Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

There is supposed to be a trend toward including mediation as the first step in the dispute resolution provision of contracts. I find this is not the case. In my experience as a full-time neutral, many lawyers fail to discuss the benefits of mediation with their clients unless obligated to do so by a rule or a statute, or when a court is about to send the case to a court-appointed mediator. Many litigators still seem to fear that raising the subject of mediation (or suggesting it) makes them appear weak and not the gladiator they perceive the client wants. I believe that a litigator who asks if the client wants to consider mediation is acting ethically and doing her job as counsel.

True, a case that is mediated earns the attorney less money because the chances are that the case will settle during the mediation. But not mentioning mediation because of this would be an unethical act of self-interest.

The question raised in this article is this: “Should an arbitrator raise the subject of mediation with the parties to the dispute?” I would answer “usually” for the reason that parties generally are better off mediating than using an adjudicatory process in which a third party decides the dispute. Furthermore, mediation is faster and more likely than arbitration to lead to a resolution that will satisfy both parties.