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.

Although there are a number of ways a mediation process can proceed, there is a general framework that ensures that the process is methodical, fair and logical.  These steps are applicable to all forms of mediation, from interpersonal disputes, divorce proceedings or workplace issues.  This process will ensure that the two parties properly represent their case and the mediators have ample time to confer and decide on the frame work of an agreement.  It is important that both parties receive a fair amount of time to state their case and review settlement options.

Steps to a mediation process

The mediation process starts with rules of conduct, with both parties made aware of acceptable conduct during the proceedings and the prior knowledge that the mediator has on the dispute gleaned from briefs or any other sources.  All in the room agree on a timeframe for the mediation to reach its resolution.
The two parties will each make their case to the mediators, from their perspective and in their own words.  This is not treated as testimony would in court, but rather as an opportunity for the mediator to get a better feel of the perspectives of both parties.

The mediator will then ask both parties relevant questions about the issues, once again to gain a better understanding of the way the issue is framed in their mind.  Unlike in legal proceedings, these questions are not used to incriminate or pass judgment, only to ensure the mediator has the best possible understanding of the dispute and how he might resolve it.  Through this all, the mediator is thinking about how the case might be resolved.

Following this, the mediator may make some preliminary proposals which can be debated and modified by the parties.  A “caucus” with the client and either/or his attorney or mediator is also a common means of resolving the dispute and asserting the needs of the party.  Further proposals are made here to bring about a settlement.

With the mediator as the third party, eventually a settlement is agreed on and the dispute is resolved.  If the agreement is legally binding, it must be reviewed by attorneys and notorized.

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.

Criminal Litigation: Understanding the Process

Criminal litigation is a legal proceeding that takes place when a person is accused of a crime. It is a complex legal process that involves criminal prosecution, defendant representation, and a trial in court. In this article, we will discuss the key aspects of criminal litigation, including the pre-trial process, trial, and the appeals stage.

Pre-Trial Process

The pre-trial process begins when an individual is arrested and booked into jail. During the pre-trial process, the prosecution will conduct an investigation and gather evidence against the defendant. The defendant’s attorney may also conduct an investigation to obtain evidence that supports their client’s defense. During this time, the prosecution and defense team will engage in plea bargaining discussions to reach a plea agreement that can avoid a trial. If a plea agreement is not reached, the case moves to the trial phase.

Trial

The trial is the most important stage of the criminal litigation process. During the trial, the prosecution presents evidence to the court supporting their accusations against the defendant. The defense attorney will challenge the prosecution’s evidence and present evidence to support their client’s case. The trial may be a bench trial, where a judge decides the case, or a jury trial, where a group of impartial peers decides the case. The trial concludes when the verdict is announced, either guilty or not guilty.

Appeals

If the defendant is found guilty at trial, they have the option to appeal the decision to a higher court. The appeals process involves presenting legal arguments to a higher court to overturn the original conviction. The appeals process is not an opportunity to present new evidence but instead focuses on whether the trial was conducted fairly and the defendant’s rights were protected during the process.

Conclusion

Criminal litigation is a complex and intricate process that can have severe consequences for both the defendant and the prosecution. Understanding the different stages of the process, from pre-trial to trial and appeals, is crucial in navigating the legal system. By having a clear understanding of the process and working with a skilled criminal defense attorney, defendants can protect their rights, present a strong defense, and achieve the best possible outcome in their case.

What Is Criminal Litigation?

Criminal Litigation is the process of going to trial in a criminal court to either prosecute or defend oneself in a criminal matter.  The Due Process clause of the United States Constitution specifically states that individuals “may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” In leamans terms this means that prior to the government ordering incarceration for an individual who has, allegedly, committed a crime the government must give that person his day in court.  Criminal Litigation may involve a misdemeanor, often defined as a crime with an incarceration period of no more than 12 months and/or a fine not to be above a certain amount.  It may also involve a felony, which is categorized, generally, as crimes that require longer jail time and/or higher fines.  Criminal Litigation can take place in either Federal or State Court depending on the nature of the crime.

What Is The Difference Between Civil And Criminal Litigation?

There are a number of essential differences between civil and Criminal Litigation.  First and foremost, CRIMINAL LITIGATION involves the prosecution by the State or Federal government of a defendant charged with a crime.  Civil litigation involves matters between individuals or entities against each other for matters such as torts and contract disputes.  The idea of CRIMINAL LITIGATION is to punish, the purpose of CIVIL LITIGATION is to “correct a wrong.”

Am I Entitled To Legal Representation In Criminal Litigation?

The Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright single handedly ended the debate over whether or not a defendant charged with a felony is entitled to court appointed counsel, also known as a public defender.  Argersinger v. Hamlin built on this precedent by noting that the right to counsel to all misdemeanor state proceedings where there is a possibility of a loss of liberty.  As for misdemeanor’s that involve only the imposition of a fine, whether it be minor or excessive the “jury is still out” but some States have recognized that the imposition of excessive fines are considered criminal and as such the right to counsel under the 6th Amendment is necessary.  As with any other legal matter it is important to research and discover the procedural statutes and case precedents in your State to determine your rights or those of others.

