Should You Use Mediation To Resolve Your Personal Injury Case?

A mediation session represents a stark contrast to the adversarial approach that gets utilized in a courtroom. It is especially useful at certain points within the claim’s process, such as after the opposing parties have arrived at a stalemate.

Mediation’s basic features

A neutral mediator is present.

—Mediators do not make any decision.
—Mediators do not offer an opinion.

Both of the opposing parties must request the scheduling of a mediation session. No comments made by either party could be used against that same individual in a court of law.

The session’s structure

Each party speaks to the mediator in the presence of the opposing party and has a private session with the other party. The mediator facilitates the interchanges that take place during that stage of the session. The mediator could put an end to any yelling. Each party speaks individually to the mediator.

How claimants might benefit from using mediation?

It forces the adjuster to have face-to-face contact with the claimant. As a result, the adjuster’s attitude towards the claimant/victim could change, as per injury lawyer in Georgetown. It is less expensive than pursuing a lawsuit. It does not take up as much time as a scheduled trial.

Mediators encourage creation of a compromise. Both sides feel part of a fair deal, when the adversarial approach has been replaced by an attempt at mutual decision-making.

How defendants might benefit from taking advantage of plans for a mediated session?

There would be no mention of the defendant’s negligence on the defendant’s record. The mediator’s advice might serve as a voice for the defendant. The claimant must listen to the defendant. That could force the claimant to alter his/her position.

What challenges could a claimant and defendant face, when trying to meet with a mediator?

In the past, the legal system did not make a point of training mediators. Today, though, a growing number of law school students learn how to acquire a mediator’s skills. Hence, it is now easier for disputing parties to find a low-cost possessor of mediating skills.

If the opposing parties were living in a rural area, the 2 of them could struggle to find a neutral party. If the opposing parties were living in a city, the available mediators might charge a high fee. It might prove difficult to locate a good spot for a mediation session.

No one could enforce compliance with the agreement that the 2 parties had reached, by using the session’s accepted structure. Neither party would be able to appeal the provisions in the compromise, even if those same provisions had received the mediator’s approval. A lawyer’s training might not prove adequate once the 2 parties had chosen to use a replacement for an adversarial system.

More to explorer