Back to Basics in 2026

In this age of AI and virtual attendance, it might be time to reflect on what works and has been working for our 3000-plus year-old profession of peacemaking. Despite the advances in tools we utilize, human nature remains unchanged and getting people to a deal is fundamentally the same. Likewise, even with all the platforms to enhance our marketability as mediators, the choice is still made by those who engage us based on trustworthiness and word of mouth. You are only as good as your last mediation some say. Working a case as a neutral is no different in our digital world when it comes down to the basics. Understanding the nub of a dispute is key and recognizing the usual cast of characters to gain rapport with them and get to the signed settlement agreement is paramount in any negotiation, whether virtual or in person. Mediators have more information available to them in this day and age, but that gut feeling from experience and the ability to stay versatile cannot be substituted with artificial intelligence. Parties also have more data than ever, but are seemingly providing less information on the way into a conference than they once did. Having to dig through a docket as a neutral to gain an understanding of the underlying case is fine, but we would still appreciate learning the parties’ positions identifying any overlap in interests from briefs or summaries which might be of better use if exchanged in advance. Saving things for trial went away long ago because there really are so few trials that if a party has a smoking gun, etc., they need to leverage it during the settlement negotiation. Confidentiality that mediation affords must be used to share information for properly evaluating cases in advance of the actual day so that proper authority can be obtained without last minute surprises. Most cases turn on risk tolerance and what a party is willing to do instead of going to court. The courts are where they lose control over the outcome. So even with the overlay of practice going into 2026 and all the coming tech glory, the essentials of getting to resolution endure.

The Evolution of the Joint Session

Recently, Kim Taylor, COO of JAMS, questioned the survival of the long-held practice of commencing mediation conferences with a joint session of all parties and their counsel. Usually, that provides an opportunity for each viewpoint of the case to be expressed to the other side and to outline the settlement process with participants, before breaking into individual caucuses. Over eighty percent of mediators surveyed earlier this year used such sessions twenty years ago. Lately, a resistance to joint sessions is reported to have arisen. That survey of neutrals revealed a decline in the use of the joint sessions. Regionally, some seventy percent of neutrals based in the east said they still regularly use joint sessions. I find them to be helpful and estimate that I start that way over ninety percent of the time. However, the report from Southern California is that joint sessions are held merely a quarter of the time. Perhaps the process has become confrontational or maybe both sides already understand the positions and everyone just wants to get down to the business of negotiating, supposedly saving costs. Of course, there are certain cases where a joint session is not productive and could actually prove detrimental to the process. Ms. Taylor suggests that because of self-determination, most mediators will not insist on a joint session if the parties do not want one. However, to skip an initial joint session could impact the process that follows, limiting options for settlement or finding common ground and the path to a deal. I try to use it regularly, as our rules require disclosures and I find it assists in laying some foundation for the process and expectations. Caucuses can remain confidential and the parties retain control over information to be shared. Using the open ended question in joint session to get positive responses from the parties at the outset on areas where there already may be overlap in agreement on facts or damages is essential to reaching a successful outcome. See more here-- http://bit.ly/1KajjyN

Upchurch Speaks on Future of Mediation

Alternative Dispute Resolution pioneer John Upchurch of the firm Upchurch Watson White & Max shared his insights on the future of mediation at the Orange County Bar's ADR Committee Luncheon CLE today in Orlando. He was appointed by the Supreme Court of Florida as a charter member of the Supreme Court Committee on Mediation and Arbitration in 1989 and has been resolving disputes ever since. Upchurch opines that injecting creativity into the process could lead to future trends including non-traditional methods in Florida such as Early Neutral Evaluation or even so-called "Night" Baseball Arbitration. He also sees a potential for growth in E-Neutral services with the advent of E-Discovery rules and the need for stronger case management. As for the more typical types of cases, recent case law invalidating caps on medical malpractice damages and the start of new construction projects should lead to more opportunities to employ ADR services in the coming year. Upchurch also commented on the effects of lack of preparation for mediation and down-streaming of cases that need settling, including more follow-up and possibly reconvening parties and counsel. Finally, a discussion was had about the use of Special Magistrates in state court, much like Special Masters in federal court, to streamline discovery and enable quick decisions in a complex case to be made without judicial intervention beyond ratification or rejection of reports and recommendations.