the parties are bound by it. Though, it is better to avoid such kind of situations in which one neutral assumes both roles.
We charge basis the case for all time spent on the case, whether in meetings, hearings, or in time spent conferring with counsel outside of hearings and in study. We do not charge for travel time unless explicitly stated.For mediations, we usually charge a nominal amount basis the times spent on the case. It covers a normal amount of preparation time and a session of ordinary length. If the session is extraordinarily long, or if there is a great deal of preparation, we will send a billing for the remainder after the session has been concluded.
We believe that parties choose arbitration in large part to promote efficiency in dispute resolution while preserving fairness. We tend to manage the process closely to ensure that counsel(s) stay focused since in our experience clients are more satisfied with efficient processes.
More often than not, lawyers are unprepared and so are their clients with respect to the case. When the lawyers don’t know their case, they can’t give sound (legal) advice to their clients. Clients must make a transition from their initial positions to see where their real interests lie in order to move to a settlement that will satisfy those interests. New information, on facts and law, comes out as the session proceeds and can create momentum toward settlement, but if the lawyer and client is not prepared to take advantage of that additional information, the client can have difficulty in settling.
You should meet with the lawyer, read not only your own mediation brief, but more importantly, the other side’s brief. The client and lawyer should discuss the items the lawyer has gathered to prepare.For example, if you represent the plaintiff, consider making a pre-mediation settlement demand, but, if you do, make it sufficiently in advance of the session so that the other side can seriously evaluate it.The mediation process takes time to work, so the client should always prepare to have down time during a mediation.
This is a very flexible process, but usually the mediator talks with the party that arrives first. The mediator is akin to a ‘coach’ to each side, helping to present the party’s viewpoint in a way that will facilitate settlement, rather than inflaming the situation further. Those separate caucuses can last some time. Then, s/he will go into a joint session, at which usually the lawyers for each side speak, though frequently the clients speak as well. After that, the mediator breaks into separate caucuses again and, working through lunch, meet privately to develop ideas for resolution. We do not believe that the best resolutions are reached when parties are exhausted, so we generally do not favour extending the session far into the evening unless real momentum is building. Sometimes, it is better to continue the next day or at another session.
Normally, the mediator schedules a follow up session, if the parties are willing, sometimes after they have done some homework. Even if the parties do not want a second session, the mediator follows up with them by phone and/or e-mail. In our experience, these efforts are frequently successful in helping parties settle after the session.