General Civil

Court-Connected Mediation in General Civil Cases: What We Know from Empirical Research

Description
Presents the findings from three empirical studies of nine courts in Ohio: two studies involved pilot mediation programs in five courts; one involved a “settlement week” mediation program in four courts.

Method
Questionnaires were distributed to parties and attorneys at the end of the mediation session in all cases mediated during the study periods; questionnaires were completed before leaving the courthouse. Used case files and mediator logs to determine timing of referral, time to disposition, case activity, and mediation characteristics. Data for all courts was aggregated – for process, outcome, and participant perception. The mean response for all courts together was calculated. For relationships between variables (e.g. program characteristics and settlement), a meta-analysis was conducted.

Sample Size
1811 cases in pilot programs (1060 assigned to mediation, 683 not assigned)

Program Variables
Semi-voluntary programs in which 73% of cases entered mediation through court order or request by one party. In pilot courts, recent cases were also randomly assigned. Mediation was free to the parties. Mediators in pilot courts were attorneys on staff; mediators for the settlement week program were volunteers who were attorneys. The mediation style tended to be evaluative. Cases in the pilot programs were referred approximately 4 months after filing; for settlement week, mediation occurred on average 10.5 months after filing.

Full Findings
Taken in aggregate, 72% of parties to mediation in all programs perceived the process to be very fair. 55% were satisfied with the mediation process. In aggregate, 89% of attorneys perceived the mediation process to be very fair. Of those parties who settled in mediation, 78% thought their settlement was very (56%) or somewhat (22%) fair. 97% of attorneys who settled their case through mediation thought the settlement was very (75%) or somewhat (22%) fair. There was no difference between mediated and non-mediated cases in the number of motions filed or decided.

Early referral led to shorter time to disposition – for both cases that settled and those that did not. Parties were more likely to believe time and money were saved if the case settled in mediation.

Evaluation of the Early Mediation Pilot Programs

Method
Study of cases filed 2000 to 2001. Examined court records to determine percent of cases going to trial. Looked at both time from filing to close and percent of cases that reached disposition within a specified time from filing. Used trial rate and number of pretrial hearings to determine court workload. Asked judges to estimate number of hours per event to determine time and money savings to court. Mailed questionnaires to all attorneys who filed cases during study period regarding their experience with the court and the litigation process; asked attorneys to send forms to parties as well. Also asked parties, attorneys, and insurance adjusters who participated in mediation to fill out questionnaires at the end of the session. Asked attorneys to provide information on the estimated number of hours worked for each case, as well as fees charged to litigants. Also asked them to estimate cost and work hours saved if case settled in mediation.

Sample Size
23,792 eligible cases of unlimited jurisdiction, of which 6,320 were mediated; 7,727 eligible cases of limited jurisdiction (under $25,000, excluding small claims), of which 1,570 were mediated

Program Variables
Pilot project began in 2000 in all courts except Los Angeles, which began in June 2001. However, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Contra Costa all had mediation programs in place before the pilots started. Statute enabling establishment of the pilots authorized initial case management conference to be earlier than in other courts (90 days as opposed to 120-150 days), at which ADR options were discussed. In practice, case management conference was 120-150 days post filing in San Diego, 90-150 days post filing in Los Angeles, 140 days post-filing in Contra Costa, and 120 days post filing in Sonoma. There was no conference in Fresno unless the parties wanted to contest referral to mediation. The deadline for completing mediation in San Diego, Los Angeles, and Fresno was 60-90 days after order or stipulation, 240 days from filing for Contra Costa, and as provided in the stipulation in Sonoma.

In mandatory courts, court could order the case to mediation. In the voluntary courts, cases were referred to mediation if parties stipulated to referral. Parties could choose mediators from a roster or any they want. Roster mediators were paid by the court for the first few (three or four, depending on the court) hours of mediation in the mandatory programs. In Contra Costa, the parties paid the mediators, but the first two hours were free. In Sonoma, the parties paid the market rate.

