We’ve been looking in recent posts at some of the factors that should be taken into consideration when selecting a neutral mediator. Last time, we focused on the importance of considering the specific style of mediation a mediation professional prefers to use. As we noted, it probably isn’t possible to clearly categorize every approach to mediation, but two common approaches to the process are evaluative and facilitative mediation.
Last time, we began considering some factors worth considering when selecting a neutral mediator. As we noted, mediators all have different in terms of their education and training, experience, background, personality, and personal biases they work to overcome. All these factors should be considered when making a selection of a neutral mediator that is going to carry out the role most effectively in any given case.
Selecting a mediator is an important task for those looking to mediate a dispute. Mediators can vary in a number of different respects, including education and training, experience, style, and personality, and each of these things is important to consider in determining the appropriateness of a mediator for handling a dispute.
In our previous post, we began looking at using arbitration to resolve intellectual property disputes. The desirability of resolving intellectual property disputes through arbitration lies not only in the fact that arbitration can be less expensive and less of a hassle than litigation, but also in the fact that it provides parties privacy to resolve the dispute.
Mediation and arbitration can be effective avenues for resolving a wide variety of disputes. Each dispute, of course, involves unique considerations, among which are included the positions of each party on the points in dispute, each party’s ability and willingness to enter into negotiation, the area or areas of law involved in the dispute, and the likely outcome of the case if it went to court.
In our last post, we began discussing some of the difficulties parties can face in medical malpractice mediation. As we noted, medical malpractice litigation can involve highly specialized knowledge and it is necessary not only for parties to establish a dialogue with each other that involves a mutual understanding about such matters, but which can also be understood and appreciated by the mediator.
Mediation can be a useful tool in a variety of types of dispute, from construction projects to divorce to employment and labor law matters. In most mediation cases, the goal is to help the parties discuss their positions, understand each other’s underlying interests and to negotiate a sustainable agreement that can be enforced as a contract in a court of law. Depending on the area of dispute, there can be various challenges to achieving this goal.
Whatever you think about mandatory arbitration clauses, they require consent. The First Amendment implies that people generally have the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In other words, in the U.S. it’s fundamental that participants in mandatory arbitration have legally waived their right to bring the case to court.
Previously, we looked at some of the circumstances under which an arbitration award may be vacated. In addition to that, there are also cases where an arbitration award may be modified or corrected. Such circumstances include cases where the arbitration award reflects a miscalculation of figures or an incorrect description of a person, property or thing in the award.
Last time, we wrote briefly about a recent Pennsylvania case which highlighted the fact that courts take into account the actions of parties to an arbitration agreement when determining the validity of the agreement. In the case we’ve been discussing, a party which believes itself to have entered into a valid arbitration agreement but which takes actions reflecting that belief may not be able to have the agreement declared invalid later on.