Mediation vs. Arbitration vs. Litigation: What's the Difference?

- See more at:

http://adr.findlaw.com/mediation/mediation-vs-arbitration-vs-litigation-whats-thedifference.html#sthash.iKRLFgLl.dpuf
Litigation is generally something people seek to avoid. It's expensive, time consuming, emotionally draining and unpredictable until a judge or jury decides the case, you can never be certain of the outcome. Because litigation is so inefficient for most of us,
alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitration and mediation, has become increasingly popular. But before moving forward with
possible alternative dispute resolutions, you should first know the difference between arbitration and mediation.
Mediation and Arbitration: Whats the Difference?
Arbitration and mediation are similar in that they are alternatives to traditional litigation, and sometimes they are used
in conjunction with litigation (opposing parties may first try to negotiate, and if that fails, move forward to trial). Both arbitration and
mediation employ a neutral third party to oversee the process, and they both can be binding. However, it is common to employ
mediation as a non-binding process and arbitration as a binding process. In simpler terms, binding arbitration replaces the trial
process with the arbitration process.
Arbitration is generally conducted with a panel of multiple arbitrators who take on a role like that of a judge, make decisions about
evidence and give written opinions (which can be binding or non-binding). Although arbitration is sometimes conducted with one
arbitrator, the most common procedure is for each side to select an arbitrator. Then, those two arbitrators select a third arbitrator, at
which point the dispute is presented to the three chosen arbitrators. Decisions are made by majority vote.
Mediation, on the other hand, is generally conducted with a single mediator who does not judge the case but simply helps to
facilitate discussion and eventual resolution of the dispute.
The Success of Mediation in Modern Litigation
Mediation has enjoyed increasing popularity as an important part of the litigation process. For example, in Florida, almost all
lawsuits are required to be mediated before a court will allow them to be put on the trial calendar. The reasoning behind this
requirement, according to the Florida senate, is because mediation has proven effective in reducing court dockets and trials, and
offers a more efficient, cost-effective option to litigation.
Mediation enjoys such high success rates because the parties are brought together in an environment where they can freely and
confidentially present their position in front of a neutral third party. Mediation attempts to limit the issues and put them into proper
perspective. Participants often feel much better after having an opportunity to get things "off their chest," and also benefit from
hearing the other party's point of view. The neutrality and more relaxed atmosphere of mediation may eliminate the desire to
continue hostile litigation once both parties have seen all the issues in a fair light.
Mediation can be used for any kind of dispute; there is no need to wait until a dispute results in a lawsuit and is sent to mediation by
a judge. Pre-lawsuit mediation is becoming more widely accepted as a sensible way of resolving disputes before they turn into
litigation. Besides being confidential and non-binding, mediation is relatively quick and inexpensive compared to litigating a dispute.
Please note that while most certified mediators are attorneys, mediators will not give legal advice during the mediation and are not
supposed to make legal conclusions about the merits of either party's position. When the parties come to an eventual agreement,
the parties themselves will put the agreement in writing and sign it so that it then becomes a binding contract.
Pre-Mediation Contracts
If you want to mediate a dispute, you and the opposing party should enter into a pre-mediation contract. This simple contract should
include the following:

The mediation should be confidential and non-binding.

The parties should agree on who will conduct the mediation and how the mediator will be paid. The cost of the mediator is
typically split between the two parties.
The parties should agree on the length of the mediation. Most mediation is scheduled for either a half-day or a full day.
The parties should agree to mediate in good faith until either party reasonably determines that it is fruitless to continue. If
the parties cannot reach an agreement, the mediation will result in what is known as an impasse.
Where Should You Begin?
If two or more parties have a dispute that they think may be appropriate for mediation, they may contact an attorney to advise them
on the benefits of mediation versus litigation, and to help them locate a mediator. If the parties like to mediate on their own without
the help of attorneys, then they should contact their state bar association who will have a list of mediators to contact for an
appointment. Alternatively, they can get in touch with a mediation and/or arbitration organization.
Mediation is a less hostile, less confrontational format for resolving disputes, where parties attempt to resolve their differences
between themselves rather than relying on an inefficient, expensive, and time-consuming judicial system. Before your litigation
advances, work with your attorney to determine if mediation is right for your case.
- See more at: http://adr.findlaw.com/mediation/mediation-vs-arbitration-vs-litigation-whats-the-difference.html#sthash.iKRLFgLl.dpuf

Arbitration Vs. Mediation

Terms:

The main difference between arbitration and mediation is a simple one: arbitrators hand down decisions, just as
judges do, which can only be contested under certain circumstances. In other words, by agreeing to arbitration a
party agrees to be bound by the arbitrators ruling, barring some exceptional deviation from the normal procedure.
The chart below highlights the basic differences between these two forms of dispute resolution. As we move
through the arbitration chapter, many more differences will become clear.