Full Findings
58% of unlimited cases and 71% of limited cases settled as a result of mediation. Looking at all cases (comparing all cases in each group, not just those that went to mediation to those that did not), the trial rate was reduced 24 to 30 percent in San Diego and Los Angeles. The number of motions and/or pretrial court events was lower for program cases in San Diego (2.51 total pre-trial hearings v 3.0). In the other courts there were mixed results – more case management conferences offset the lower number of motions and other pre-trial hearings. Potential savings if the pilot were expanded to all eligible cases were estimated to be 479 judge days per year ($1.4 million) in San Diego, 132 judge days per year ($395,000) in Los Angeles, and 3 judge days per year ($9,770) in Sonoma. There was some positive impact on the time from filing to disposition for mediated cases in San Diego (310 days v 329 for unlimited, 247 v 272 for limited), Los Angeles (241 days v 264 for unlimited), and Fresno (348 days v 398 for unlimited), and no significant difference in Contra Costa and Sonoma.

In a comparison of the attorneys’ estimates of litigation costs and attorney hours spent on the case, cost estimates were 60% lower and attorney hours were 43% lower in Contra Costa. In all other pilot counties, there was no significant difference in the estimates. However, if cases settled at mediation, the cost estimates were significantly lower in Contra Costa, San Diego, and Fresno. Attorneys’ estimates of savings (as opposed to estimated costs) for cases settled at mediation ranged from 75% in Los Angeles to 95% in Sonoma.

Satisfaction of attorneys was higher in program cases than non-program cases for court services and the litigation process. There were no significant differences in satisfaction with the outcome except in Contra Costa, where mediated outcomes were viewed more favorably. Attorney satisfaction with the outcome was tied to whether the case settled. In post-mediation questionnaire, both parties and attorneys ranked mediation highly on fairness questions. In both satisfaction and fairness, attorneys had higher rankings than parties. Party satisfaction was correlated with whether: they believed mediation helped improve communication, the cost of mediation was seen as affordable, the mediator treated all parties fairly, and they felt they had a chance to tell their views. Attorney satisfaction was correlated with whether they believed the process to be fair, whether the outcome was seen as fair, that mediation was seen to help the case come to resolution quickly, and that the mediator treated all parties fairly.

An Evaluation of the Effect of Court-Ordered Mediation and Proactive Case Management on the Pace of Civil Tort Litigation in Lake County, Indiana

Method
Examined all cases filed in two courtrooms (one proactive and one traditional) from 1993 through 1997. Calculated median time to disposition for mediated and non-mediated cases and compared as well the time to disposition between the proactive and traditional courtroom. Uncontested and easily settled cases were separated from cases that were more difficult to settle in order to better compare between mediated and non-mediated cases. Statistics were aggregated by year, and then the median was averaged over the 5 years in the study period.

Sample Size
4,760 cases: 3,107 cases in the proactive courtroom and 1,653 cases in the traditional courtroom. 2,473 cases (52%) were mediated: 1,914 cases in the proactive courtroom (61.6%) and 559 cases in the traditional courtroom (33.8%)

Program Variables
Voluntary program. In the proactive courtroom, an initial status conference was held 6 months after filing, at which time referral to mediation occurred for cases in which the judge felt it was appropriate. Mediation generally occurred after discovery was completed and before the pre-trial conference. In the traditional courtroom, cases were referred to mediation after the pre-trial conference, after the conclusion of a dispositive motion hearing or at the request of one of the attorneys.

Full Findings
Median time to disposition averaged 32% shorter for the proactive courtroom than for the traditional courtroom over each of the 5 years in the study period. Mediated cases took longer to reach disposition in both courtrooms. In the proactive courtroom, median time to disposition averaged 129% longer for mediated cases than for non-mediated cases; in the traditional courtroom, median time to disposition averaged 133% longer. However, when uncontested and easily settled cases were removed from the sample, median time to disposition for mediated cases averaged 4 months earlier than non-mediated cases.

