This study uses comparison groups to examine the impact mediation has on case time and cost. Three comparison groups were used, including cases randomly assigned to mediation, cases where parties requested mediation and litigated cases. The study found that cases that mediated, whether by random assignment or choice, were more likely to settle than those cases randomly assigned to litigation. Moreover, cases utilizing mediation closed earlier than cases in which parties participated in litigation. Similarly, litigated cases also had a larger amount of discovery requests and twice as many motion hearings than cases assigned to mediation.

Description of Study: Looked at the impact of mediation on pace, cost and quality of case processing, as well as the impact on judges’ workload.

Method: Examined all mediated cases as well as a random sample of the circuit’s other civil cases. Also surveyed attorneys and made use of a survey of participants in the 6th Judicial Circuit mediation program. 

Comparative: Yes

Comparison Groups: Mediated cases and non-mediated cases

Sample Size: 702 mediated cases, 277 attorney surveys and 195 participant surveys

Variables Examined: Processing time of cases, perceived cost to the parties, the number of cases on judges’ dockets, perceived fairness of the process, perceived greater access to justice

Program Variables: Voluntary program mediated for-fee off-site. The program was newly established at the time of study.

Findings: Processing time decreased (but looked at mediation cases from time of referral, not from filing). Parties thought mediation saved them money. Parties perceived the mediation process to be fair, and believed they had greater access to justice than those who adjudicated their case.  There was no change in judicial workload since a very small percentage of cases was mediated.