MEDIATION

ARBITRATION

Can be voluntary or compulsory (court ordered)

Can be voluntary or compulsory (court

ordered)

Trial is stayed (put on pause) pending outcome

Trial is replaced by arbitration

Generally involves a single mediator

There might be a single arbitrator or a panel

of arbitrators

Mediators need not have any formal legal

training

Arbitrators need not have any formal legal

training

Choice of mediator often has an important effect

on the settlement reached

Choice of arbitrator can be crucial, and

especially in panel situations can lead to
further litigation

Mediators function is to facilitate negotiation

Arbitrators function is to render a decision

on the matter

Mediation ends when settlement is reached or

when parties are deadlocked

Arbitration ends when the decision is handed

down

Agreements to mediate are generally

enforceable, requiring the parties to make a good
faith effort to arrive at a settlement agreement

Agreements to arbitrate are generally

enforceable, requiring the parties to accept the
arbitrators decision as if it were a court
decision .

Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation: differences

and similarities from an International and Italian
business perspective
by Alessandra Sgubini, Mara Prieditis & Andrea Marighetto
August 2004
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Prof. Gregg Relyea, for his important
contribution to this article.
Historically, methods used to settle disputes have ranged from negotiation, to courtroom litigation, and
even to physical combat. The legal needs of countries, multinational companies, and ordinary people
have changed over the last decade. When faced with a dispute, business people are learning that,
whenever possible, it is more advantageous to reach practical and private agreements than to fight for
years and spend huge amounts of money in courtroom battles. Due to the vast amounts of time and
money involved in the trial process, the American and Italian business communities have increasingly
turned to legal alternatives that are more prompt, private and economical than the courtroom. Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to the wide spectrum of legal avenues that use means other than trial to
settle disputes.
The main ADR alternatives to civil litigation are negotiation, arbitration, conciliation and mediation. Other,
more particular ADR processes available are early neutral evaluation, mini-trial, summary jury trial, and
the judicial settlement conference. Disputing parties use these ADR methods because they are
expeditious, private, and generally much less expensive than a trial. While each of these ADR processes
may be effective in various circumstances, mediation in the United States has proven to offer superior
advantages for the resolution of disputes that resist resolution.
In comparing the use of ADR processes in the U.S to those available in Italy, it is paramount to recognize
the fundamental legal difference between the two nations; the American common law system is very
different from Italys civil law system. Despite that basic difference, both countries have the concept of
arbitration firmly entrenched within each of their respective legal systems, as an alternative to the
courtroom. While mediation is a concept widely used in U.S., it has yet to truly benefit the legal
community in Italy as a viable means to settle disputes. In Italy, mediation is a concept that is often
mistakenly confused with conciliation; although the two methods have similar aspects, they are
fundamentally different. To appreciate the differences between arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, it is
helpful to explain them separately.
Arbitration.
Arbitration is an ADR (alternative dispute resolution) method where the disputing parties involved present
their disagreement to one arbitrator or a panel of private, independent and qualified third party
arbitrators. The arbitrator(s) determine the outcome of the case. While it may be less expensive and
more accessible than trial, the arbitration process has well-defined disadvantages. Some of
disadvantages include the risk losing, formal or semi-formal rules of procedure and evidence, as well as
the potential loss of control over the decision after transfer by the parties of decision-making authority to
the arbitrator. By employing arbitration, the parties lose their ability to participate directly in the process. In
addition, parties in arbitration are confined by traditional legal remedies that do not encompass creative,
innovative, or forward-looking solutions to business disputes.