A larger percent of cases in the proactive courtroom went to trial, and in the proactive courtroom, a higher percentage of mediated cases went to trial. The proactive courtroom was more effective at reducing backlog; 3% of the cases filed in the proactive courtroom during the study period remained open at the end of the study, while 8.9% of the cases filed in the traditional courtroom remained open. Mediated cases in the proactive courtroom were less likely to be open than non-mediated cases, while in the traditional courtroom, mediated cases were more likely to be open.

Participant Satisfaction Survey of Court-Connected ADR Programs

Description
A survey of participants in 15 civil mediation programs throughout Georgia, which included a large number of family cases.

Method
Surveys were either given to participants at the end of the mediation session or mailed to them after all sessions were completed.

Sample Size
70% of all cases mediated in five court programs from May to November 1999. This included 550 litigants and 331 attorneys.

Program Variables
The programs were largely voluntary, but mediation could be mandated by the court. Mediators were paid by the parties for their services.

Full Findings
Participants did not feel that they spent less time litigating their case if they went to mediation. They also felt they were spending more money by doing so, but they were over all satisfied with the process and outcome. They were more satisfied if they chose their own mediator.

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil Justice Systems

Description
Study in three counties examining the effect of mediation on case flow and the effect of case status at the time of mediation on the probability of reaching agreement.

Method
Each of the three pilot sites provided 40 randomly-selected cases that were ordered to mediation under the pilot program and were disposed between March 1, 2007 and September 17, 2009.

Sample Size
93 cases, 51 of which were mediated

Program Variables
Pilot program in which mediation is ordered for cases valued under $25,000 and the case evaluation award was rejected. Parties are allowed to select a private mediator. If they forego that option, the case is referred to a community mediation center for mediation by a volunteer with 40 hours of mediation skills training. Cases in the study were referred an average of 340 days after filing. 91% were referred to a community mediation center.

Full Findings
Of the 93 cases referred to mediation, 5 were disposed of through summary judgment before mediation and another 32 (34%) settled prior to mediation. Of the 56 cases that went to mediation 30 (54%) settled at mediation, 9 settled through settlement conference post-mediation, and 6 settled after mediation. Of those that did not settle during or after mediation, 4 were disposed of through summary or default judgment and 7 went to trial. Cases that settled at mediation had an average disposition time of 403 days. The 7 cases that went to trial averaged 733 days to disposition.

Evaluation of the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program (Rule 24.1): Final Report — The First 23 Months

Description
Study of the effect of Rule 24.1, which mandates mediation for non-family civil disputes that are case managed, on two courts with mediation programs already in place (Ottawa and Toronto).

Method
Two-part questionnaires were sent to lawyers and litigants. Part A was to be returned within 2 days of mediation; Part B was to be returned within 10 days of the final disposition. Time to disposition comparison was done between cases filed prior to the commencement of the program and those that were filed after the program started.

Sample Size
Satisfaction questionnaires were sent for 3210 cases. Lawyers returned Part A questionnaires for 35% of those cases and Part B questionnaires for 16%; litigants returned Part A questionnaires for 19% of cases and Part B questionnaires for 10%. The control group had a 72% response rate. For time to disposition, random samples of 704 mediated cases in Ottawa and 1618 in Toronto (of 2689 and 3539 cases, respectively) were selected, and 1093 cases were randomly selected for the control group (of 1437).

Program Variables
Mandatory mediation conducted for a fee.

Full Findings
The settlement rate was 41% full, 13% partial in Ottawa, and 38% full, 21% partial in Toronto.

For each case type, a higher percentage of Rule 24.1 cases were disposed of within 6 months than for cases in the control group (in which cases were managed but only a few were mediated). Time to disposition appeared to be quicker after Rule 24.1.

85% of litigants in both Ottawa and Toronto said mediation had a positive impact on cost, while 78% of lawyers in Toronto and 80% in Ottawa said so. Lawyers estimated cost savings to their clients to be more than $10,000 in 38% of mediated cases, to be less than $5000 in 34% of them, and between $5000 and $10,000 in 28% of them.

