Who is an Arbitrator?

Understanding the Role of a Neutral Third-Party Decision Maker

When parties find themselves in a dispute that cannot be resolved through negotiation or mediation, they may choose to turn to arbitration. In arbitration, a neutral third-party decision-maker, known as an arbitrator, is appointed to hear evidence and make a binding decision that is enforceable by law. In this article, we will provide an overview of the role of an arbitrator, including their qualifications, responsibilities, and decision-making process.

Qualifications of an Arbitrator

Arbitrators are typically legal professionals who have specialized training or experience in the area of law relevant to the dispute. They could also be industry experts in cases involving technical or complex matters. They must be impartial and free from conflicts of interest.

Responsibilities of an Arbitrator

The primary responsibility of an arbitrator is to conduct a fair and impartial hearing that results in a just and enforceable decision. To fulfill this duty, arbitrators have several tasks.

i. Arranging Prehearing Activities: Arbitrators arrange hearing dates, locations, and establish procedural rules and guidelines for the process. They may also conduct pre-hearing conferences to discuss procedural issues, evidence exchange, and witness testimony.

ii. Conducting the Hearing: During the hearing, the arbitrator ensures that each party has an opportunity to contribute and present evidence. They have discretion over procedural issues, including the admissibility of evidence and cross-examination.

iii. Rendering a Decision: After hearing all the evidence, the arbitrator applies the relevant law and makes a binding decision on the dispute. The decision is typically final and enforceable.

iv. Drafting the Award and Closing the Case: Once the arbitrator has made a decision, they prepare the final award that outlines the findings of fact, legal reasoning, and the decision reached. They then close the case and distribute the award to all parties involved.

The Decision-Making Process of an Arbitrator

Arbitrators have significant discretion in managing the arbitration process, including the timing and scope of discovery, witness examination, and the issues discussed. However, the decision-making process is straightforward and must adhere to several principles of procedural fairness.

i. Hearings are conducted in private, ensuring confidentiality.

ii. The arbitrator must give adequate notice to all parties of the hearing.

iii. A fair and unbiased opportunity to present evidence is afforded to all parties.

iv. Evidence received must be relevant and admissible.

v. The arbitrator applies relevant law and principles in making a fair and reasonable decision.

Conclusion

Arbitration is a popular method of resolving disputes, particularly in commercial and international contexts, where parties value confidentiality and control over the decision-making process. An arbitrator is a neutral third-party decision-maker responsible for conducting a fair and impartial hearing and rendering an enforceable decision. Their training, experience, and impartiality are critical factors in ensuring parties can have confidence in the arbitration process. Understanding the role of an arbitrator is vital in choosing an appropriate dispute resolution process, ensuring that you find a suitable arbitrator and presenting your case effectively.

Introduction

An arbitrator is a professional that works to increase communication between two sides of a dispute.  The process of arbitration is an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that avoids litigation, which can be a time consuming, public and costly process.  Arbitrators can fill a variety of roles especially in contract negotiation and commercial disputes so effective arbitrators have knowledge and experience in the dispute that they seek to resolve.

What is the role of an arbitrator?

In all circumstances except non-binding arbitration, the arbitrator has the final word on resolving the dispute and makes a judgment as per provisions detailed in contractually mandated arbitration hearings.  Legislation may make arbitration binding so as to reduce the burden that civil cases will have on the courts system.  Therefore, it is in the interest of the courts to have the word of the arbitrator be final and binding.  The arbitrator decides an “award” of damages against a party which may involve monetary damages and declarations to refrain from certain activity, grant a service promised by contract or rectify the terms and conditions of an agreement between two parties.  A panel of more than one arbitrator is called an arbitration tribunal and those individuals confer on the proper award.  Unanimous support of the award may be required by the parties but it is not mandatory.

What is the role of the arbitrator in non-binding arbitration?

In non-binding arbitration, the arbitrator is merely an observer who (in their professional opinion) determines the rights of the parties and establishes an approximate benchmark of the damages with will be due.  From there the parties will either pursue the case through litigation, binding arbitration or reach a settlement using the non-binding determination of the arbitrator.

Can an arbitrator ruling be challenged?

As a general rule, jurisdictions do not intervene in arbitration agreements unless there is a clear case of fraud or arbitrator bias.  There may also be the possibility that the arbitrator does not have the jurisdiction to order the conditions stated in the award.  Additionally, the courts may monitor arbitration proceedings if it is a serious civil case that requires due caution and involves serious ramifications for the parties if the wrong determination is made.  As the parties have agreed, either by contract or prior to seeking arbitration, it is expected that they will abide by the rulings of the arbitration proceedings, as they are they of their own accord.