According to the Italian Civil Procedure Code (I.C.P.C.) 806, parties in conflict may chose neutral
arbitrators to decide and settle a dispute between them, as long as those disputes are not already of the
type designated to be handled within the court system. In Italy, arbitrators are generally attorneys or law
professors, and are chosen by disputing parties in respect to their experience and competence in specific
areas of law. When a disputed matter is to be given to a panel of arbitrators, each party selects their own
arbitrator, and together, both arbitrators appoint a third one as the president of the panel. If they able to
agree on a common choice, the parties may instead appoint and utilize one sole arbitrator to assist with
the dispute. Typically, to use arbitration in Italy, there must be an arbitration clause already written into
contract that exists between the two parties. I.C.P.C 808 labels this clause the compromise clause
(clausola compromissoria). The procedures that the arbitrator or the panel must follow during arbitration
are inserted along with these contractual arbitration clauses. Without this contractual arbitration clause,
parties may agree once a dispute surfaces, to allow arbitrators to hear and resolve their disputes; this in
know as a compromise agreement (compromesso). Although this approach is laid out in I.C.P.C. 806,
this avenue to arbitration is not very common because Italian legal precedent has effectively
demonstrated the need for those clauses to be written into contracts before any disputes would surface.
Generally, the procedural rules regarding Italian arbitration are formal but not as strict as the ordinary
procedural rules that govern litigation. Technically, the process of arbitration concludes with a decision
called an award (lodo arbitrale) and possibly an agreement to deposit that amount within 180 days from
the date the arbitrator accepted the dispute (I.C.P.C 820). In reality, however, the conclusion of an
arbitrated dispute is a debatable topic, since arbitrators can prolong the process for a long time. There are
two types of arbitration either in U.S. than in Italy. First, in binding arbitration (arbitrato rituale), the
arbitral award (lodo arbitrale) is comparable to a litigated judgment and is enforceable in respect to the
parties damages. Second, in non-binding arbitration (arbitrato non-rituale) in Italy, the arbitrator renders
a final decision similar to that of a contractual agreement; specifically, the parties owe each other an
obligation as they would in a contractual arrangement. Under Italian codes, this type of proceeding carries
its own scheme of rules and permits parties to obtain substantial justice by asserting a sentence of
equity. I.C.P.C. 114 spells out what constitutes a sentence of equity (pronuncia secondo equit); a
judge will decide how the dispute will be resolved based on principles of equity, as long as these rights
are available to the parties and they request that the judge should decide in this manner. Otherwise, the
judge will decide on traditional principles of law (pronuncia secondo diritto, I.C.P.C. 113). In the United
States, non-binding arbitration constitutes an advisory ruling by the arbitrator; the parties are not required
to carry out the decision unless they choose to do so.
The processes of appeal also demonstrate the differences between binding and non-binding arbitration.
An arbitration decision generally has the force of law behind it, but does not set a legal precedent. A
determination arrived at through binding arbitration (arbitrato rituale) can be appealed only when a party
wishes to seek revocation, and, when appropriate, can be done by a third party objection in front of
ordinary judge (I.C.P.C 827 ). A third party objection is the usual procedure that extends the length of
the overall arbitration proceedings, essentially becoming a double procedure, private at the beginning and
then in the enforcement phase. When a determination is made through non-binding arbitration (arbitrato
non-rituale), the decision can be appealed only in exclusive and limited cases involving sentences that
can be enforced by an equity judgment. The appeal must be heard by new arbitrators, who must be
chosen with an increasingly selective eye in regards to their experience and competency- a process, of
course, which involves more money and time.
Ultimately, the power of an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators is granted directly by the parties. By including
contractual arbitration clauses, parties are agreeing to the resolution of their disputes through a process
that consists of very simple proceedings, which are similar, but not equal to the traditional route of litigated
settlements. The arbitral award that concludes a dispute has the same value as an ordinary judicial
judgment, on the condition that parties will proceed with the next formal step of registering this private
decision with the Italian Court of Appeal.
Mediation.