What Are The Procedural Aspects Of Criminal Litigation?

Because being charged with a criminal offense is such a serious matter and not only carries with it possible incarceration, criminal fines, and/or public stigma there are numerous safeguards put into place.  Many States in the Union require that the State present their evidence to a grand jury prior to charging a suspect of a felony.  A grand jury, unlike a trial jury, does not sit for just one case and does not administer guilt or innocence.  The job of the grand jury is strictly to listen to the evidence presented by the prosecution and make a determination as to whether the State should file criminal charges against a defendant.

What Are My Rights When Subjected To Criminal Litigation?

In brief, there are numerous Constitutional rights associated with Criminal Litigation.  States have expanded on these rights in some cases.  For example, New York’s 6th Amendment protection goes above and beyond that proscribed by the Constitution and the Federal laws.  Most importantly, a defendant is protected by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution.  A thorough reading and understanding of them is essential to insure that your rights are being protected.

Arbitrator Overview: Understanding the Role of a Neutral Third Party

Arbitration is a private dispute resolution process that involves the use of a neutral third party called an arbitrator. The arbitrator is appointed by the parties involved in the dispute to make a binding decision that resolves the issue. In this article, we will discuss the role of an arbitrator and how they assist in resolving disputes.

Arbitrator Qualifications

Arbitrators are typically selected based on their qualifications and experience. The parties involved in the dispute may agree on the qualifications required for the arbitrator, including their industry expertise and legal background. The selected arbitrator should be objective, impartial, and free from any conflicts of interest.

Arbitration Process

The arbitration process typically begins with the appointment of an arbitrator. The arbitrator will then establish guidelines for the arbitration process, including procedural rules and timelines. The arbitrator will facilitate communication between both parties and conduct an investigation to determine facts and evidence related to the dispute. After conducting the investigation, the arbitrator will make a binding decision on the dispute.

Arbitration Advantages

Arbitration has several advantages over traditional litigation. Arbitration is usually much quicker and less expensive than litigation, making it a preferred option for many businesses and individuals seeking to resolve disputes. Arbitration is also confidential, which can be beneficial for parties who do not want to air their dispute in a public court. Additionally, arbitrators have expertise and knowledge in the specific industry or area of law related to the dispute, providing an expert decision.

Disadvantages of Arbitration

While arbitration has many advantages, it also has some disadvantages. For example, parties may have limited access to discovery procedures or appeals, as in traditional litigation. Additionally, while the parties may choose the arbitrator, they are unable to control the final outcome of the decision.

Conclusion

Arbitration is a popular dispute resolution process that involves the use of a neutral third party called an arbitrator. Arbitrators are selected based on their qualifications, experience, and impartiality. During the arbitration process, the arbitrator facilitates communication between both parties, conducts an investigation and makes a binding decision on the dispute. While there are some disadvantages to arbitration, including limited access to discovery and appeals, it is an efficient and effective way to resolve disputes in a confidential and neutral setting.

What is an arbitrator?

An arbitrator is neutral individual brought in to help negotiate an agreement between parties in what is known as arbitration.  An arbitrator is not court appointed and the parties themselves are the ones who choose the arbitrator.  Arbitrators are used in civil matters, especially contract disputes and depending on the specifics their decision can be either binding or non-binding.

What are the qualifications for being an arbitrator?

The American Arbitration Association keeps a current roster of Arbitrators and lists a number of qualifications that an individual must meet in order to be an arbitrator.  These qualifications include:

·?

Even though an arbitrator is free to make his/her own determinations about disputes there are essential rules that an arbitrator must follow.  Most importantly is neutrality.  An arbitrator must have no bias or prejudice towards any party or matter involved and is capable of applying standard principles to the matter at hand.   The arbitrator must also be capable of managing the hearing process as well as making an impartial evaluation of evidence.

Why would I want an arbitrator?

There are numerous reasons why parties on the track of litigation may want an arbitrator make a decision in lieu of court intervention.  One of the most compelling reasons is the cost.  Court costs, attorney’s fees, and judgment awards can easily add up to the tens of thousands of dollars.  In contrast, arbitration, although costly, is comparatively inexpensive.  The cost of an arbitrator can often be between $1,000 and $2,000 per day.  Arbitration, in general, will last than $10,000 on average, and that cost will be split between the parties involved.

Another reason to get an arbitrator is that arbitration is considerably less time consuming than litigation.  Litigation can last for months, if not years, when you factor in pre-trial, trial, appeals, etc.  In contrast, arbitration will consist of 3 to 4 days on average.

Other reasons for picking an arbitrator are that arbitration is not a public issue and the exclusionary rules of evidence do not apply.  Because many potential litigants do not wish to have their “dirty laundry” brought into the public eye they might choose arbitration instead.  Arbitration is a private matter with no public record.  The arbitrator is sworn to uphold confidentiality.  For this reason, many corporations require mandatory arbitration so that these issues are not brought into the public eye.  Arbitration is also considered a “free for all.” The exclusionary rules of evidence are not applicable as are the rules of civil procedure.  Depending on the evidence this may be a positive or negative aspect of arbitration, depending on who holds damning evidence that would be considered inadmissible in a court of law.