Government agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission do not interfere with arbitrator decisions and instead direct parties to seek recourse in the legal system.  Parties that disagree with the arbitrator’s decision may file a “motion to vacate” the decision.  Motion to vacate filings are rarely granted as the party must prove that they were prevented from making their case, which is not only difficult to prove, but rarely occurs.  Motions to vacate must be served within three months (or potentially less in some jurisdictions) and frivolous filings may entitle the other party to recoup legal fees from the filing party.

Sources: https://www.sec.gov/answers/arbappeal.htm

What are Some Strategies to Resolve Conflicts?

Effective Approaches for Conflict Resolution

Conflict is an inevitable part of life, and how we handle it can have a significant impact on our relationships, both personal and professional. There are many strategies for resolving conflicts, ranging from direct confrontation to more cooperative or collaborative approaches. In this article, we will explore some effective strategies for resolving conflicts, assessing their pros and cons.

1. Direct Confrontation

Direct confrontation is a common approach to conflict resolution. This strategy involves directly addressing the conflict, discussing the issues, and finding a mutual solution. It requires assertiveness, good communication skills, and an openness to compromise. Direct confrontation, if not handled appropriately, can escalate the conflict, and both parties may be hesitant or unwilling to engage. However, if used correctly, direct confrontation can be very effective in resolving conflicts quickly.

2. Avoidance

Avoidance is another approach to conflict resolution. This strategy involves not addressing the conflict, hoping that it will dissipate on its own. Avoidance can be useful in cases of minor conflicts that are not worth the time or effort to resolve. However, if used inappropriately, avoidance can lead to mistrust, resentment, and hostile working or living conditions.

3. Compromise

Compromise is often used in conflict resolution. This strategy involves finding a middle ground or a mutually beneficial solution that both parties can agree upon. Compromise can be an effective way to resolve conflicts, as it demonstrates a willingness to work together towards a solution. However, if used incorrectly, compromise can lead to dissatisfaction on one or both sides.

4. Collaboration

Collaboration is an approach to conflict resolution that emphasizes teamwork and cooperation to find solutions. Collaboration involves identifying the issues, brainstorming ideas, and working together to find a solution that benefits everyone involved. Collaboration requires good communication, trust, and a willingness to work together. Collaboration is often used in complex conflicts, as it allows for more creative solutions to be found, but it can also be time-consuming and requires a high level of trust and collaboration.

5. Mediation

Mediation is a method of conflict resolution where a neutral third-party mediator facilitates communication between the conflicting parties. Mediation aims to promote collaboration, communication, and understanding between the parties. It can be effective in resolving conflicts where there is a breakdown in communication or where the parties lack trust. Mediators are trained professionals who use specialized techniques to facilitate discussions and find common ground. Mediation can be costly, but it often preserves relationships and allows for mutually beneficial solutions.

Conclusion

There are many strategies for resolving conflicts, and each has its advantages and disadvantages. The choice of strategy depends on the nature of the conflict, the personalities involved, and the desired outcomes. Direct confrontation, avoidance, compromise, collaboration, and mediation can all be effective approaches when applied correctly. Understanding the various strategies and when to use them can help individuals navigate conflicts more effectively, maintain relationships, and find mutually beneficial solutions. By using appropriate strategies for resolving conflicts, individuals can mitigate its negative effects while finding positive outcomes.

Introduction

The primary goal when resolving conflicts is to identify potential sources of conflict before they arise.  Doing so is time effective and prevents a potential lengthy process of dispute resolution which may be unable to resolve the source of the initial conflict.  Communication is key to efforts that identify potential conflict as it empowers the otherwise, especially in an employer-subordinate relationship to clearly articulate grievances that the other party can work to redress.  After the root of the problem is eliminated, the other party can work to resolve the dispute, if it has not been resolved by attacking the root of the conflict.

What are ways to increase communication between two parties?

For organizations especially, hired professionals can enable communication within the organization by serving as a liaison or representative.  This liaison will maintain connections to both sides, for example subordinates and employers and articulate the needs and issues faced by both sides.  If the relationship breaks down due to a lack of communication or trust, third party individuals can enter the dispute and work to foster communication.  This conflict resolution strategy is called conciliation.

What are other methods of resolving conflicts?

No method of resolving conflicts will be entirely acceptable to both parties as the all involve one or both parties shedding some degree of self-interest in the name of conflict resolution.  For instance, one side may choose to accommodate the demands of the other party if the accommodating party recognizes that their needs are not as important as the needs of the opposing side.

