Mediation Naysayers Abound Despite Popularity

The Des Moines Register recently reported that “Iowans, like many Americans, have turned increasingly in the last decade to out-of-court solutions such as arbitration and mediation to resolve civil disputes with less cost and hassle.”

I guess I should be praising the people of Iowa for embracing ADR and mediation as a means to unclog their dockets and negotiate mediated solutions that satisfy their needs and interests, but a few naysayers still want to talk about the so-called negative aspects of ADR.  One expert cites ADR as the reason for the “vanishing trial”, which means fewer precedents to answer legal questions and fewer chances for young lawyers to hone trial skills.”

This type of ridiculous argument unfortunately only reinforces the animosity and distrust between ADR and the law that Diane Levin recently discussed.  Really? Does the court need another “who ran the red light?” soft tissue injury case to establish “precedent”?  Does this attorney really think that a party with a unique set of facts and an issue of first impression is not going to pursue the matter to its fullest?  And maybe things are different in Iowa, but here in Georgia, very few young lawyers without an ADA in front of their name try cases anyway.

I join Diane’s call to the legal community.  Mediation is not your enemy.  Mediation is not going to cause a dearth of legal precedent and the end of the adversarial system. Mediation is a way to flex your problem solving muscle, impress your clients, and simply get things done.

Let’s move past this pettiness and find the common ground.