Considering where to publish your Dispute Resolution research and experience

Posted on by
Reply

Pauline Collins and David Spencer
This article has been republished and adapted with permission. The original publication can be located within the Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal.

Despite people negotiating disputes since time immemorial, the formalisation of dispute resolution in Australia dates back only around half a century. Prior to this there was litigation, compromise offers and informal settlement negotiations. Dispute resolution also referred to as alternative, assisted, additional dispute resolution or just dispute management now entails a growing range of approaches to assist parties in resolving or managing their dispute.

This year the Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal (the journal) celebrates 36 years of publishing current scholarly research and in-practice experience in dispute resolution throughout the Indo-Pacific Asia region. The journal has evolved to discuss all dispute resolution approaches and is a faithfull record of change in the civil disputation landscape. Today, “[c]ivil disputes which are resolved by curial adjudication are a minute fraction of the civil disputes which arise in our (or any) society”.

The journal was the brainchild of its foundation Editors, the late Micheline Dewdney and Ruth Charlton along with the then Managing Editor of Thomson Reuters.

The value of a scholarly journal is arguably in its ‘impact’ which is defined by the Australian Research Council as, “[t]he contribution that research makes to the economy, society, environment or culture, beyond the contribution to academic research”. While measuring a journal’s impact is a contested space in academia and the professions with opinions on what constitutes impact varying from discipline-to-discipline and within disciplines, the task is a little easier in the discipline of law. For the law discipline tracing the impact of research and publication can be mapped via law reform and legislative and common law citation that initiates changes to the law.

In its short life, the journal has been cited with authority eighteen times in the work of various state and federal Law Reform Commissions in Australia. The journal has also been cited with approval in at least thirteen judgments of superior courts of record in Australia where the court has been called upon to adjudicate on the developing law surrounding dispute resolution.

The journal’s reach is another measure of its impact. The journal currently has over 500 institutional subscribers ensuring it is available to a wide audience of potential readers. Further, online subscribers accounted for over 20,000 clicks/views in the last twelve months.

From its humble Sydney-centric beginnings, today the editorial board of the journal has expanded to 24 members who hail from Australia, India, Singapore, United Kingdom and New Zealand and from a wide variety of professions and vocations.

For a double-blind peer reviewed scholarly publication, the journal prides itself on its eclectic content. Substantively the journal deals with all manner of dispute resolution from the consensual, informal and less interventiory processes such as negotiation and traditional dispute management methods to the less consensual, more formal and interventionist processes such as adjudication and arbitration. It also seeks out contributions about some of the more contemporary areas of dispute resolution such as restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, collaborative practice, conflict coaching, use of government inquiry mechanisms, wise counsel mediations and the expanding knowledge of human dispute gained from advances in neuroscience.

A critical area serviced by the journal is that of continuing professional development. Our changing world, however, presents constant challenges providing journal editors with a demanding task. Not least of which is the much written about and utilised generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technology. One of the first GenAI large language models is ChatGPT that was launched in November 2022 and together with its many relatives (knock offs), they are challenging the way researchers, writers and publishers work. This technology is here to stay and will continue to grow and become more efficient and acurate with the effluxion of time. These advances provide a historical leap for humans and the publication industry.

Much has been said about the positives and the perils of GenAI. The proliferation of writing about GenAI of itself makes addressing the topic challenging. Each new technology from clay tablets, the Gutenberg printing press, the typewriter, computers and now GenAI has raised fear, excitement and then adaptation as we adjust to the speed and content by which information and knowledge is communicated. Finding a balanced approach that accepts regulation to eliminate harm but also acknowledging the potential benefits is called for.

The impact of GenAI on the provision of dispute resolution services is now being felt. Whilst online and automated dispute resolution has been in existence for many years, the advent of GenAI, with its undectable ability to not only guide disputants to resolution but then to learn from each experience with the aim of improving its own ability over time, is a new frontier for the provision of such services.