Two other methods, known as collaboration and compromise, involve the two parties working closely together, sharing resources and common goals to achieve a larger goal.  Collaboration occurs when both sides are relatively equal in strength, interests and resources and their goals are not mutually exclusive.  Compromise is an element of conciliation where both parties will set aside some demands to work together on larger, more important issues.  This does of course require one or both sides to lessen demands that could be relatively important in the name of achieving the larger goal.  As with the others, this is an imperfect solution for one of both sides.

Lastly two other methods of conflict reduction involve drastically different approaches.  One party with a superior advantage may attempt to complete with the other side and overwhelm their demands.  This superior position in a conflict eliminates the need to bargain and make concessions and instead makes one side a loser and another winner.  There are obvious drawbacks to this approach in any organization as further conflicts may arise from unresolved grievances and bad faith on the part of the dominant party.

A smaller party may choose “avoidance” and avoid bringing attention to a conflict in hopes that the conflict will either resolve itself or that the side may have a stronger bargaining position in the future that prevents it from being ignored or crushed by a stronger side.  The drawback here is that the conflict may never be resolved and it may lead to further, far more drastic conflicts in the future.

Conciliation At A Glance: Understanding the Basics of this Conflict Resolution Process

Conciliation is a form of alternative dispute resolution that can help parties resolve disputes without going to court. It is an informal and voluntary process that involves a neutral third party who helps the parties come to an agreement. In this article, we will explore the basics of conciliation, including its definition, process, benefits, and limitations.

What is Conciliation?

Conciliation is a process that involves the intervention of a conciliator, who assists the parties to a dispute to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. The conciliator is a neutral third party who listens to both sides, identifies the issues in dispute, and assists the parties in finding a mutually acceptable solution.

Conciliation Process

The conciliation process typically starts with the parties attending an initial meeting with the conciliator. At this meeting, the parties will explain the nature of the dispute to the conciliator, who will then outline the process and explain the role of the conciliator. The conciliator will then work with the parties to identify the issues in dispute and encourage them to explore possible solutions.

During the conciliation process, the parties will attend several meetings with the conciliator. The conciliator may also meet with the parties separately to explore possible solutions. Throughout the process, the conciliator will remain neutral and not take sides. The goal of the conciliator is to help the parties reach an agreement that is mutually acceptable.

Benefits of Conciliation

There are several benefits of conciliation as a dispute resolution process. These include:

i. Informality: Conciliation is an informal process that allows the parties to maintain control over the outcome.

ii. Flexibility: The parties have more control over the outcome of conciliation, as they have the ability to craft solutions that meet their needs.

iii. Cost-effective: Conciliation is generally less expensive than going to court.

iv. Preserves relationships: Conciliation is a process that often preserves relationships since it encourages communication, understanding, and cooperation between the parties.

Limitations of Conciliation

While conciliation is an effective dispute resolution process, there are some limitations. These include:

i. Voluntary: Conciliation is a voluntary process, meaning that both parties must agree to participate. If one party is unwilling, then there will be no conciliation.

ii. Efficacy: The conciliation process may not always be successful in reaching a resolution.

iii. Legally binding: The agreement reached through conciliation may not be legally binding. Therefore, it is important to have legal advice before signing an agreement.

Conclusion

Conciliation is an effective alternative dispute resolution process that enables parties to retain control over disputes while preserving relationships. While there may be some limitations to its efficacy, conciliation can be a valuable process for resolving disputes without resorting to court proceedings. It encourages cooperation, understanding, and effective communication between the parties, and a neutral third party helps ensure that both parties’ perspectives are heard and respected.

What is Conciliation?

Conciliation is a form of alternate dispute resolution similar to mediation.  The main goal of conciliation is for the parties to resolve tensions and bring about a negotiated settlement.  Conciliation has no legal standing and the conciliator, the intermediary between the parties, has no authorization to seek evidence, facts, make a decision or award damages.

How does this differ from mediation and arbitration?

First, and foremost, arbitration can and, in business contracts, often is binding upon the parties involved.  In arbitration the arbitrator is permitted to gather evidence, make decisions, and award a party monetary or equitable relief.

Mediation is similar to conciliation in that the goal of mediation is to reach an agreement that optimizes each parties needs.  Mediation focuses more on intervening in a dispute and helping the parties involved come to a negotiation that is reasonable.

