Online Mediation and Arbitration

Case evaluation (“Michigan mediation”) provides litigants in trial ready cases with a written, non-binding assessment of the case’s value. The assessment is made by a panel of three attorneys after a short hearing. If the panel’s assessment is accepted by all parties, the case is settled for that amount. If any party rejects the panel’s assessment, the case proceeds to trial. This arbitration-like process has been referred to as “Michigan mediation” because it was created by the Michigan state courts and subsequently used by the federal district courts in Michigan as well.°1 324. See, e.g., WI). Mich. Civ. R. 16.5. 134

Conciliation is a type of mediation whereby the parties to a dispute use a neutral third party (a conciliator), who meets with the parties separately in an attempt to resolve their differences. Conciliation differs from arbitration in that the conciliation process, in and of itself, has no legal standing, and the conciliator usually has no authority to seek evidence or call witnesses, usually writes no decision, and makes no award.

Conciliation differs from mediation in that the main goal is to conciliate, most of the time by seeking concessions. In mediation, the mediator tries to guide the discussion in a way that optimizes parties’ needs, takes feelings into account and reframes representations. In conciliation the parties seldom, if ever, actually face each other across the table in the presence of the conciliator, instead a conciliator meets with the parties separately (“caucusing”). Such form of conciliation (mediation) that relies on exclusively on caucusing is called “shuttle diplomacy”.