Mediation is an ADR method where a neutral and impartial third party, the mediator, facilitates dialogue in
a structured multi-stage process to help parties reach a conclusive and mutually satisfactory agreement.
A mediator assists the parties in identifying and articulating their own interests, priorities, needs and
wishes to each other. Mediation is a peaceful dispute resolution tool that is complementary to the
existing court system and the practice of arbitration.
Arbitration and mediation both promote the same ideals, such as access to justice, a prompt hearing, fair
outcomes and reduced congestion in the courts. Mediation, however, is a voluntary and non-binding
process - it is a creative alternative to the court system. Mediation often is successful because it offers
parties the rare opportunity to directly express their own interests and anxieties relevant to the dispute. In
addition, mediation provides parties with the opportunity to develop a mutually satisfying outcome by
creating solutions that are uniquely tailored to meet the needs of the particular parties. A mediator is a
neutral and impartial person; mediators do not decide or judge, but instead becomes an active driver
during the negotiation between the parties. A mediator uses specialized communication techniques and
negotiation techniques to assist the parties in reaching optimal solutions.
Mediation is a structured process with a number of procedural stages in which the mediator assists the
parties in resolving their disputes. The mediator and the parties follow a specific set of protocols that
require everyone involved to be working together. This process permits the mediator and disputants to
focus on the real problems and actual difficulties between the parties. Moreover, the parties are free to
express their own interests and needs through an open dialogue in a less adversarial setting than a
courtroom. The main aim of mediation is to assist people in dedicating more time and attention to the
creation of a voluntary, functional and durable agreement. The parties themselves posses the power to
control the process- they reserve the right to determine the parameters of the agreement. In mediation,
the parties also reserve the right to stop anytime and refer a dispute to the court system or perhaps
arbitration.
In addition to economic and legal skills, mediators are professionals who possess specialized technical
training in the resolution of disputes. A mediator plays a dual role during the mediation process- as a
facilitator of the parties positive relationship, and as an evaluator adept at examining the different aspects
of the dispute. After analyzing a dispute, a mediator can help parties to articulate a final agreement and
resolve their dispute. The agreement at the end of the mediation process is product of the parties
discussions and decisions. The aim of mediation is to find a mutually satisfactory agreement that all
parties believe is beneficial. Their agreement serves as a landmark and reminds parties of their historical,
confrontational period, and ultimately helps them anticipate the potential for future disputes.
Generally, an agreement reached through mediation specifies time periods for performance and is
customarily specific, measurable, achievable, and realistic. It is advisable for the parties to put their
agreement in writing to create tangible evidence that they accomplished something together. The written
agreement reminds the parties of their newly achieved common ground and helps to prevent arguments
and misunderstandings afterward. Most importantly, a written agreement provides a clear ending point to
the mediation process. The agreement binds the parties contractually. In case of disputes concerning
compliance with the mediated agreement (e.g., whether a party carries out an agreement) or
implementation of a mediated agreement (e.g., disputes concerning the precise terms for carrying out an
agreement), the agreement is enforceable as a contract, as it would be in cases of the non-fulfilment of
any ordinary contractual provision. Enforceability is necessary for mediation, as an ADR process, to
possess any legal strength or to impose any liability on the parties. It should be noted that, in the United
States, compliance with mediated settlement agreements is high because the parties, themselves, create
the terms of the settlement agreement. Thus, enforcement proceedings are relatively rare because the
parties voluntarily carry out their own agreements.
According to 1965 of the Italian Civil Code (I:C.C.), a mediation agreement is characterized as a
transactional contract. A transactional contract is one in which the parties, with concessions to each other,
resolve and terminate the present dispute between them. With the same contract, they also resolve the
issues that can arise in the future. Disputing parties can initiate mediation anytime, whenever they believe
it would be beneficial. Disputes reach mediation in a number of different ways such as through consent of