For the researcher and author, the use of GenAI is also presenting exciting possibilities. The use of GenAI to assist with large data set comprehension and analysis can better inform decision-making that in turn can speed up creative innovation to human problems such as disputation. For publishers and editors there is already a growing uptake in the use of such tools to address editing and formatting processes. The likelihood is an increase in the speed of publication outputs and therefore circulation of knowledge.

The mainstay of the journal is original unpublished scholarly work that has not been submitted or accepted for publication elsewhere including online publication. These articles are a mixture of empirical and meta-analysis that are approximately 5,000- 8,000 words in length.

Additionally, the journal publishes a flourishing ‘In-Practice’ section where practitioners can write short articles of 1,500-2,000 words on any topical issue they may have an opinion or view on. Further, this section provides the opportunity for practitioners to raise process issues from their own experiences in the provision of dispute resolution services or as an advocate acting for parties in dispute resolution processes. The practical aspects of dispute resolution sit superbly side-by-side with the more scholarly contributions.

Each edition of the journal includes case notes on cases litigated predominantly in superior courts of record that raise a multitude of issues from enforcing dispute resolution clauses in contracts to the impartiality of third party neutrals. As before, case notes cover all the processes of dispute resolution from mediation through to domestic and international arbitration.

The journal also fufils a ‘clearing-house’ purpose providing book reviews on the latest publications concerning dispute resolution and a ‘Media-watch’ column that reports on global dispute resolution in the media.

Further, the journal hosts special editions where for example multiple papers are published from conference proceedings. Other special editions include themed editions on topics such as dispute resolution in family law or the forthcoming special edition on conflict coaching.

For 35 years the journal has found a place in the abundance of scholarly journals and remains the pre-eminent periodical on the theory, philosophy, law and practice of dispute resolution in the Indo-Pacific Asia region. So, there is a scholarly journal that is worthy of your consideration when seeking to publish your research and practice experience in dispute resolution.

Honorary Professor Pauline Collins and David Spencer are the Co-General Editors of the Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal published by Thomson Reuters.

Honorary Professor Pauline Collins, University of Southern Queensland, is a co-author of, Dispute Management (Cambridge University Press, 2021).

David Spencer is a Solicitor and Deputy Dean-of-Law at the Thomas More Law School at the Australian Catholic University and is author of, Principles of Dispute Resolution (Thomson Reuters, 4th ed, 2024), Mediation Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2006) and co-author of, Dispute Resolution in Australia: Cases, Commentary & Materials (Thomson Reuters, 5th ed, 2023).

This blog is based on an article written by the authors entitled, “The Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal: Past, Present and Future” (2023) 32(4) Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 210 and is republished and adapted with permission.

Rethinking Family Mediation in England and Wales, and Beyond

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Rachael Blakey

For several decades, the Australian family dispute resolution literature has examined the operation of family mediation and other family dispute resolution procedures. Much of this data comes from funded evaluations and projects following the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibilities) Act 2006. However, the English and Welsh literature on contemporary family mediation is limited in comparison. Much of our research has remained focused on the court system, even though many, if not most, people involved in child arrangements or post-separation financial matters deal with their disputes outside of it. My monograph, Rethinking Family Mediation: The Role of the Mediator in Contemporary Times, seeks to reinvigorate discourse and debate on family mediator practice within not only England and Wales, but also other jurisdictions, including Australia. Its opening paragraph reads:

‘Family mediation, like many other procedures, is in a transitionary period. Several traditional concepts – neutrality, facilitation and non-legal support – continue to dominate the discussions around the role of family mediation and the family mediator. These notions remain fundamental to family mediator practice, though their hold has weakened over time. Following decades of reform to the family justice landscape, the work of family mediators is now underpinned by a number of other concepts: flexibility, evaluation and, sometimes, quasi-legal oversight. Family mediators continue to perform their traditional functions, but balance them alongside a rising demand to adapt. They follow a flexible conceptualization in order to provide more comprehensive support to their clients, many of whom have limited access to legal or other advice in the early 21st century.’ (Blakey 2025, p. 1)

