| Two Logan Square ? 6th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 800-656-1ADR (237) Fax: 215-656-4089 |
 |
|
|
|
| ||
|
 Mediation, which is succinctly defined as facilitated negotiation, is a nonbinding process. The parties mutually select from our roster of distinguished neutrals a professional mediator to facilitate the resolution process. Prior to the mediation, the neutral reviews memoranda provided by the parties, along with pertinent documents, such as medical reports, expert reports and deposition transcripts. Unlike submissions to the court, which are too often not properly reviewed, our distinguished neutrals are committed to the simple axiom, "If it was important enough for you to prepare, it will be carefully read and considered... no exceptions"! During the mediation session counsel and the parties present an abbreviated version of their case and a discussion ensues in open session with all parties and their counsel present.  Following the joint session, the mediator caucuses separately with each side to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. These private meetings with each party, or with one set of similarly interested parties in multi-party actions, may be numerous and are similar to "shuttle diplomacy." The mediator will generally go back and forth from one party's caucus to another party's caucus in order to build a consensus for settlement. The mediator, unlike a judge at a settlement conference, strives to have the parties suggest and agree upon an acceptable resolution rather than imposing one upon them. It is generally helpful to the resolution process if the parties themselves, or in cases involving insurance, a representative from the carrier, attend the mediation session and participate in the mediation. Arbitration Arbitration is generally a binding process and differs from mediation in that the parties have agreed to be bound by the decision of the neutral or by a majority of the arbitration panel. The parties may agree to give the neutral or the panel sole discretion over the award, or they may select one of many options to modify the neutral's decision such as: High/Low Arbitration The most frequently utilized arbitration option is a high/low agreement which is negotiated between the parties prior to a binding hearing. At the option of the parties, the high and the low may or may not be disclosed to the arbitrator. When this approach is utilized the parties limit the boundaries of the award by agreeing to a ceiling, a dollar amount above which the claimant cannot recover, (the high), and a floor, the amount the claimant is guaranteed to recover, (the low). If the neutral's decision falls within the negotiated range, the award stands as decided. If the award is above the high or less than the low, it is molded to comply with the high/low agreement.
Med-Arb Med-Arb is a combination of mediation and arbitration. It is customarily utilized in cases where the parties are desirous of attempting to accomplish a mediated resolution, but want to be assured that the matter will be resolved even if the mediation does not produce a settlement. Generally, the parties initially proceed in the same manner as a mediation. The mediator facilitates negotiations between the parties with the expectation of reaching an amicable agreement between them. If the matter is unable of being resolved in that fashion, the mediator acting in an adjudicatory capacity, issues a final decision which binds the parties in the same manner as an arbitration award. This procedure is sometimes referred to as binding mediation. Neutral Evaluation A neutral reviews pertinent materials, conducts a conference and listens to an abbreviated presentation of a case. The neutral then issues an advisory opinion on the factual, legal and damage matters in dispute. The neutral does not attempt to facilitate settlement since the purpose of this procedure is to provide the parties with the comments from a respected neutral to be utilized by them in their further negotiations. This technique is frequently utilized where there is a wide disparity between the parties on liability or damage issues. Settlement Conferences A settlement conference is the traditional dispute resolution technique used by the Court.  Unlike mediation it is usually attended by counsel only and conducted in summary fashion without any participation by the parties. In a settlement conference, the neutral has evaluative responsibility and will generally provide the parties with the neutral's overall evaluation of the case including a suggested settlement recommendation.Fact-Finding In cases which generally are submitted before litigation has been instituted, DRI assists the parties by making an informal inquiry into the facts of a particular dispute. The fact-finder meets with the parties to the dispute, interviews key witnesses and reviews important documents. Unlike depositions, these interviews are conducted in an informal, non-adversarial manner. Thereafter, the fact-finder will either attempt to resolve the dispute, assist the parties in selecting a process for resolution, or provide the requesting entity with a confidential report. This procedure is frequently utilized for intra-entity disputes. DRI has also been called upon by both parties after litigation has been initiated to perform neutral factfinding. In this situation, DRI is given the opportunity to conduct an impartial investigation and submit a non-binding neutral report that frequently is a catalyst for settlement. Hearing Officer The need frequently arises for a hearing officer to preside over administrative proceedings or other types of hearings conducted outside the judicial system. Such hearings include contractually mandated due process proceedings, medical coverage disputes, employment disputes and other similar adjudicatory processes that are contractually specified to protect an aggrieved party. Depending on the nature of the proceeding, the hearing officer may serve in an adjudicative capacity or as a presiding officer vested only with the responsibility of ensuring an orderly and fair hearing. Discovery Master Discovery is routinely recognized as the major abuse of litigation. The cost in dollars and increasingly more often, the cost of business interference, of discovery in complex and multi party cases is, more often than not, exorbitant. Competent counsel seeking to reduce such prohibitive expense have turned to DRI to decide or mediate discovery disputes at key points during the pendency of the litigation. Discovery disputes are resolved in this way, expeditiously and efficiently resulting in substantial savings of dollars and time.
|