the parties, a mediation clause in a contract, or even a court order. Parties to a contract may be required
to submit a dispute to mediation according to insertion mediation clauses in their contracts. Under such a
clause, the parties usually retain the right to choose their mediator and to schedule the mediation session
on mutually agreeable date.
Mediation clauses, in contrast to arbitration clauses, are not vexatious clauses (clausole vessatorie) or
what is known in the U.S. as unconscionable. If the parties do not arrive at any settlement agreement as
a result of the mediation process, they are always allowed to go to arbitration or litigation; thus, mediation
does not deprive parties of their right to due process. Binding arbitration clauses are qualified as
vexatious. As laid out in I.C.C 1341, paragraph 2, and 1469, paragraph 3, nn.18 and 19, a vexatious
clause is a provision in an agreement that disadvantages one party, typically the consumer, to the
agreement. These types of clauses have to be signed separately by the parties. Such a clause can be
vexatious if not signed separately and knowingly by each party because they can ultimately limit options
and deprive parties of their due process rights under the traditional judicial system. I.C.P.C. 808
provides a sort of exception to the constitutional principle of natural jurisdiction, and, therefore has to be
regarded as vexatious. Again, a contractual mediation clause is not vexatious, because the parties can
always take their dispute through the ordinary judicial channels or utilize arbitration for resolution, without
any penalty for doing so.
There are some particular advantages that exist in choosing an alternative method of dispute resolution
(ADR) such as mediation or arbitration, as opposed to pursuing ordinary judicial proceedings. The first
advantage concerns the all-important consideration of economics and the daunting costs of resolving
disputes; arbitration and mediation proceedings are by far cheaper in monetary expense than ordinary
judicial proceedings. Mediation fees vary in accordance with the hourly rate of the mediator and the length
of the mediation session, and are usually shared equally by the parties participating in the mediation.
Another important advantage of alternative dispute resolution proceedings is in the decreased time these
proceedings customarily take as opposed to the traditionally litigated dispute. Mediation is regarded to be
more time-efficient than even arbitration, since proceedings have the potential to come to a productive
close in under 3 hours. Mediation is not as formal as arbitration, and there are a variety of mediation
techniques available and employed depending on the mediators personality, the parties personalities,
and the complexity of the dispute; mediation is an incredibly flexible yet functional process. What
substantially sets mediation apart from traditional judicial proceedings and even arbitration is that the
parties strive personally to find common ground, and they work to develop mutually agreeable solutions
directly with each other and without any exterior imposition of a decision by a judge or arbitrator. The
efficiency of the mediation process is evident in that it aims to avoid further complication of the dispute
and animosity between the parties- a mediator actively uses specialized communication and negotiation
techniques to guide the parties to the realization of a mutually beneficial agreement. Another advantage of
mediation, specifically, is that is seeks to generate an agreement that is realistic, which takes into
consideration the financial condition of the parties as well as all other relevant circumstances and factors.
Again, mediation is a voluntary process and often it produces such desirable results because it permits
parties to express their own interests and anxieties directly, while helping them to create a suitable
solution.
Generally, choosing arbitration or mediation is attractive to parties because they get to participate in these
proceeding more directly than they would in a courtroom or in a litigated dispute proceeding. However in
arbitration, the arbitrator still makes the final determinations of fault and compensation, and the parties
must accept those decisions as though they were made by a judge. Also, an arbitration proceeding is
governed by formal rules and the role of parties attorneys is still central to the representation of their
interests. With a mediators help, the parties are increasingly empowered to participate directly in the
process and determine the outcome of their own dispute, thus regulating and protecting their own
interests.
Another important difference between arbitration and mediation exists in regards to choosing the neutral
party. In choosing an arbitrator, the parties seek to select an individual that possesses particular legal
skills, knowledge and competence. With the exception of non-binding arbitration in Italy, the arbitrator
determines that outcome of the dispute according to traditional legal principles, so the arbitrator must be

highly knowledgeable in the relevant area of law. In mediation, the selection of a mediator can be made
among individuals with a variety of degrees and particular experience or specialized training in the
mediation of disputes. Mediators are often described as experts in the process (of mediation), although it
is generally helpful to designate a mediator with some degree of subject matter knowledge as well.
Ultimately, mediation is a collaborative effort by all involved, and to arrive at a satisfactory outcome, it
includes the willing cooperation and respect of all parties.
The mediation process is both informal and confidential. In contrast to arbitration and its relatively formal
rules of evidence and procedure, mediation is flexible in terms of evidence, procedure, and formality. Both
procedures are confidential as the parties allow a neutral third- party to discuss or decide the dispute
without the exposing the parties dealings to public scrutiny or judgment. Specifically, the statements of a
party during mediation are confidential and may not disclosed without written consent. Generally,
confidentiality in mediation also extends to documents specifically prepared for mediation, such an
mediation briefs. Confidentiality is paramount to the effectiveness of the mediation process--it creates an
atmosphere where all parties are increasingly comfortable to discuss their dispute without fear that their
words will be used against them at a later date. Confidentiality promotes open communication about the
issues involved between the parties.
In regards to the logistics of the confidentiality component of mediation, there are varied rules and
customs. Typically, in the U.S., confidentiality of statements made during mediation is provided by law
(California Evidence Code Sections 1115-1128). In the alternative, before a mediation begins, the parties
may sign a confidentiality agreement, acknowledging that all the statements made during the mediation
as well documents prepared for the mediation are confidential and inadmissible against another party in
any subsequent civil proceeding. All participants in mediation are bound by confidentiality, including the
parties, the mediator, and non-parties. The scope of confidentiality is broad, usually covering both
statements made by parties during mediation and documents prepared for mediation (e.g., mediation
briefs). One generally recognized exception to the rule of confidentiality is the mediated settlement
agreement itself, which may be used to enforce the terms of the agreement in the event of noncompliance. Nevertheless, in order to promote open communication and disclosure of relevant
information, confidentiality in the mediation process is broad.
One unique feature of mediation is that any party, unilaterally, can decide to stop the mediation at anytime
if they believe the process is not productive, as opposed to an arbitration proceeding, which needs a
common approval to discontinue. To be effective, mediation must be considered by the parties as a tool or
instrument that the parties can use to manage directly the resolution of their disputes between one
another. The focus is their direct, active participation as opposed to the increasingly detached role the
parties play in an arbitration proceeding run by an arbitrator. In Italy, because mediation is new and
generally unregulated by legislators, the parties will sign a confidentiality agreement prior to the
commencement of a mediation session. The pre-mediation confidentiality agreement will have the force
and effect of a contract acknowledging confidentiality as an integral element of the mediation process.
Conciliation.
Conciliation is another dispute resolution process that involves building a positive relationship between
the parties of dispute, however, it is fundamentally different than mediation and arbitration in several
respects. Conciliation is a method employed in civil law countries, like Italy, and is a more common
concept there than is mediation. While conciliation is typically employed in labour and consumer disputes,
Italian judges encourage conciliation in every type of dispute . The conciliator is an impartial person that
assists the parties by driving their negotiations and directing them towards a satisfactory agreement. It is
unlike arbitration in that conciliation is a much less adversarial proceeding; it seeks to identify a right that
has been violated and searches to find the optimal solution.
Conciliation tries to individualize the optimal solution and direct parties towards a satisfactory common
agreement. Although this sounds strikingly similar to mediation, there are important differences between
the two methods of dispute resolution. In conciliation, the conciliator plays a relatively direct role in the
actual resolution of a dispute and even advises the parties on certain solutions by making proposals for

