Skip to ContentGo to accessibility pageKeyboard shortcuts menu
OpenStax Logo

Court or Agency-Connected Mediation

Mediation is a method of dispute resolution that relies on an impartial third-party decision-maker, known as a mediator, to settle a dispute. While requirements vary by state, a mediator is someone who has been trained in conflict resolution, though often, he or she does not have any expertise in the subject matter that is being disputed. Mediation is another form of alternative dispute resolution. It is often used in attempts to resolve a dispute because it can help disagreeing parties avoid the time-consuming and expensive procedures involved in court litigation. Courts will often recommend that a plaintiff, or the party initiating a lawsuit, and a defendant, or the party that is accused of wrongdoing, attempt mediation before proceeding to trial. This recommendation is especially true for issues that are filed in small claims courts, where judges attempt to streamline dispute resolution. Not all mediators are associated with public court systems. There are many agency-connected and private mediation services that disputing parties can hire to help them potentially resolve their dispute. The American Bar Association suggests that, in addition to training courses, one of the best ways to start a private mediation business is to volunteer as a mediator. Research has shown that experience is an important factor for mediators who are seeking to cultivate sensitivity and hone their conflict resolution skills.

For businesses, the savings associated with mediation can be substantial. For example, the energy corporation Chevron implemented an internal mediation program. In one instance, it cost $25,000 to resolve a dispute using this internal mediation program, far less than the estimated $700,000 it would have incurred through the use of outside legal services. Even more impressive is the amount it saved by not going to court, which would have cost an estimated $2.5 million.

Mediation is distinguished by its focus on solutions. Instead of focusing on discoveries, testimonies, and expert witnesses to assess what has happened in the past, it is future-oriented. Mediators focus on discovering ways to solve the dispute in a way that will appease both parties.

Other Benefits of Mediation

  • Confidentiality. Since court proceedings become a matter of public record, it can be advantageous to use mediation to preserve anonymity. This aspect can be especially important when dealing with sensitive matters, where one or both parties feels it is best to keep the situation private.
  • Creativity. Mediators are trained to find ways to resolve disputes and may apply outside-the-box thinking to suggest a resolution that the parties had not considered. Since disagreeing parties can be feeling emotionally contentious toward one another, they may not be able to consider other solutions. In addition, a skilled mediator may be able to recognize cultural differences between the parties that are influencing the parties’ ability to reach a compromise, and thus leverage this awareness to create a novel solution.
  • Control. When a case goes to trial, both parties give up a certain degree of control over the outcome. A judge may come up with a solution to which neither party is in favor. In contrast, mediation gives the disputing parties opportunities to find common ground on their own terms, before relinquishing control to outside forces.

Role of the Mediator

Successful mediators work to immediately establish personal rapport with the disputing parties. They often have a short period of time to interact with the parties and work to position themselves as a trustworthy advisor. The Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation reports a study by mediator Peter Adler in which mediation participants remembered the mediators as “opening the room, making coffee, and getting everyone introduced.” This quote underscores the need for mediators to play a role beyond mere administrative functions. The mediator’s conflict resolution skills are critical in guiding the parties toward reaching a resolution.

Steps of Mediation

As explained by, mediation, while not being as formal as a court trial, involves the following six steps:

  • Mediator’s Opening Statement: During the opening statement, the mediator introduces himself or herself and explains the goals of mediation.
  • Opening Statements of Plaintiff and Defendant: Both parties are given the opportunity to speak, without interruption. During this opening statement, both parties are afforded the opportunity to describe the nature of the dispute and their desired solution.
  • Joint Discussion: The mediator will try to get the two disagreeing parties to speak to one another and will guide the discussion toward a mutually amicable solution. This part of the mediation process usually identifies which issues need to be resolved and explores ways to address the issues.
  • Private Caucus: During this stage, each party has the ability to meet and speak privately with the mediator. Typically, the mediator will use this time to learn more about what is most important to each party and to brainstorm ways to find a resolution. The mediator may ask the parties to try to put aside their emotional responses and resentments to work toward an agreement.
  • Joint Negotiation: After the private caucuses, the parties are joined again in the same room, and the mediator presents any newly discovered insight to guide them toward an agreement.
  • Closure: During this final stage, an agreement is reached, or it is determined that the parties cannot agree. Either way, the mediator will review the positions of each party and ask them if they would like to meet again or explore escalating options, such as moving the dispute to court.

