This study evaluated a pilot program for the mediation of major civil cases, examining trial rates, disposition time and satisfaction of attorneys and litigants. It found that approximately 2/3 of mediations resulted in an agreement, that the program improved the overall time to disposition for all cases by providing another case "track" so other cases could be processed more quickly, and that trial rates did not decline as a result of mediation. Mediation did improve attorney and litigant satisfaction levels with the handling of their case; however, satisfaction with the process was found to be highly dependent on the outcome of the mediation. The author also drew from his analysis that the costs of litigation can be saved if the case is settled in mediation, but costs are often increased if the case continues after mediation.

Description of Study: Evaluation of the efficacy of a civil case mediation program in Minnesota.

Method: Randomly assigned cases. Examined court records and distributed questionnaires to litigants and attorneys to gauge their satisfaction.

Comparative: Yes

Comparison Groups: Cases randomly assigned to a group that could be referred to mediation and a group for which mediation was not an option

Sample Size: 1186 total cases examined; questionnaires distributed in 182 mediated cases, 209 arbitrated cases, and 170 litigated cases

Variables Examined: Time to disposition, costs of litigation, trial rates, number of court appearances, satisfaction with the handling of the case, perceived fairness of process, efficiency

Program Variables: Voluntary program mediated for-fee. Program was just established at the time of the study

Findings: No difference in time to disposition was found. There was no real sense that costs were saved if mediation resulted in agreement, but there was consensus among lawyers and litigants that costs were greater if parties did not reach agreement in mediation. Trial rates were not affected. Mediated cases had fewer court appearances. Litigants were more satisfied with the mediation process (attorneys thought they were more satisfied with the adjudication process). Litigants perceived the mediation process to be fairer; attorneys thought adjudication was.