Satisfaction and fairness ratings were higher in Ottawa than Toronto, with 82% of litigants in Ottawa and 65% in Toronto indicating they were satisfied with the mediation process. In addition, 41% of litigants in Ottawa and 30% in Toronto thought the settlement was fairer than without mandatory mediation, while 16% and 21%, respectively, thought it was not. Lawyer responses were similar to those of litigants.

Multi-Option ADR Project Evaluation Report

Method
A survey was sent to 600 ADR participants to determine case status and satisfaction with the selected disposition process

Sample Size
2254 cases in the mediation group, 244 cases in the control group, and 243 cases in the pre-program group

Program Variables
Program was begun in 1996. The options included a for-fee civil and probate mediation program, a for-fee family law mediation program, a free small claims mediation program, a free judicial arbitration program, and a free juvenile dependency mediation program. Roster mediators in for-fee options were paid by the parties. The program was voluntary; parties selected an ADR process and the neutral during the case management phase (which begins 120 days after filing).

Full Findings
Survey responses indicated that 64% of cases filed participated in some form of ADR. Of those, 65% settled or partly settled in the ADR session. The most utilized method of ADR was mediation; 88% of those who reported using ADR participated in mediation. Another 6% used private settlement, 3% used early neutral evaluation, and 2% used arbitration. Most cases participated in ADR after some discovery had been conducted. Of those who responded, 76% thought that ADR reduced court time. They also overwhelmingly thought the process was fair.
 

An Evaluation of Selected Mediation Programs in the Massachusetts Trial Court

Description
Looked at the attitudes of parties toward mediation in 6 District Court programs and 3 Superior Court programs in Massachusetts.

Method
Used exit survey data from about 80% of all district court cases and 63% of Superior Court cases.

Sample Size
487 responses in District Court (at least one response from approximately 80% of all cases); 642 in Superior Court (at least one response from approximately 63% of all cases)

Program Variables
District Court programs were voluntary, mediated by volunteers, and free to participants. Superior Court programs were voluntary and mediated for a fee. The programs had been in existence several years at the time the study was conducted.

Full Findings
33% of District Court mediation participants believed mediation reduced their costs; 45% said it did not. In two of the Superior Court programs 47% of parties thought that mediation reduced their costs while 26% thought it did not. Only 20% of participants in the third program thought their costs were reduced by mediating their case; 49% thought they were not reduced. These results contrast with the responses of the lawyers, 40-67% of whom believed mediation reduced their clients' costs.

In District Court, 70-80% of parties were completely or mostly satisfied with the outcome; 92-100% were satisfied with the fairness of the process. However, only 40% thought mediation improved their relationship with the other party. In the Superior Court programs, 51-71% were satisfied with the outcome of their mediation, while 89-94% were satisfied with the fairness of the process. Fewer believed mediation improved their relationship with the other party, with only 23-43% believing so. There was a high correlation between satisfaction with the outcome and satisfaction with the fairness of the process.

A Report to the Minnesota Supreme Court: The Impact of Rule 114 on Civil Litigation Practice in Minnesota

Description
Evaluation of the impact of Minnesota Supreme Court Rule 114 (requiring attorneys to consider ADR in every civil case and discuss it with their clients and opposing counsel) on the use of mediation in Minnesota..

Method
In-depth personal interviews with 23 civil litigators. From this data, a questionnaire was developed and sent to 1000 attorneys in all 10 judicial districts. The attorneys were randomly selected and proportioned according to the district’s caseload.

Sample Size
748 of 1000 attorneys responded to the survey

Program Variables
Program was in existence more than 10 years at the time of study.

Full Findings
Attorneys chose mediation because it saved litigation expenses (67.9%) and because it made settlement more likely (57.4%). However, they did not think it reduced their workload. Mediation as compared to litigation process: 46.7% said it saved attorney time, 26.1% said it provided greater client satisfaction, and 9.0% said it caused attorneys to make less money.

