This empirical study of the procedural preferences of attorneys found that they demonstrated a preference for mediation conducted by staff mediators over judicial settlement conferences and mediation conducted by volunteer mediators. The study is based on a survey of attorneys who served as counsel for cases mediated by the Staff Mediation Program of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Attorneys were asked a series of questions about their perceptions of five ADR program models: judicial settlement conferences by the judge assigned to hear the case; judicial settlement conferences by a judge not associated with the case; mediation by staff mediators; mediation by volunteer mediators; and private mediation.

The 136 lawyers who responded to the survey were more likely to feel free to speak candidly in front of staff mediators than judges and volunteer mediators, but slightly less likely than in front of private mediators. They were more likely as well to see the staff mediators as unbiased. Staff mediators also were considered more likely than any other court-connected neutral - judge or mediator - to have "sufficient time to fully explore settlement," although again less likely than private mediators. On the other hand, the attorneys were more likely to think that the judge assigned to the case had "credibility regarding settlement considerations" than a judge not associated with the case or any type of mediator. Lawyers were also more likely to see judges as able to help them control difficult clients.

An overall measure of attorney preference for staff mediators was their response when asked to rank the five settlement procedures. More than half ranked mediation by staff attorney first, with another 28% ranking it second. Mediation by volunteer mediators was most often selected last, with 48% doing so. The author noted that different circumstances may make one process more appropriate than another. One case may benefit from mediation by a staff mediator, while another would be better served by a judicial settlement conference. For this reason, the author recommended that courts offer a number of different ADR options.