Mediation saves the parties money and time spent in litigation. It moves cases through the court system. It addresses the perceived need of President Bush in keeping trial lawyers out of court. By empowering the parties it addresses the need of trial lawyers in serving their clients. Why don't more courts use this.
In Michigan, a portion of the fees paid to file a case in court goes to pay for Alternative Dispute Resolution services. You might think that if the parties have already paid for these services the services would be required. They are not. Some courts do require that all or almost all civil cases (including domestic relations cases) go to mediation. However, this is the exception.
The Federal District court in Western Michigan has perhaps the entire menu of alternative dispute resolution options. Yet many of these options are rarely, if ever utilized by the parties.
Why is this? I think that much of the reluctance to utilize ADR is political: if a court is forced to become more efficient in handling cases, the need for more judges and support staff goes away. Ergo, the third branch of government resists this. A second reason for this is that many attorneys have no (or little) experience with ADR and are unwilling to learn how it can help their clients with their legal needs.
Educate yourself (knowledge is power). If you are constitutionally opposed to lawyers then take heart: many folks in the dispute resolution field are not attorneys and in many places there is no requirement that a person serving as a mediator or arbitrator be an attorney. Demand better service.
Michael Boersma
Comments