A central tenet of mediation is the neutrality of the process. Further, all parties in the dispute are considered equal – no participant in the process has more weight in the decision making process than the other.
Posts Tagged ‘neutral’
This means that a mediator cannot take a side or advise either party in the dispute. There is no judge, no arbitrator of right or wrong. The sole purpose of mediation is to allow those in dispute to create a resolution that works for them. (more…)
Last year Chicago based Unitarian Universalist seminary in Hyde Park (Meadville Lombard Theological School), and a Boston-area American Baptist and United Church of Christ seminary (Andover Newton Theological School) announced a partnership. The plan was to develop a multi-faith seminary consolidating the academic offerings of the two seminaries.
With the Holiday season in our midst, our family relations come sharply into focus. Paying a visit to an elderly relative, or going “home” for the holidays can garner our attention, and often tug at our heartstrings, when we find a loved one who is unable to adequately care for themselves. Be it dementia, disease, or mere frailty we often are obligated to make decisions on behalf a loved one. These decisions can be taxing, and if more than one person (more…)
Of all personal injury type cases, medical malpractice cases can be the most expensive and time consuming to take to trial. The litigation process in medical malpractice matters call for extensive record review and the opinions and testimony of expensive medical experts. In an effort to bring a speedier and more cost-effective resolution to medical malpractice claims, Connecticut has passed a statute requiring that all medical malpractice cases be referred to a 120 day mediation period.
Under Connecticut’s program, the presiding judge in a medical malpractice matter would conduct the first mediation. If the case failed to be resolved at this initial session, the parties could then agree to continue the mediation process. The stated purpose for Connecticut’s programs is to achieve a prompt settlement or resolution of the civil action.
Connecticut’s push for mediation of medical malpractice claims is a concept that can be applied everywhere. The goal of mediation in general is to provide parties with a forum to move ahead with prompt and amicable settlement of their disputes; without incurring the deep expense traditional litigation tends to generate.
Instead of the protracted journey that a medical malpractice claim can be, complete with lengthy and expensive depositions of expert witnesses, and extensive document review, consider mediation up front. Bringing all the parties to the table, with the assistance of a neutral mediator, can result in a swift outcome. Once the parties become engaged in a discussion of the bare facts of their dispute, a solution often becomes clear. Reaching this point at the beginning of a dispute, rather than waiting until the drawn-out litigation process has begun, can result in the parties resolving the claim with a result everyone involved can feel positive about and with a substantial cost savings.
One of mediation’s most praised qualities is the fact that it is an incredibly cost-effective option in contrast with traditional litigation. Although cost may not be a pressing concern for high net-worth individuals, mediation offers many attractive features that make it the ideal route for high net-worth divorces.
Likely the most salient concern high net-worth couples may hold is their privacy. When litigating, your marriage goes public. As there are a large amount of assets at stake, you and your spouse’s history is all evidence and will become public record. In extreme cases, this can become an embarrassing public circus. Conversely, the mediation model avoids the spectacle of a divorce trial, allowing all parties to work out the details behind the scenes and obtain a civilized divorce.
Additionally, divorce can be bad for business. Oftentimes, high net-worth individuals reached that position through business ownership. If the business is publicly traded, it may cause apprehension among investors if they see a pending divorce that includes business assets as part of the anticipated decree on the prospectus. Choosing to mediate offers the parties options to manage this sort of outcome. Sitting down with a neutral mediator can facilitate a dialogue between the parties and can help craft an agreement that is in the best interest of both spouses and causes the least long-term damage and embarrassment.
While these concerns may especially affect high-net worth individuals, there is no reason why every single person considering divorce cannot benefit by the features that divorce mediation has to offer. We all hold our privacy near-and-dear to our hearts and utilizing private mediation can keep our private affairs just that. In the big picture, mediation is the natural way to resolve disputes. Through the assistance of the neutral mediator, working together with the other side, and having substantial input on the ultimate solution the parties come to give individuals a feeling of satisfaction with the outcome of the mediation. Unlike in litigation where parties are ultimately “told” what to do, in mediation, they “decide” what to do – the control is all yours. People with high net-worth, to people with few-to-no assets can all benefit from mediating, rather than litigating, their divorce.
Although the oil spill has been contained, the effects continue for the Gulf Coast residents. Kenneth Feinberg was appointed weeks ago to mediate the claims process, however issues are far from resolved. CBS News reports:
When Feinberg took over the claims process three weeks ago he promised checks to individuals in 48 hours, businesses in seven days.
Before Feinberg took over, BP paid out $395 million. In the past three weeks, Feinberg has paid $185 million. Of the 60,000 claims before him, half are still being processed despite his promises of a quick resolution. Only 16,000 have been paid. Fourteen-thousand have insufficient paperwork to back them up.
Although Feinberg was appointed as the “mediator” to resolve claims related to the BP oil spill and administer the $20 billion fund set up by BP to cover losses, his role appears to much more that of “claims adjuster” as opposed to a mediator.
Claims adjusters are not mediators. Although Feinberg is not an employee of BP, he has been charged with determining how and when the $20 billion is settled among those who experienced a loss as a result of the oil spill; his role seems far more aligned with a claims adjuster than with a mediator.
Going in to work every day should not mean you are entering a battlefield. All too often, though, there are clashes between different personality types, disputes with management or co-workers, and other unfair situations. This does not have to be, and should not be the case. Oftentimes conflicts are the product of simple miscommunications. When a problem seems unsolvable, possibly the answer may lie is sitting down with a neutral party and looking at the fact. You may find your differences are not that great and the problem not so large.
When miscommunication and misunderstanding takes hold in the workplace, the environment is ripe for disputes to get out of control and result in litigation. This resulted in time, expense, and headache for all parties involved. In alternative, mediation at the outset of any workplace conflict could save everyone from unnecessarily dragging out the problem and rather, come to a solution that achieves a real repair.
It has been well documented that in communication, each party simply wished to not only be clearly understood, but to clearly understand what the other party is trying to convey to them. This is where mediation especially shines. Sitting down with a CFR Certified Mediator will allow the parties to get to the meat of what they are wishing to convey. Concentrating on the facts of the dispute, and what each party’s real goals are, the CFR Certified Mediator will help you come to a resolution that is what both sides truly want.