Med-Arb / Arb-Med
Med-Arb and Arb-Med combine traditional mediation and arbitration into one process. Med-Arb starts with mediation. If the parties reach an impasse, an arbitrator would then step in to resolve any remaining disputes. The arbitration phase can be either binding or non-binding depending on the parties’ preference. This might be a good option for parties who want a fast, confidential resolution after an unsuccessful mediation. Arb-Med starts as an arbitration and ends with a mediator mediating the dispute prior to a final award. This option might be useful when neither party is confident in the outcome of the arbitration and would rather resolve the dispute themselves. With both Med-Arb and Arb-Med, the parties can elect to chose a different mediator or arbitrator to handle the second phase, or they can use the same neutral throughout the process. These options allow parties to have greater control and flexibility over the dispute resolution process compared to traditional arbitration and mediation.
Collaborative law brings experts together in a mediation where complex issues exist or there are differing opinions between expert advisors. It also involves attorneys who might be more focused on settlement as opposed to litigation since if the case is not resolved collaboratively the attorneys must withdraw.
Early Neutral Evaluation
Early neutral evaluation (ENE) utilizes neutral unbiased experts to review the parties’ arguments and evidence. A worst-case, best-case scenario is provided to the parties by the neutral, which often brings parties who are far apart to a closer or agreed upon settlement. ENE can help parties focus discovery on the issues that matter most and add insight as to how a judge or jury might view the case.
There are numerous other creative ways to resolve disputes. If you have a unique situation that you would like to discuss, I would be glad to assess your situation confidentially and offer alternatives for you to consider.