In fifteen pages mediation and arbitration pros and cons are considered from both corporate and domestic perspectives. Fifteen sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_MBmedlaw1.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
A mediator or arbitration attorney becomes the primary agent in a dispute, thus freeing up the courts to handle more in depth cases. However, when faced with the decision between
arbitration and/or mediation, how does one determine which offers the least risk and the best hope for gaining a favorable ruling? WHAT IS MEDIATION? Mediation is an alternative to
a court trial. When alternative resolution is agreed upon, and sometimes mandated, all parties meet with the mediator. The mediator generally waits until both parties are present, then establishes the
fact that he/she is neutral in the negotiation process. Issues are outlined, protocols set and the ground rules are set. Generally speaking, in a mediation, the clients speak for themselves,
even if they opt to have counsel present. The criteria on using a mediator varies from state to state and most states do
not even have laws governing the use of a mediator. For example, all one has to have to handle a custody mediation for the court in New Mexico is a
masters degree in the mental health profession!(Digaetano 1995). In Colorado it is worse, as the practioner doesnt have to have a degree at all. ADVANTAGES Mediation is often opted
for by the disputing parties because it is less costly than a full blown war in court. Many times the issues are of such a trivial issue that the courts
are not willing to clog the system with such a dispute until it is determined that there is no other way to settle it. The mediator, then, has become more
and more a viable force in the justice system. Mediation works best when the parties have room to be flexible and where there will be an ongoing relationship once the