When is the Best Time to Mediate a Dispute? Myths Versus Facts

The different stages of a family dispute can be broadly categorized into early, mid, and final stages, each characterized by specific activities and developments. Bear in mind that the progression through these stages may vary depending on the nature of the dispute. That said, you will find below, for your convenience, a general overview of the early, mid, and final stages of a family dispute and how can mediation be used to resolve a quarrel at every stage.

1). Beginning stage

Before filing a lawsuit and incurring significant fees is an optimal time for mediation. Parties are less entrenched in their court victory beliefs, and hostility hasn't fully developed. As cases often take up to two years to reach trial, this early stage offers the best chance for an amicable resolution mostly for the following reasons:

Addressing conflicts early helps prevent them from escalating into more serious issues as early intervention can stop the negative emotions and behaviors from intensifying.

Mediating early allows for the preservation of relationships within the family. As conflicts persist, the damage to relationships may become more severe, making resolution more challenging.

Early mediation fosters open communication between family members. When tensions are lower, individuals may be more willing to express their concerns and listen to the perspectives of others.

Resolving conflicts at an early stage is often more cost-effective. Legal and professional fees can accumulate if the dispute progresses, making it financially beneficial to mediate the issues early.

Early mediation leads to a quicker resolution of issues. This is important for preventing prolonged stress and uncertainty within the family.

Family disputes can take a toll on mental health. Mediating early can help mitigate the emotional impact and contribute to the overall well-being of family members.

Early mediation allows the focus on finding constructive solutions rather than assigning blame. This can lead to more collaborative problem-solving.

Mediation allows for creative and flexible solutions that may not be available in a courtroom. As a result, the parties can more easily explore options that address their specific concerns and find compromises that satisfy everyone involved.

2). Mid-stage

When a case is in progress, lawyers typically focus on completing the necessary discovery to support their case in court. Despite, the reluctancy of some attorneys towards mediation, suggesting it may be perceived as an admission of a weak case, based on our experience, we firmly believe that mediation remains a viable alternative to trial even when a case is already in progress in a court of law for the following reasons:

Mediation even at that stage is still more cost-effective than proceeding to trial. It can save parties significant legal fees, court costs, and other expenses associated with a protracted legal battle.

Mediation is typically faster than a trial. It allows parties to work towards a resolution without lengthy court processes, potentially leading to a quicker and more efficient resolution.

In mediation, parties have more control over the outcome of the dispute. They actively participate in crafting a solution that meets their unique needs and interests, rather than relying on a judge's decision in a trial. To put it simply, trials have uncertain outcomes, as they depend on the judge's decision. Mediation allows parties to have more predictability and certainty in the resolution process.

Mediation proceedings are private and confidential. This can encourage parties to be more open and honest during discussions, as opposed to a public trial where details may become part of the public record.

Parties are more likely to comply with agreements reached through mediation voluntarily. This can lead to better long-term adherence to the terms of the resolution.

3). Late stage

The following is the development that is largely unknown to the public and sometimes disregarded by some lawyers: Judges can mandate the parties to attempt settlement even a week before trial at a time when the pleadings have been filed, discovery completed, and substantial attorney fees have accrued.

These mandatory mediations are known as settlement conferences. A judge may mandate parties to attend a settlement conference for various reasons such as but not limited to:

Judges aim to streamline the legal process and reduce the caseload of the court. Mandating settlement conferences helps expedite the resolution of some cases and prioritize cases that genuinely require a trial according to the judges.

Settlement conferences provide an opportunity for parties to explore creative and alternative solutions that may not be available through a court-imposed judgment. Judges may see value in parties reaching customized agreements.

Settlement conferences offer a structured environment for parties to communicate openly and honestly about their concerns as whatever will be discussed during the mediation session will remain confidential. Judges may order these conferences to facilitate communication and improve the chances of a resolution.

Judges may mandate settlement conferences to allow parties to assess the risks associated with going to trial.

To conclude, one can say that mediation serves as a versatile and effective tool that can be applied at various stages of a family dispute, promoting amicable resolutions, preserving relationships, and contributing to a more efficient and cost-effective legal process. The flexibility of mediation allows parties to actively participate in shaping outcomes, emphasizing collaboration and problem-solving over adversarial approaches.