Mediation v. Litigation

Some thoughts on the benefits of Mediation over those of Litigation... 

The American Heritage Dictionary defines mediation as:

Law: An attempt to bring about a peaceful settlement or compromise between disputants through the objective intervention of a neutral party.

That neutral third party is a mediator.  A mediator will not take sides.  A mediator's sole purpose is to help guide the parties to a settlement.

Litigation on the other hand has it roots in history as noted by the Online Etymology Dictionary:

1567, "disputation," from L.L. litigationem (nom. litigatio), from L. litigatus, pp. of litigare "to dispute, quarrel, strive," from litem (nom. lis, gen. litis) "lawsuit, dispute, quarrel, strife" + root of agere "to drive, conduct"

Litigation usually involves hiring attorneys.  Attorneys are advocates of their client's position.  Attorneys are not neutral.

In Mediation the parties control the outcome of the case.  In Litigation, the court controls the outcome.

Mediation is a confidential process.  If the mediation should fail neither party may use what the other party said in the mediation later in court.  Litigation is, with limited exceptions, a matter of public record.

Mediation can cost 40% less than the cost of Litigation.

Surveys have found that participants and their attorneys are more satisfied with the results of mediation and that the parties are more apt to adhere to agreements made in mediation than orders made by a Judge.

While litigation may be appropriate in certain contexts, it hardly seems compatible with resloving disputes involving families.   Mediation and Collaborative Law (which we will discuss later) are much more "family friendly" ways of resolving family disputes.