A lengthy trial does not seem like an efficient way to resolve a dispute. Certainly, the losing side does not view that approach as one that relies on an effective strategy. As an alternative approach, mediation has provided disputing parties with an efficient and effective strategy.

Each lawyer present weighs the strength of the other side’s argument.

Those Personal Injury Lawyers in Corner Brook are not the only people who hear that argument. The mediator also listens to the points presented by each party.

What is the mediator’s function?

The mediator serves as an impartial third party. The mediator does not offer an opinion, or any form of legal counsel. The mediator’s task should focus on helping both parties arrive at a solution. That solution should be one that both sides view as an acceptable one. The mediator guides completion of a give and take process, in order to steer the 2 sides towards agreement on a mutually-acceptable solution.

Advantages linked to participation in a mediation process:

Whatever happens during mediation cannot be used as evidence at the time of a trial. Consequently, each side has the chance to present an argument that has an emotional basis. An expression of emotions can sway minds.

Both parties have a greater influence over the outcome. No lawyer is raising questions, questions to which someone must provide an answer. One party speaks directly to members of the other side. Hence, the person making that statement has been granted a larger amount of control.

Both sides have more control over what happens next. The 2 of them can agree on a solution, or the 2 of them can elect to proceed to the trial stage. If the mediation has been at least partly successful, then the 2 sides will have already begun to think about the soundness of the points presented by the other side.

Once the 2 sides reach that state-of-mind, they become more attuned to the mention of any further points. Consequently, further arguments, such as those presented during a trial could push the disputing parties closer to a resolution.

That resolution might emerge from pre-trial discussions. If not, it could get formulated at any time, during the trial’s proceedings. In other words, the dispute could get resolved before the trial had come to an end.

That would be an efficient way to deal with the problem, because the representatives for each side could feel free to spend less time in a courtroom. By the same token, it would showcase the qualities of an effective approach. During the give and take of the mediation, those taking part in that session would have learned how to work with the other party, in order to reach an acceptable compromise.