MEDIATION:
Mediation is the coordinated negotiation of a dispute, conducted by an experienced mediator working with all parties involved to identify their true concerns and craft a resolution that responds effectively and fully to their respective interests.

The neutral mediator works through a confidential process in which the parties participate in private discussions to resolve the conflict. The mediator helps each side convey the strengths of its case while also acknowledging a confidential respect for the potential risks, uncertainties and costs. The art lies in properly casting the legal and factual details in a balanced manner for appreciation by each side.

Unlike court, great flexibility is allowed to fashion a solution that works for everyone. Confidentiality encourages openness and candor, which ultimately leads to improved communication and sharing of divergent perceptions. Mediation can be modeled to the needs of each individual case, reducing tension and increasing the satisfaction of the parties with the process and ultimate outcome.

ARBITRATION:
Arbitration provides a method for the fair and impartial closure of matters that the parties are unable to resolve between themselves. The controversy is submitted, by agreement of the parties, for a binding decision. The arbitrator hears evidence from the parties and issues an “Award” deciding the outcome of the case. Arbitration is a substitute for trial and there is no appeal.

Arbitration is consensual; both parties have to agree to arbitrate. Arbitration is neutral, with neither side having a “home court advantage.” Matters are confidential and the arbitration award is typically not filed with the court. Arbitration is governed by state and federal law, and state civil practice rules apply.

Arbitration is preferred by many litigants because they have the opportunity to choose the decision maker. Hearings are shorter, require less preparation, and are usually heard earlier than it takes for a court or jury trial to be convened. Arbitrations are arranged at times and locations to suit the parties, and the hearing can be segmented, streamlined or simplified according to the circumstances.

NEUTRAL EVALUATION:
Early Neutral Evaluation occurs when one or more of the parties in a dispute seek an outside authority for an opinion about their case. The evaluator will present a non-binding analysis of the outcome, or address individual issues such as liability, damages, or other matters. An evaluator’s perspective can help those in the dispute reach an agreement, or lead to further negotiations between the sides. Although the evaluation can be used at any time in a dispute, it tends to be most useful at an early stage, before the courts are heavily involved, providing a reality check without a formal arbitration or settlement conference.

In neutral evaluation, each side makes a written or oral presentation to the neutral, who then offers an evaluation of the dispute, not a decision, and may provide a confidential written opinion about the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position. When the case is evaluated, issues of fact and law are identified and discussed, and the theories of each side can be addressed and examined by the neutral. It is a useful tool in helping attorneys predict how a judge or jury will decide certain issues or the case as a whole, and allows the parties and their counsel to consider the risks and expenses of moving forward into protracted litigation with the benefit of an independent view.