The purpose of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is to reduce litigation expense and delay… yet the traditional ADR model bakes in those very inefficiencies, as parties tend to prepare for mediation in much the same deliberate, expensive way that they prepare for trial.
Negotiations are all about limiting risk, especially in high-stakes harassment and abuse lawsuits. This dynamic makes First Court's risk-free approach the perfect forum to negotiate settlements in these cases.
One of the best parts of my job as First Court continues to grow is to identify new mediators to join our panel, vet their fit with our culture, and turn them loose on efficiently resolving disputes. I'm happy to introduce Timothy Barnes, the newest addition to our panel of neutrals.
As innovation has transformed the world and the legal industry, little has changed in the way most mediations are conducted. As professionals, we always need to consider how improvements in technology and processes can help us win better outcomes for our stakeholders. If you can relate to the following account, you owe it to your clients and to yourself to consider your alternatives to traditional mediation.
First Court is growing rapidly, and we now have happy mediation clients in 41 states and the District of Columbia enjoying, average savings of 23 hours and 17% in litigation expenses per case. We want to celebrate that growth, welcome our new additions, and make sure that you are familiar with the whole team that is serving you.
Settling a six figure personal injury case in an hour probably seems impossible to those in the legal profession who have not yet enjoyed the benefits of First Court's 1 Hour Mediation.
Any lawyer or insurance professional who has spent time attempting to settle a case through traditional mediation (both parties working with a mediator at the same facility) has likely been frustrated. It is difficult to find a day and time when all parties can meet. It is inconvenient to spend a day (or days) away from the office and life at home. It is expensive. But, perhaps most frustrating, it is inefficient. Between the posturing and delays, parties often leave mediations with little to show for their efforts.
It's difficult for negotiators to evaluate their case objectively. We recognize the challenge, but want to recognize - and reward - the very best, most objective negotiators. What is the one objective measure of the “true” value of a case? The final award or settlement amount! Therefore, when a case is resolved, we compare the last number each negotiator tested in the Thermometer to the final settlement number; that gives us an objective rating number showing how well that negotiator evaluated and tested that particular case.