Video

If an agreement is reached during mediation, it can be just as binding as a judgment in trial; however, its entirely up the parties in mediation to decide whether or not to settle and under what terms. Arbitration, on the other hand, transfers the power and discretion to decide a case from the parties themselves to a third party, i.e. the arbitrator who rules similar to a judge based upon evidence presented during the arbitration.

Thank you. More content on the way.

No, you are not held hostage, but you might be tempted to want to leave BEFORE all meaningly settlement talks have been discussed. Only the mediator will know when enough is enough because he hears everything from both sides not just your side. That's the power of confidentiality.

Do you think paying $1500 is too much to pay? May I ask, how much would you be willing to pay a lawyer to handle it for you in court instead? Litigation costs much more and statistics show that less than 5% of all lawsuits are ever actually tried. In other words, almost all lawsuits are settled out of court which is exactly where you can start with mediation.

Respect is compromised when a dispute arises. Then the parties lose trust in one another. Without trust, there can be no meaningful settlement discussions. Mediators serve as a medium for both parties to trust throughout the settlement process.

As long as insurance carriers can turn a buck delaying and denying claims, we're stuck with the situation we have. There are insurance carriers who have a strategy of delaying and dragging their feet.

Well, generally speaking, that is the way laws are supposed to work, but you can't always expect people to follow the rules and do the right thing. When they don't, that's when you need mediators, lawyers and judges to figure it all out and encourage or, if needed, force people to get back in line.

@@justplay0621 your absolutely right

@@jeffmarionpersonalinjuryla2966 Unfortunately, both avoidance and attrition are widely used legal strategies. As long as the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived costs, such tactics will continue. Change the laws, change the cost/benefit calculations or convince people to get more of a conscience.

Generally, that is how laws work. Unfortunately, people do not always follow the laws. Then what...There is no self-help, so we must rely on lawyers and judges to set them straight or we can try to persuade people to work things out on their own. That's what mediators try to do.

A lot of mediation involves taking a fresh and more objective look at the strength (weakness) of both sides of a lawsuit. What has to give is unfounded unrealistic expectations.

Hope you did well.

@@jeffmarionpersonalinjuryla2966 No, my case ended with no restitution. I should have changed attorneys when I felt they lost interest in my case. It was a horse accident and it has changed my life forever. An accident that should have never happened if the trail guide had done his job. Thanks for asking.

Hi. Please would you rather use mediation or allow the parties to negotiate themselves for a business dispute.

Self-determination is almost ALWAYS how disputes and lawsuits are resolved. In the end, almost no one goes the distance to wait for lawyers and judges to actually try and decide cases.

@@fortunechuka1939 Depends. To make settlement negotiations meaningful, you need confidentiality and a commitment or obligation from everyone to participate. Adding a mediator adds a safe harbor which might make one or more parties more comfortable to talk.

Fkkfkfkflfofktktlflfptktktlfprkfkflflfkfkfofkfkgkfkkgkkgkgkgkgkgk