Conciliation, on the other hand is more like a give and take negotiation.  One of the forms of conciliation is to make a list of all the things each party wants out of the conciliation.  At that point the conciliator will go back and forth between the two parties and they will make concessions.

Mediation In Depth: Understanding the Process and Benefits

Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution that involves a neutral third party who facilitates communication and negotiation between parties in conflict. Mediation can be an effective way to resolve a variety of disputes, from family conflicts to employment disputes and more. In this article, we will explore the process and benefits of mediation and discuss how it can be used to promote a peaceful and productive resolution to a conflict.

What is Mediation?

Mediation is a voluntary process in which a neutral third party helps disputing parties come to a mutually acceptable resolution. The mediator is not a judge and does not have the power to impose decisions on the parties. Instead, the mediator helps facilitate communication and negotiation between parties, helping them to identify their true interests and find common ground.

The mediation process typically involves several key steps, including:

1. Initiating the Mediation: Mediation begins when all parties agree to participate in the process and select a mediator.

2. Intake: The mediator meets with each party separately to learn their perspectives and objectives for the mediation.

3. Joint Sessions: The mediator facilitates discussions between the parties and helps them to identify common goals and potential solutions.

4. Agreement: If the parties reach an agreement, the mediator works with them to draft a written agreement that outlines the terms of the agreement and any follow-up actions that are required.

Benefits of Mediation

Mediation has several benefits over traditional litigation, including:

1. Cost-Effective: Mediation is often less expensive than traditional litigation because it typically involves fewer motions, discovery, and court appearances.

2. Time-Saving: Mediation can often be completed in a matter of hours or days, compared to the months or years that traditional litigation can take.

3. Confidentiality: Discussions that take place during mediation are confidential and cannot be used in court.

4. Flexibility: Mediation allows parties to be creative in finding solutions that meet their unique needs and interests, rather than being bound by legal requirements.

5. Empowerment: Mediation empowers parties to take an active role in determining the outcome of the conflict, rather than having a decision imposed on them by a judge.

Conclusion

Mediation can be an effective way to resolve conflicts in a peaceful and productive manner. By working with a neutral third party, parties are empowered to find a resolution that meets their unique needs and interests. Mediation is cost-effective, time-saving, and flexible, and allows parties to focus on finding common ground rather than on winning in court. Whether the conflict is personal or professional, mediation can be a valuable option for those seeking a peaceful and productive resolution.

Introduction

Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that involves an impartial third party to help settle a dispute.  The purpose of mediation is to help the parties reach an agreement on a dispute by improving communication, finding common ground and recommendations from a third party mediator if necessary.  Any event where the third party mediator actively makes recommendations is called conciliation.  Conciliation may involve an informed individual who can provide a framework of solving the dispute, such as a lawyer.

What are other forms of mediation?

Counseling is a form of mediation that focuses on the parties rather than on an agreement.  The third party mediator seeks to resolve disputes through analysis of behavior and individual perspectives of the other party.  For example, marriage counseling does not focus on reaching an agreement that makes the marriage a functional relationship, but rather patterns of behaviors and disputes that have deteriorated the relationship.  The role of the counselor here is to provide a supportive framework for the couple to resolve their dispute as well as over advice to resolve future issues.

Why is mediation preferable to litigation?

All court cases happen in public, which is a problem for parties that value privacy.  Mediation also speeds the resolution of cases, which keeps the costs down for the parties involved as drawn out legal cases tend to be expensive due to legal fees.  Mediation allows the dispute to be resolved amicably, while litigation has a significantly lower possibility of conciliation at the end of the legal action.  This ADR may also help to improve the workplace by increasing communication between disaffected parties and getting to the root of grievances in the workplace.  Litigation may simply exacerbate these tensions of enforce a settlement that damaged one or both parties.  Additionally, litigation tends to force the involved parties to become more entrenched in their positions, with less willingness to compromise and a higher degree of dissatisfaction with the legal process.

How does the mediation process work?

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission describes their mediation process as an alternative to a formal investigation when a charge is filed against an employer.  The EEOC first contacts both parties to offer mediation.  If both parties accept mediation, then there will be an approximately 3 – 4 hour sessions with a neutral mediator.  The mediators function is to remain impartial and facilitate the process so that the sides may come to a settlement on their own terms.  The parties may choose to involve attorneys in the mediation process, although the role they play is at the discretion of the mediator.  The mediation, when offered by the EEOC is free and gives the employer the ability to settle with the employee without a formal investigation process that would have been otherwise initiated by the EEOC if they found merit in the complaint.  Unlike most forms of mediation however, the EEOC settlement will be enforceable in court if either side does not comply with the resolution.

Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/mediation/qanda.cfm

Understanding Pretrial Motions: An Overview for Defendants and Attorneys

Pretrial motions play a critical role in the legal system, allowing defendants and their attorneys to challenge the evidence or procedures used in their case before a trial takes place. These motions may be filed for a variety of reasons, from seeking suppression of evidence to requesting the dismissal of a case altogether. In this article, we will examine the basics of pretrial motions, including the most common types, the legal standards employed, and the potential outcomes.

What are Pretrial Motions?

Pretrial motions are legal documents filed by the defendant’s attorney before the trial begins. These motions may be used to challenge the evidence or procedures used in the case, or to request further information about what the prosecution intends to present at trial. Pretrial motions can be filed for a variety of reasons, including to challenge the legality of the arrest, to suppress evidence obtained illegally, or to request dismissal of the charges altogether.

Common Types of Pretrial Motions

There are several types of pretrial motions, including:

1. Motion to Suppress: A motion to suppress seeks to exclude evidence from trial, which was obtained illegally or unconstitutionally.

2. Motion to Dismiss: A motion to dismiss seeks the dismissal of a case based on the grounds that the charges are legally insufficient or lack evidentiary support.

3. Motion for Discovery: A motion for discovery seeks to compel the prosecution to disclose evidence or information which is relevant to the defense.

4. Motion for Continuance: A motion for continuance seeks to continue or delay the trial for a variety of reasons, such as scheduling conflicts or to allow for further investigation.

Legal Standards Employed

In order to be successful, pretrial motions must meet certain legal standards. These standards can vary depending on the type of motion filed and the jurisdiction in which the case is being tried.

Some common legal standards applied in pretrial motions include:

1. Probable Cause: The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution requires that law enforcement establish probable cause for a search or arrest.

2. Admissibility of Evidence: Evidence presented in court must meet certain criteria for admissibility, including relevance, materiality, and reliability.

3. Burden of Proof: In order to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Outcome of Pretrial Motions

The outcome of a pretrial motion can significantly impact the eventual outcome of the trial. If a pretrial motion is successful, evidence may be excluded, entire charges may be dismissed, or the prosecution may be required to turn over additional information or evidence. Even if a pretrial motion is unsuccessful, the defendant and their attorney may gain important insight into the prosecution’s strategy, which can influence their own defense strategy.

Conclusion

Pretrial motions are an essential part of the legal process, allowing defendants and their attorneys to challenge the evidence or procedures used in their cases. By understanding the types of pretrial motions available, the legal standards employed, and the potential outcomes, defendants and their attorneys can make informed decisions about how to proceed with their defense. While pretrial motions can be complex, they can also play a critical role in securing a positive outcome for the defendant.

In the litigation process, once a particular lawsuit has been determined to convene in a formal trial, there are certain options that can be employed by the attorney’s of the involved parties before the actual trial takes place. These actions are commonly referred to as pretrial motions. A pretrial motion can be either a document that is filed with the court by one of the participating parties which requests that the court take a specific action.

Pretrial motions essentially provide for the parameters and limits as to which the pending trial is to take place. Pretrial motions can also be made orally directly to the court, and can be issued immediately or denied. Pretrial motions exist in numerous forms, and some can prove to be quite complex. An attorney is most competent to handle the pretrial motions, and an experienced attorney can prove to be a great defense when he/she can employ pretrial motions effectively and adequately.

The list of pretrial motions proves to be quite extensive and lengthy, for some pretrial motions range from general requests to extremely precise motions that require the proper interpretation of an attorney to use it effectively in a court of law. Some examples of pretrial motions include, but are certainly not limited to:

Motion to Dismiss

Summary Judgment

Excluding of Physical Evidence

Preventing a Witness from Testifying

Exclusion of the Defendant’s or Plaintiff’s Statements or Confession

Motion to Change Venue

Motion for the Release of Evidence by the Other Party

The first two included in the provided list seem to be among the most commonly employed by attorneys, given the ability to do so under the scope of the law. A motion to dismiss is the request by a specific party to decide that a claim does not have any actual legal remedy under the imposed laws, statutes, and provisions. Even if the claims provided are factual and true, if the basis or nature of claim has no real remedy, a motion to dismiss may be granted by the courts.

A motion to dismiss may also be validate if a claim is filed after the statute of limitations has transpired, which under law, is grounds for dismissal. Furthermore, if a motion to dismiss is granted due to the statute of limitations expiration, the opposing side does not have the right to appeal or provide for evidence to argue the motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss also has various applications, and will vary depending on the nature of the civil dispute at hand.

