The multi-door courthouse (MDC) as currently conceived needs to be reconsidered, according to the author. The MDC model calls for cases to be screened to determine which among an array of dispute resolution processes is best suited to each case. The author says this model is too labor-intensive for high-volume courts, requires courts and parties to make decisions too soon in the case about the best method to resolve it, offers more options than necessary and is prone to human error. Further, the current voluntary process asks parties to publicly commit to mediation, which can tip their hand about settlement. The author uses empirical analysis of mediated cases in Cobb County, Georgia, as well as a review of previous studies, to inform his argument for significant reform.

Using multiple regression analysis, the author found that settlement was more likely in cases that focused on the relationship rather than money and that were simple rather than complex. In addition, the number of notices about mediation that were sent to the parties was a good indicator of whether the case would settle. Those cases that required more notices to be sent to the parties (indicating that they were not responsive) were less likely to settle when the case eventually went to mediation. He also calculated the average cost to the court and the parties for each mediation. Administrative costs to the court were $433/case, while the cost to the parties averaged $1,858.33.
His examination of Cobb County as well as a study of a pilot program in the Northern District of California found that parties take the path of least resistance when deciding what process to use, selecting the default process offered by the court. For example, in Cobb County, courts can offer a wide range of options, but parties use mediation 98% of the time. In the Northern District of California, cases were assigned either to the traditional route or to early neutral evaluation but parties could opt to change which process they used. The parties almost always stayed with the process they were assigned to.

Given this information, the author advocates for a model in which parties are allowed the time to either let the matter drop, settle on their own, or make an informed decision about the best dispute resolution process to use. Further, each party's decision regarding whether to mediate should not be known to the other party. This, he says, would allow parties to decide to mediate without worrying about it having a negative impact on their negotiation. Later, if needed, the court can determine the appropriateness of a case for mediation by looking at particular factors that make it more or less amenable to settlement, such as those the author found in Cobb County.

Other interesting findings from the study include: cases mediated by women are more likely to settle, cases mediated by attorneys are slightly more likely to settle, and those mediators most likely to help parties reach settlement aren't necessarily the ones that were selected by the parties.