The Effects of Mandatory Mediation: Empirical Research on the Experience of Small Claims and Common Pleas Courts

Description
Reports on two studies comparing mandatory and voluntary mediation: one of mediation in small claims courts and another of mediation conducted in a “settlement week” in common pleas courts.

Method
Small claims: telephone interviews of parties in small claims cases 6-12 weeks after mediation/trial. Civil: questionnaires completed by mediators, attorneys, and parties.

Sample Size
Small claims: 171 parties involved in 124 cases. Parties in 37 cases were mandated to mediate; parties in 87 cases participated voluntarily. Civil: 570 mediators, 1124 attorneys, and 646 parties involved in 610 cases completed questionnaires.

Program Variables
Mediation on-site and provided free of charge by volunteer mediators.

Full Findings
The settlement rate was lower for mandated cases than for voluntary ones. There was no greater sense of pressure to settle for either group. Participants in both mandatory and voluntary mediation were satisfied with the process and outcome, but fewer mandatory participants were satisfied or perceived the process to be fair. Parties thought they were saving time; attorneys thought processing time was greater.

An Evaluation of Mediation and Early Neutral Evaluation Under the Civil Justice Reform Act

Evaluation of pilot mediation programs in the US District Courts of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of New York, the Western District of Oklahoma, and the Southern District of Texas.

Method
In each of the four districts, 150 mediated cases were compared to 150 non-mediated cases. Cases were randomly assigned in Pennsylvania and New York and matched in Oklahoma and Texas. Data sources were court records, reports of CJRA advisory groups, case dockets, attorney and ADR provider surveys, and interviews with judges, court staff, lawyers, and ADR providers.

Sample Size
150 mediated cases and 150 non-mediated cases in each of the four districts

Program Variables
Two programs were mandatory (PA, NY), two programs voluntary (OK, TX). Mediations were conducted by volunteer mediators in PA and NY and by paid mediators in OK and TX. Attendance by the parties at the mediation was voluntary in NY. Total time in mediation averaged 6 hours in NY, 1-2 hours in PA, 5 hours in OK, and 8 hours in TX. The mediation style was primarily evaluative in NY and PA and facilitative in OK and TX. The programs were in place less than three years at the outset of the study.

Full Findings
There was no difference in time to disposition between mediation and non-mediation groups in PA, OK, and NY, and significantly slower in mediation in TX. No evidence was found showing that lawyer work hours or fees were affected by mediation. There was no difference in satisfaction as viewed by attorneys, but attorneys were satisfied over all.

A Comparative Analysis on the Benefits of Mediation in the Cobb County Superior Court

Description
Examination of the effect of mediation on court backlog. Four case types were involved: divorce, custody, damages-contract, and damages-tort.

Method
For time to disposition, trial rate and number of court appearances, a comparison was done between cases filed prior to the establishment of the mediation program and mediated cases. Took random samples with identical numbers of cases for each case type. Also sent out questionnaires to attorneys, parties, and mediators after the mediation session.

Sample Size
123 cases referred to mediation and 123 cases not referred; 84 of 250 individuals to whom questionnaires were sent

Program Variables
Voluntary program with mediations conducted off-site and for-fee. The program had been in place three years at the time of the study.

Full Findings
Prior to the mediation program, time to disposition ranged from 37 to 1434 days, with a mean of 367.47. After the mediation program commenced, time to disposition ranged from 44 to 974 days, with a mean of 338.73.

The number of court appearances per case prior to the mediation program ranged from 0-15, with a mean of 2.45. This dropped mildly to a range of 0-9 with a mean of 2.04 after the mediation program. The number of trials dropped from 30 to 18.

97% of mediation participants thought the process was fair; 87% were satisfied with mediation as a whole.

Assessment of the Mediation Program of the US District Court for the District of Columbia

Method
Examined court records of mediated cases. Sent questionnaires to all participating attorneys from September 1989 to February 1994, as well as parties and mediators.