A motion for summary judgment entails that a party petitions the court that certain evidence, even if it supports the claims of the opposing party, but also supports the case of party petitioning such motion, to be also considered in the ruling to support the moving party.

A motion for summary judgment is typically considered by the courts when the time for discovering evidence is expired. In other words, the party asking for a motion for summary judgment is used when there is no actual dispute to the material evidence of the case, and therefore, the moving party is entitled to a winning verdict by law. A motion for summary judgment is employed as a way to avoid certain lawsuits from making it to trial, which would prove to be unnecessary.

Family Mediation Benefits: How This Conflict Resolution Technique Can Help Your Family

Family conflict is an unfortunate reality for many families. However, there is a way to resolve conflicts effectively without causing harm to family relationships. Family mediation is a process in which a mediator assists family members in reaching a mutually agreeable resolution to their issues. In this article, we will explore the benefits of family mediation and how it can help your family.

What is Family Mediation?

Family mediation is a process in which a neutral third party, called a mediator, facilitates discussions with family members in order to reach a mutually agreeable resolution to their issues. It is often used in situations such as divorce, child custody disputes, and estate planning. The mediator does not make decisions on behalf of the parties but rather helps them to develop a solution that works for everybody.

Effective Communication

One of the main benefits of family mediation is effective communication. Family conflicts often arise from misunderstandings and emotions, making communication difficult. Mediation provides a structured and neutral environment where family members can communicate and share their feelings. The mediator acts as an unbiased party who facilitates conversations and helps family members better understand each other’s perspectives.

Preservation of Relationships

Family mediation also helps preserve relationships. In situations involving divorce, child custody disputes, or estate planning, the parties involved generally have to maintain a relationship after the dispute is resolved. Mediation encourages parties to explore solutions that are mutually beneficial and help maintain relationships. This approach fosters long-term cooperation, communication, and respect.

Less Expensive and Faster Than Court Proceedings

Family mediation is significantly less expensive than court proceedings. Legal proceedings can be time-consuming, costly, and emotionally draining. Mediation is often a faster and less expensive alternative. It allows families to resolve their disputes efficiently and privately. In court proceedings, the final decision is often made by a judge, who may not fully understand the unique dynamics of the family. Mediation provides control and empowerment to the parties involved by allowing them to have the final say.

Less Stressful for Children

Divorce and custody disputes can be extremely stressful for children. Mediation helps mitigate the impact of these disputes on children, providing them with a sense of stability and safety. Rather than placing children in the middle of court proceedings and placing their futures in the hands of lawyers and judges, mediation allows parents to develop child custody arrangements that work for everyone.

Conclusion

Family mediation is a valuable tool for resolving conflicts between family members. It encourages effective communication, helps preserve relationships, and is a less expensive and faster alternative to court proceedings. By using mediation, families can work together to develop their own solutions, thereby empowering themselves and promoting a positive future.

What is family mediation?

Where the term “mediation” is very broad and covers a plethora of topics from business, divorce, real estate, landlord/tenant, etc, etc.  It is important to have a mediation specific to a certain problem.  Often times the best route to take when considering divorce or end of life issues is to get family mediation.  Family mediation is often the preferred route to take when considering an end of relationship situation.

Is family mediation required?

Often times when going to court to obtain a divorce the court will ask that the parties seek mediation first.  Family mediation is preferred by the court system.  Although mediation is not required a court can require that the parties attend at least a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting.

The idea of family mediation is one that is preferred by the courts.  This is due to the time that it takes to conduct a legal proceeding and the amount of money that it costs to operate the court system.  Family mediation is cheaper and it is often the best way to end a relationship or dispute between family members without straining the situation.

Why is family mediation beneficial?

One of the primary jobs of a family mediation is to mend fences.  This is referred to as transformative mediation and involve the mediator listening to the situation and helping each party see the others point of view, their values, and what the real issues are.

Divorce, will contests, and other family problems naturally involve extreme levels of stress and emotion. A benefit to family mediation is that the mediator is there to help smooth things over and keep emotions at bay.  Emotions, especially negative emotions, tend to make matters worse and the result is that one party is usually left having bargained for very little.  This is what happens when divorce proceedings occur in a courtroom.  There is no neutral party involved in litigation and each individual, especially their counsel, are looking to get as much as they possibly can from the other.  Family mediation, on the other hand, is focused primarily on each party coming out with a happy result that will not permanently fracture the relationship.