Ethical Issues

Both the disputants themselves, and those who attempt to facilitate dispute resolutions, i.e., mediators and attorneys, must navigate a myriad of ethical issues, such as deciding whether they should tell the entire truth, or only offer a partial disclosure. This conflict has long roots in history and has often been considered in terms of consequentialist and deontological ethical theories. Consequentialist ethics, sometimes known as situational ethics, is a way of looking at difficult decisions by considering their implications. Someone who follows consequentialist ethics in mediation or arbitration would consider the impact of his or her decision on the parties in light of their unique circumstances. In contrast, deontologist ethics bases its decision on whether the action itself is right or wrong, regardless of its consequences.

Imagine a situation in which a professional accountant holds a consequentialist ethical viewpoint and believes that there are certain scenarios in which the disclosure of only part of the truth is a commendable course of action. For example, if an accountant is interviewed regarding how the company handled a certain transaction in its retirement account, he might choose to withhold certain information because he is afraid it will harm the retirees’ ability to retain the full benefits of their pensions. In this case, the accountant is utilizing “the ends justify the means” logic because he feels that the omission of truth will result in more benefit than its revelation. A mediator or arbitrator who also follows a consequentialist viewpoint would consider the accountant’s motivation and the circumstances, in addition to his or her actions.

Ethical situations like these are not only part of dispute mediation in business law scenarios, but also happen in daily life. Consider the case of a parent who is on his way home from work when he receives a call from the babysitter, telling him that his child’s forehead feels hot and that she is complaining of not feeling well. Sitting in traffic, the parent remembers that he does not know the whereabouts of the digital thermometer, so he decides to stop and purchase one. The parking lot at the store is extremely busy, so the parent decides to park in a handicapped spot, even though he does not have any mobility challenges. These types of situations have been addressed by philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, who spoke of the categorical imperative, which he defined as, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” In other words, one’s action should be considered in light of what would happen if everyone were to engage in the same action. While it might not seem like a harmful infraction, if everyone were to do it, then it would cause a true inconvenience and possible suffering for mobility-impaired individuals, for whom those spaces were designated. A deontological ethical viewpoint would determine that it is always wrong to park in the handicapped space, regardless of the situation. In real life, it is very difficult to adopt a 100% deontological viewpoint for dispute resolution. Often, the reason the dispute has arisen in the first place is because of some ambiguity inherent in the situation. In these cases, mediators must apply their best judgment to help the disagreeing parties see one another’s viewpoints and to guide them toward a mutually amicable solution.

A blackboard shows 1 + 1 = 3 written in white chalk.
Figure 2.4 Sometimes ethical issues have no clear-cut answers and mediators must rely upon their best judgement. (Credit: George Becker/ pexels/ License: CC0)

Future Directions in Mediation

As technology continues to change the ways we interact with one another, it is likely that we will see advances in mediation techniques. For example, there are companies that offer online mediation services, known as e-mediation. E-mediation can be useful in situations where the parties are geographically far apart, or the transaction in dispute took place online. Ebay uses e-mediation to handle the sheer volume of misunderstandings between parties. Research has shown that one of the benefits of e-mediation is that it allows people the time needed to “cool down” when they have to explain their feelings in an email, as opposed to speaking to others in person.

In addition to technological advancements, new findings in psychology are influencing how disputes are resolved, such as the rising interest in canine-assisted mediation (CAM), in which the presence of dogs is posited to have an impact on human emotional health. Since the presence of dogs has a positive impact on many of the neurophysiological stress markers in humans, researchers are beginning to explore the use of therapy animals to assist in dispute resolution.

A happy-looking dog is outside, sitting with its tongue out.
Figure 2.5 Mediation experts are considering the benefits of therapy dogs for canine-assisted mediation. (Credit: Garfield Besa/ pexels/ License: CC0)
Order a print copy

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.


This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Attribution information
  • If you are redistributing all or part of this book in a print format, then you must include on every physical page the following attribution:
    Access for free at
  • If you are redistributing all or part of this book in a digital format, then you must include on every digital page view the following attribution:
    Access for free at
Citation information

© Mar 31, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.