Sample Size
325 attorneys (of 1251 contacted), 31 of 86 parties and 65 of 105 mediators participated in the study

Program Variables
Voluntary program mediated by volunteers. Judge referred. Most cases were referred at or near the end of discovery, or when the case was waiting for trial. Most mediations were completed in 1 or 2 sessions. Mediators were assigned to cases. The program was studied over its first 4 years.

Full Findings
49% - 52% settlement rate; 28.7% of attorneys were largely or completely satisfied with the settlement; 32.4% were largely or completely dissatisfied. 63% of parties were satisfied. Satisfaction with the settlement was related to the extent to which the mediation process helped to reduce litigation costs; the extent to which attorneys agreed or disagreed with the statement: "the mediator did not give my client a hearing"; and the degree of initial difference between the parties' bottom lines. 41.6% of attorneys thought mediation was not helpful in reducing litigant costs; 30.6% thought it was helpful. 65.6% of attorneys were satisfied with the program; 19.5% were dissatisfied.

Court-Based Mediation of Civil Cases: An Evaluation of the Ontario Court (General Division) ADR Centre

Description
Evaluation of pilot mandatory civil mediation program in Ottawa.

Method
Questionnaires were sent to lawyers and parties, interviews from matched and then randomly selected cases, examination of court records to compare settlement and disposition patterns of cases that went to mediation and those that did not.

Sample Size
437 lawyers and 268 parties completed questionnaires; 143 interviews were conducted (61 lawyers and 19 litigants from mediated cases, 51 lawyers and 12 litigants from non-mediated cases). 1460 cases referred to mediation and a matched group of cases not referred were compared on settlement and disposition patterns.

Program Variables
Voluntary, free program mediated by staff. The program was newly in place at the beginning of the study.

Full Findings
Lawyers and parties thought processing time was shorter for mediated cases, a perception that was affirmed through court records. Attorneys reported lower fees for mediated cases (43.7% estimated a savings of $1000-$5000). Lawyers and parties thought the process was fair and were satisfied with the process. Those who settled were more likely to be satisfied with mediation.

An Analysis of the Orleans Parish Civil District Court Pilot Mediation Program

Method
All counties with programs were included in the study. Four were researched in depth, including data from court records, litigants, and attorneys. Three of these counties had random assignment to either a mediation group or to a control group that was excluded from mediation. Additional comparison was made with a pre-program group of civil cases. In another nine counties, researchers established trends in disposition times and jury trial rates.

Sample Size
2254 cases in the mediation group, 244 cases in the control group, and 243 cases in the pre-program group

Program Variables
Voluntary program, but judge could mandate mediation for specific cases. Professional mediators paid for off-site sessions. Judge referred cases. Party participation in sessions was voluntary. At the time of study, the program had been in place for 2 years.

Full Findings
Processing time decreased seven weeks with mediation. The trial rate was not affected. Parties appear to have saved some money with mediation. (For plaintiffs, average attorney fees and costs were $6,716 in mediation, $9,667 for conventional settlement, and $30,146 for trial; for defendants, the averages were $4,507, $8,702, and $13,238, respectively.) Perception of fairness of and satisfaction with the process was positive over all for those who participated in the mediation sessions (most did not), but not different from adjudication participants. Perception of fairness of and satisfaction with the mediation outcome was negative over all, and was lower for defendant mediation participants than defendant adjudication participants (plaintiffs’ perception of fairness was the same for both processes).

Hard Cases, Vulnerable People: An Analysis of Mediation Programs at the Multi-Door Courthouse of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Description
Comparative study examining satisfaction and cost of litigation in domestic relations and simple civil case mediation programs in a multi-door courthouse. The findings for the civil case mediation program are reported here.

Method
Conducted telephone interviews of litigants and attorneys, both those who participated in mediation and those who did not. Looked at cases mediated in 1987-89 (approximately 100/year), drew sample of non-mediated cases randomly from cases filed in 1988-1989 and removed those not eligible for mediation.