Conflict Resolution: Understanding and Implementing Effective Strategies

Conflict is a reality of life. Whether it occurs in our personal or professional lives, conflict can cause stress, unhappiness, and hinder our ability to achieve our goals. Conflict resolution is the process by which we manage and resolve conflicts in a productive and peaceful manner. In this article, we will explore the basics of conflict resolution, including its definition, causes, and effective resolution strategies.

What is Conflict Resolution?

Conflict resolution is the process of addressing conflicts in an effective and constructive way. It involves identifying the source of the conflict, exploring possible resolution strategies, and implementing the most effective solution. Conflict resolution is valuable in both personal and professional relationships and can help promote mutual understanding, respect, and cooperation.

Causes of Conflict

There are several causes of conflict, including:

i. Misunderstandings: Misunderstandings can cause confusion and lead to conflict.

ii. Differences in Goals: Conflicts can arise when people have different goals or objectives.

iii. Personality Conflicts: Personal conflicts can arise when people do not get along or have different communication styles.

iv. Power Struggles: Power conflicts can occur when people seek to exert power and control over one another.

Effective Conflict Resolution Strategies

There are several effective conflict resolution strategies that can be employed in addressing conflicts between individuals or groups.

1. Active Listening: Active listening is a technique involving paying attention to the speaker, asking questions, and summarizing key points. By using active listening techniques, we can increase our understanding of the other person’s perspective and find common ground.

2. Collaborative Problem-Solving: Collaborative problem-solving involves working together to find a solution that works for both parties. It involves generating options and brainstorming solutions that are mutually beneficial.

3. Mediation: Mediation is a facilitated process where a third party helps parties to a dispute come to a mutually agreed resolution. The mediator remains neutral and helps parties explore possible solutions while communicating with one another.

4. Compromise: Compromise involves finding a middle ground that both parties can agree on. This approach requires that both parties give up something to reach an agreement.

5. Walking Away: Walking away involves recognizing that a situation is not negotiable and deciding to remove oneself from the situation. This approach is typically employed when the conflict is too intense or the other party is not willing to cooperate.

Conclusion

Conflict resolution is a valuable and effective strategy for addressing conflict in our personal and professional lives. By identifying the sources of conflicts, employing effective communication strategies, and implementing an appropriate conflict resolution strategy, we can manage conflicts in a way that promotes mutual understanding, respect, and cooperation. Conflict resolution requires patience, effective communication, and a willingness to learn and grow from the experience.

What is Conflict Resolution?

Conflict resolution is a general term for numerous methods of addressing the sources of conflict.  Conflict resolution can be thought of in the legal sense as comprising arbitration, mediation, and other forms of alternate dispute resolution.  Conflict resolution can also be used to signify attempts at diplomacy between states and countries.  The objective of all these is to settle disputes between parties in the most positive way to avoid litigation, between parties contemplating a civil suit, or violent conflict, between countries.

What is involved in Conflict Resolution?

Conflict resolution involves the parties to the matter and an outside intermediary.  Depending on the type of conflict resolution in effect the intermediary is known as an arbitrator, mediator, or negotiator.

ARBITRATION

Arbitration is a form of conflict resolution in which an outside party, known as an arbitrator, evaluates a civil dispute between parties and, in essence, acts as the “judge and jury.”  The decision that the arbitrator makes is often binding upon the parties involved.  A court of law is, in no way, involved in arbitration and will only interfere when there are egregious actions taken on the part of the arbitrator.  Arbitration is the most common form of alternate dispute resolution seen in contract disputes.

MEDIATION

Mediation is defined as a negotiation to resolve differences that is conducted by an impartial party.  The mediation process is considered private and confidential between the parties involved.   A typical mediation will involve the parties themselves as well as their representatives plus an outside, neutral mediator.  The mediator is the focal point of mediation.  His/her job is to listen and evaluate the situation and attempt to resolve the matter through an amicable settlement.   Unlike arbitration, which can be binding, mediation is non-binding on the parties and for any agreement to be upheld in a court of law a contract outlining the settlement must be in writing and signed by both parties.

Mediation has two purposes.  The first is to facilitate the communication between parties so that they may, on their own accord, come to a mutual agreement about a dispute.  If that does not happen mediation will take another form in which the mediator will take into account the facts and evidence presented and make a prediction on how a court of law might decide the matter.  Mediation is most often the route taken in interpersonal disputes such as divorce, estates, and other family matters.

LITIGATION

Of course the most well known form of conflict resolution in the legal system is litigation.  Litigation involves the disputing parties going into court to have a judge or jury decide the matter for them.  Litigation is by far the most costly form of legal conflict resolution and many should attempt to resolve their differences with a form of alternate dispute resolution prior to going down that path.

