“[T]he full benefits of mediation are not reaped when parties are left to participate in it voluntarily.”
D. Quek, Mandatory Mediation: An Oxymoron? Examining the Feasibility of Implementing a Court-Mandated Mediation Program, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol 11:479, at 483 (Spring 2010).
The article linked above is written by Dorcas Quek, whose resume includes this:
“L.L.B. (National University of Singapore); L.L.M. (Harvard Law School); Visiting Researcher at Harvard Law School (2008-2009); Assistant Registrar and Magistrate in the Singapore High Court (2005-2007) and District Judge in the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre in the Singapore Subordinate Courts (June 2009 onwards).”
Ms. Quek’s article examines “the current debate in the United States concerning court-mandated mediation.” Here are some of her findings:
Mediation “may well be under-utilized in certain jurisdictions” because parties and attorneys “are still accustomed to treating litigation as the default mode of dispute resolution” and because “initiating mediation” may be “perceived as a sign of weakness.”
“In many jurisdictions, the rates of voluntary usage of mediation have been low.”
Where the “reticence towards mediation is due to unfamiliarity with or ignorance of the process,” court-mandated mediation “may be instrumental” in overcoming “prejudices or lack of understanding.”
“Studies show that parties who have entered mediation reluctantly still benefited from the process even though their participation was not voluntary.”
Observation / Recommendation
Ms. Quek draws this interesting observation / recommendation:
The “most compelling reason” for a court to mandate mediation is “to increase awareness and the usage of mediation services.” So, court-mandated mediation:
–should be utilized “only” as “a short-term measure” in courts where mediation “is relatively less well developed”; and
–is an expediency that “should be lifted as soon as” the awareness and utilization of mediation “has reached a satisfactory level.”
And she bases such conclusion, in part, on this value judgment:
The term “mandatory mediation” is “a glaring contradiction.” Mediation emphasizes “self-determination, collaboration and creative ways” of resolving disputes and concerns, and “attempts to impose” a mediation process may “undermine the raison d’ˆetre” of mediation. Accordingly, “there must be compelling reasons to introduce mandatory mediation.”
While we can quibble with the idea of limiting mandated mediation, her point on using it to jump-start mediation where it’s struggling to get traction is sound.
In most state and Federal trial courts these days, mediation is firmly entrenched. In such courts, mandatory mediation isn’t improper: it’s, simply, not needed. Here’s why:
If you listen to litigators (who practice in such courts) talking about their cases, about what they have coming-up-next, and about their successes and disappointments, mediation will be a focal point of those discussions. No one needs to suggest mediation to these litigators or to encourage its use: they’ve already factored mediation into their case strategies – and mediation will always play a role. So, discussions of “mandating” mediation, for these litigators, is more of a redundancy than anything else.
Changing the Culture
But for many bankruptcy courts, mediation is still an unfamiliar and little-used process. In these courts, efforts to mandate mediation would be helpful in changing the culture.
Studies show that practitioners with little-or-no experience in mediation are reluctant to use it—and are uncertain on how it can be used effectively. And it shouldn’t be a surprise that mediation is a seldom-used process among these practitioners.
And my experience is that, (i) the adoption of local mediation rules will not, in and of itself, create a demand for mediation: “build it and they will come” does not work for mediation rules; but (ii) a local judge can change things by ordering cases into mediation. Once the judge starts requiring mediation, either by direct order in specific disputes or by local rule, the culture starts to change: practitioners start to become comfortable with mediation and start using it.