Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution. It is a collaborative process in which a neutral third party, called a mediator, facilitates discussion between two or more parties, in an attempt to help them reach agreement. The mediator does not decide how the matter should be resolved; only the parties decide whether, and on what terms, their dispute should be resolved. In effect, Mediation is a structured settlement conference, conducted in a confidential setting.

What is Arbitration?

Arbitration is another form of alternative dispute resolution. In Arbitration, the parties agree to have a neutral third party, called an arbitrator, decide how their dispute should be resolved. Arbitrations can be held with one arbitrator or a panel of three or more arbitrators, whose consensus decides the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration can be either binding (in the sense that the parties agree to abide by the arbitrator's decision) or non-binding (in which case the parties may pursue other means of resolving their dispute, such as litigation before a judge and jury).

There are several similarities between these two alternative dispute resolution methods. First, they are both much less formal and less costly than judicial proceedings. Second, you need not have an attorney represent you, as you likely would in court. (Of course, it is often advisable to have an attorney either with you or available to you while you prepare for and participate in either Mediation or Arbitration. An attorney can help you put your best foot forward, knowing your rights and the relative strength of your case.)

Another form of alternative dispute resolution, Early Neutral Evaluation is a process similar to (but less formal than) Arbitration, where one or both sides in a dispute ask a neutral third party (usually someone familiar and experienced in the subject matter at hand) to appraise the relative strengths and weaknesses of the legal claim(s) at issue. The process is best done early, before too much expense is invested in litigation: either before or shortly after suit is filed. Typically, such evaluations are then used to plan negotiation and litigation strategies.

Fact-Finding refers to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in which a neutral third party examines documents and interviews witnesses to determine, as best as is reasonably possible, what happened, so parties (and their attorneys, if they are involved) can then determine the appropriate course of action. Unlike Arbitration, which decides not only what happened but also the legal consequences of what happened, Fact-Finding merely provides the party or parties an understanding of what at least one neutral observer would conclude had occurred.   The Fact-Finder's job is to weigh the relative credibility of the witnesses and documentary evidence, to reach a conclusion as to what happened. It is then up to the party or parties to decide what, if any, legal consequences arise from those facts.