Mediation-Arbitration - The Hybrid
Suppose it is not clear whether mediation or arbitration is the best tool to resolve your dispute. Mediation is appealing because of its emphasis on letting you reach a collaborative settlement. However, perhaps you are worried that mediation could end in stalemate. You know that arbitration would give you an equally fast and conclusive resolution of the dispute, but it does not give you much say in the outcome. What if you could have the chance of a collaborative settlement, and the certainty of the matter being resolved?
I offer the hybrid approach of beginning in the mediation role, and then switching to the arbitration role when mediation does not yield a resolution. The Mediation Arbitration or “med-arb” hybrid is very efficient. It enables me to learn about the case during the mediation phase, so that everyone has an informed arbitrator, should arbitration become necessary. When regular mediation fails, it can take considerable time and effort bring the matter back in front of a judge or other decision-maker: “med-arb.” avoids that time and expense.
As a dispute resolution professional, I can discuss the pros and cons of this approach. For example, you may prefer to have mediation with one professional, and have a different person standing by to arbitrate. This more complicated arrangement solves the potential disadvantage that people may hold back in front of a single med-arbiter, when they don't want to reveal information that might disadvantage them in any arbitration.
Mediation-Decision Making (Med-DM) is not part of the lexicon of family lawyers, but it should be. This is just mediation followed by decision-making under CRS 14-10-128.3, rather than arbitration under CRS 14-10-128.5. I do offer this as a service, and it is the closest I come to working as a PC-DM, as I do not take PC appointments.
I offer the hybrid approach of beginning in the mediation role, and then switching to the arbitration role when mediation does not yield a resolution. The Mediation Arbitration or “med-arb” hybrid is very efficient. It enables me to learn about the case during the mediation phase, so that everyone has an informed arbitrator, should arbitration become necessary. When regular mediation fails, it can take considerable time and effort bring the matter back in front of a judge or other decision-maker: “med-arb.” avoids that time and expense.
As a dispute resolution professional, I can discuss the pros and cons of this approach. For example, you may prefer to have mediation with one professional, and have a different person standing by to arbitrate. This more complicated arrangement solves the potential disadvantage that people may hold back in front of a single med-arbiter, when they don't want to reveal information that might disadvantage them in any arbitration.
Mediation-Decision Making (Med-DM) is not part of the lexicon of family lawyers, but it should be. This is just mediation followed by decision-making under CRS 14-10-128.3, rather than arbitration under CRS 14-10-128.5. I do offer this as a service, and it is the closest I come to working as a PC-DM, as I do not take PC appointments.