Sample Size
102 mediated cases; 135 non-mediated cases; 200 litigants (96 mediated, 112 non-mediated) and 138 attorneys (73 mediated, 65 non-mediated) were interviewed

Program Variables
Voluntary program. The case had to have a trial date that was at least three months away in order to be eligible for mediation.

Full Findings
Compliance was about the same for both mediated cases and non-mediated cases. Satisfaction was about the same for mediated and non-mediated cases. Parties and attorneys were significantly more satisfied with the outcome when they settled in mediation. Women were more likely to be satisfied with mediation than men; minorities were not more likely to be satisfied than whites.

An Evaluation of the ADR Pilot Project: Final Report

Description
Examination of the effect of mediation on time and cost in the York and Knox Superior Court, Maine.

Method
Randomly assigned cases to mediation or regular litigation. Allowed those who requested mediation to participate, but separated them into another group. Examined court docket records as well as records from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Sample Size
170 cases assigned to mediation, 156 assigned to regular litigation, 87 cases in the voluntary group

Program Variables
Pilot program with randomized assignment, although parties could request mediation. Mediation occurred relatively early in case, prior to most formal discovery. Discovery was suspended during the mediation process. Parties paid the court a $250 fee for the mediation. Mediators were lawyers with three hours of training. Parties selected the mediator from a list of three provided by clerk. Mediators differed in how they conducted the mediation, with most using more evaluative techniques. In 14% of mediations at least one party was absent from the mediation. In almost all mediations, the lawyers did most of the talking.

Full Findings
In the randomly assigned mediation group, 13% of cases settled prior to mediation, 27% settled at mediation, and 29% settled before trial (69% total). In the voluntary group, 13% settled prior to mediation, 36% in mediation, and 31% settled before trial (79% total). In the regular litigation group, 65% of cases settled.

Cases in the assigned mediation group closed 59 days earlier than in the litigation group; cases in the voluntary mediation group closed 72 days earlier. In cases that were settled, the assigned group settled 77 days earlier than the litigation group, the voluntary group 70 days earlier. Discovery requests averaged 50% higher in the litigation group than in the assigned mediation group, and almost 100% more than in the voluntary group. Motion hearings were twice as frequent in the litigation group than in the assigned group. 20% of the voluntary group, 32% of the assigned group, and 57% of the litigation group reached the list of cases set for trial.

Time from filing to case closure was not affected by mediation.

Mediation of Civil Cases in Hennepin County: An Evaluation

Description
Evaluation of the efficacy of a civil case mediation program in Minnesota.

Method
Randomly assigned cases. Examined court records and distributed questionnaires to litigants and attorneys to gauge their satisfaction.

Sample Size
1186 total cases examined; questionnaires distributed in 182 mediated cases, 209 arbitrated cases, and 170 litigated cases

Program Variables
Voluntary program mediated for-fee. Program was just established at the time of the study.

Full Findings
No difference in time to disposition was found. There was no real sense that costs were saved if mediation resulted in agreement, but there was consensus among lawyers and litigants that costs were greater if parties did not reach agreement in mediation. Trial rates were not affected. Mediated cases had fewer court appearances. Litigants were more satisfied with the mediation process (attorneys thought they were more satisfied with the adjudication process). Litigants perceived the mediation process to be fairer; attorneys thought adjudication was.

Florida's Alternative Dispute Resolution Demonstration Project: An Empirical Assessment

Description
Looked at the impact of mediation on pace, cost and quality of case processing, as well as the impact on judges’ workload.

Method
Examined all mediated cases as well as a random sample of the circuit’s other civil cases. Also surveyed attorneys and made use of a survey of participants in the 6th Judicial Circuit mediation program.

Sample Size
702 mediated cases, 277 attorney surveys and 195 participant surveys

Program Variables
Voluntary program mediated for-fee off-site. The program was newly established at the time of study.

Full Findings
Processing time decreased (but looked at mediation cases from time of referral, not from filing). Parties thought mediation saved them money. Parties perceived the mediation process to be fair, and believed they had greater access to justice than those who adjudicated their case. There was no change in judicial workload since a very small percentage of cases was mediated.