What Kind of Conflict Strategies Exist?

Conflict is an inevitable part of human interaction, and it can arise in any situation where people have different perspectives or goals. In order to effectively manage conflict, it’s important to have a variety of strategies at your disposal. In this article, we’ll discuss the different strategies that exist for managing conflict, including their advantages and disadvantages.

Collaboration

Collaboration is a strategy that seeks to find a solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. This is achieved by working together to identify the underlying interests of all parties, and then devising a solution that meets those interests. Collaboration can be effective, especially in situations where the parties have ongoing relationships and need to preserve a sense of trust. However, it can be time-consuming and may require a high level of cooperation and mutual respect.

Competing

Competing is a strategy that seeks to “win” the conflict by getting the other party to acquiesce to your position. This strategy is often used in situations where quick, decisive action is required, or where one party has leverage over the other. However, competing can also create or exacerbate feelings of animosity, and may damage relationships between the parties involved.

Compromising

Compromising is a strategy that seeks to find a solution that meets the needs of all parties involved, without necessarily satisfying everyone’s interests completely. This strategy can be effective in situations where there is a time pressure to resolve the conflict, or where it is important to maintain a sense of cooperation between the parties involved. However, compromise can also result in a less-than-ideal solution if the parties are not able to find a mutually beneficial outcome.

Accommodating

Accommodating is a strategy that seeks to meet the needs of the other party, often at the expense of one’s own interests. This strategy can be effective in situations where the other party has significantly more power or leverage, or where preserving the relationship between the parties is more important than the outcome of the conflict. However, accommodating can also result in feelings of resentment or dissatisfaction if one party feels that their needs are not being met.

Avoiding

Avoiding is a strategy that seeks to ignore or avoid the conflict altogether. This is often done in situations where the parties involved feel that the cost of addressing the conflict outweighs the benefits. However, avoiding can also result in a lack of resolution and may cause the underlying issues to fester and grow worse over time.

Conclusion

There are many different strategies that can be used to manage conflict, and the choice of strategy will depend on the specific situation. Collaboration, competing, compromising, accommodating, and avoiding are all valid strategies, but each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The key to effective conflict management is to have a variety of strategies at your disposal, and to be able to choose the strategy that is most appropriate for each situation.

What are sometimes of Conflict Resolution Strategies?

There are numerous strategies for conflict resolution.  The most prevalent strategies in today’s society are the Khun and Poole’s model, the Dechurch and Mark’s Meta-Taxonomy model and the most current model known as the Rahim model.

What is the Khun and Poole model?

Khun and Poole’s model consists of two main sub-models, distributive and integrative.  The distributive sub-model involves the allocation of wins and losses between the parties.  The goal here is to have each party win some concessions.  It builds up confidence in the individuals and make each think that they are benefiting.  The integrative sub-model focuses on compromise.  There are no winners or losers in this sub-model.  The goal is to try to integrate the needs of both parties and meet halfway.  Studies have shown that the integrative model is more effective than the distributive model.

What is the DeChurch and Mark’s Meta-Taxonomy Model?

In the DeChurch and Mark’s Meta-Taxonomy Model the researchers found that conflict resolution can be broken down into two basic subtexts.  The first is activeness.  This involves a  parties directness in solving a problem, are they direct and assertive with what they want out of negotiations or are they passive and unpleasant.  The second subtext is agreeableness.  In agreeableness the parties are evaluated bases on how pleasant and relaxed they are.  It comes as no surprise that parties that are more hostile to each other are much less likely to come to a compromise over matters.  After the study was concluded the researchers found that no matter how positive the activeness portion was on the effectiveness of the outcome the more agreeable the parties were the more effective the outcome.

What is the Rahim approach?

The Rahim approach integrates five different approaches in one.  The idea behind it is that there is no one conclusive model to conflict resolution.  It involves integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising.  Integration involves the open exchange of information between the parties and looking for alternatives.  Obliging involves highlighting the similarities between the parties and minimizing the differences.  Dominating involves one of the parties attempting to achieve complete success, giving little regard to the needs and wants of the other party.  Avoiding involves the avoidance of both parties concerns and needs.  Compromising involves a give and take solution where both parties attempt to relinquish some goal that they may have in order to gain in another aspect of the negotiation.  There are different criteria that need to be met do decide on when and how to implement these different approaches.  Some of them work well when matters are complex and others work well when the matters are of a trivial nature.