Owl Lex

  • Owllawyeropti

Clawk Fox

  • Fox5x6_2

Alltop Feed - Law


  • Featured in Alltop

Great Books


« Interview of author of The Trials of Academe: The New Era of Campus Litigation | Main | Mindfulness training in a sister profession: Physicians reduce burnout and improve attitudes towards patients »


Todd I. Stark

Isn't a mediator essentially the same as a facilitator, in principle? If so then lack of substantive impact is an expected and welcome result. Facilitators are used in meetings mostly to make them quicker and less painful, not to improve the decision. Although coming to decision at all vs. deadlock sometimes seems to be a direct result of facilitation.

From my perspective, the value of a mediator in principle is to: (1) potentially understand the process of coming to agreement better than the participants (although this isn't critical), and more importantly (2) have no stake in an outcome at least with respect to one side vs. the other, and so be able to serve 3rd party procedures that break deadlocks and compensate for mistrust.

If that's true, then the mediator shouldn't have much if anything to do with the outcome, they should mostly reduce the cost and pain of the process.

Or is there more expected from mediation in particular?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Regarding Guest Bloggers

  • Please do not contact me about writing a guest blog post. In the rare instance when I do have guest-written posts, I invite the writers. Thanks very much!
My Photo

Please Read

  • Full Disclosure:
    Due to a conflict between the Colorado legislature and Amazon, those of us in Colorado are no longer Amazon Associates. The law is being challenged in federal court.