St. Mary's University School of Law
Justin C. Roberts
This Article probes the fundamental assumptions behind the use of mandatory or court-ordered mediation. The authors question the predominant use of standing rules or judicial practices referring cases to mediation. These referrals are inconsistent with the traditional roles of judges and courts, exclude the public from the justice system, and allow repeat players to develop a private justice system with little to no oversight. The Article questions why judges allow and encourage mandatory mediation and calls for all participants to take a more active role in the process. Based on surveys of judges, mediators, and lawyers, the Article exposes troublesome trends that further support the need to either abandon mandatory mediation or substantially revise the responsibilities of judges, mediators, and lawyers in the process to better protect litigants.
Tracy W. McCormack, Susan Schultz & James McCormack,
Probing the Legitimacy of Mandatory Mediation: New Roles for Judges, Mediators, and Lawyers.,
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Available at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/lmej/vol1/iss1/4