settlement. In conciliation, the neutral is usually seen as an authority figure who is responsible for the
figuring out the best solution for the parties. The conciliator, not the parties, often develops and proposes
the terms of settlement. The parties come to the conciliator seeking guidance and the parties make
decisions about proposals made by conciliators. In this regard, the role of a conciliator is distinct from the
role of a mediator. The mediator at all times maintains his or her neutrality and impartiality. A mediator
does not focus only on traditional notions of fault and a mediator does not assume sole responsibility for
generating solutions. Instead, a mediator works together with the parties as a partner to assist them in
finding the best solution to further their interests. A mediators priority is to facilitate the parties own
discussion and representation of their own interests, and guide them to their own suitable solution- a good
common solution that is fair, durable, and workable. The parties play an active role in mediation,
identifying interests, suggesting possible solutions, and making decisions concerning proposals made by
other parties. The parties come to mediator seeking help in finding their own best solution.
Also the role of the attorneys is different in mediation. Attorneys are more active in mediation in
generating and developing innovative solutions for settlement. In conciliation, they generally offer advice
and guidance to clients about proposals made by conciliators.
Conciliation and mediation both look to maintain an existing business relationship and to rekindle a lost
balance of power between two parties. These concepts are sometimes used as synonyms, but they do
indeed vary substantially in their procedures. In mediation, the mediator controls the process through
different and specific stages: introduction, joint session, caucus, and agreement, while the parties control
the outcome. By contrast, in conciliation the conciliator may not follow a structured process, instead
administering the conciliation process as a traditional negotiation, which may take different forms
depending on the case.
Conciliation is used almost preventively, as soon as a dispute or misunderstanding surfaces: a conciliator
pushes to stop a substantial conflict from developing. Mediation is closer to arbitration in the respect that
it intervenes in a substantial dispute that has already surfaced that is very difficult to resolve without
"professional" assistance. The parties approach mediation as an alternative method to resolve their
dispute, due to the fact that they both recognize that the conflict has grown potentially serious enough for
litigation. Mediation may be used, however, any time after the emergence of a dispute, including the early
stages.
Each of the ADR (alternative dispute resolution) processes addressed herein, arbitration, mediation, and
conciliation, provides important benefits to parties and may be seen as complementary to the judicial
process. In the United States, mediation has emerged as perhaps the most predominant ADR process
because it affords the parties the opportunity to develop settlements that are practical, economical, and
durable. For commercial disputes, mediation also offers the opportunity to create innovative solutions to
business disputes that further the unique interests of the parties in an analytical framework that is broader
than traditional legal rights and remedies. In this sense, the mediation process may be used to secure
"business solutions to business disputes," because it encourages the parties to consider all the
dimensions of a dispute, including both legal issues and business interests. In all parts of the world,
including North and South America, Asia, and India, large and small commercial entities are recognizing
the business benefits of mediation. According to international and European trends, mediation is
emerging as an effective and often preferred method for private commercial companies and government
agencies to fulfil their organizational objectives by privately and promptly resolving disputes in a manner
that saves time, money, and business relationships.