Today’s English and Welsh family justice system is very different to that in Australia. We do not have any triage system like the Child and Family Hubs, nor is family dispute resolution mandated. In fact, the Ministry of Justice recently backtracked from 2023 proposals to require most private family law disputants to demonstrate a ‘reasonable attempt to mediate’ before initiating court proceedings, citing concerns about the use of family mediation in cases of domestic abuse. Interestingly, amendments to our Family Procedure Rules in April 2024 mean that judges now have more power to adjourn court proceedings to encourage the use of ‘non-court dispute resolution’ (including family mediation). Judges can also impose a cost order on parties who do not attend a non-court dispute resolution process ‘without good reason’. Whether the Family Procedure Rules have led to non-court dispute resolution becoming mandatory has yet to be seen. Regardless, Rethinking Family Mediation offers valuable insights for family dispute resolution practitioners and academics in various other jurisdictions. It illustrates how policy and legislation can shape mediator practice over time, highlighting mediation’s central positioning within the broader family justice system.

Uncovering the transition from limited to flexible mediator practice

The key thesis underpinning Rethinking Family Mediation is that the role of the family mediator (particularly in England and Wales) has broadened over time, and it is the lack of recognition that this development has occurred, not the development itself, that is inherently problematic. More specifically, I argue that there has been a transition from a limited mediator archetype to a flexible mediator archetype.

The limited mediator archetype is how family mediation practice was, and typically continues to be, conceptualised. They are facilitative and strictly neutral, ensuring that decision-making power rests with the parties at all times. This limited archetype was logical in the traditional English and Welsh family justice system when funding was accessible for many separating parties. Many individuals could still afford a lawyer, even if they were not eligible for legal aid. The limited mediator’s strictly facilitative role was thus appropriate, as more evaluative support and guidance was provided by a lawyer (or other legal practitioner) (figure 1). Nonetheless, the monograph uncovers a long-standing neutrality dilemma for family mediators: neutrality prohibits them from reacting to a power imbalance, yet, in many instances, to do nothing is also an unneutral act. This paradox suggests that the limited mediator was never a perfect or perhaps even ideal archetype.

Figure 1: A binary understanding of facilitative and evaluative behaviours

This critique holds even more weight today. The family justice system in England and Wales is drastically different to when family mediation was first piloted in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Over several decades, policy has increasingly presented mediation as the norm, not simply an alternative, for family matters. This push for private ordering accumulated in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) which, as of April 2013, removed legal aid for the majority of private family law court proceedings. At the same time, traditional legal support has become increasingly inaccessible for most separating families. Both factors have led family mediation’s clientele to diversify, with many cases now involving complex legal disputes or difficult party dynamics. The limited mediator, who is unable to provide any form of evaluation, is poorly suited to this clientele. Calls for mediators to adapt have increased as a result.

The monograph argues that mediators have transitioned to a flexible archetype over several decades. It recognises that the demand – both within policy and academic scholarship – for mediators to do more is, in fact, a call for mediators to become more evaluative. The flexible mediator archetype continues to perform a facilitative role, but evaluation is woven within their practices. Facilitation and evaluation are thus not a binary distinction, but rather two concepts on a continuum of mediator practice (as originally proposed by Riskin in 1996, though much of the contemporary English and Welsh literature on family mediation does not acknowledge his work). Mediator neutrality is subsequently re-understood as a moderate concept that does not need to be strictly upheld when doing so would compromise fairness or another normative concept. My monograph recognises that the flexible mediator archetype operated prior to the LASPO reforms, with a number of earlier studies demonstrating the varied work of mediators. However, it is submitted that the contemporary family justice landscape necessitates the archetype even further.

Revealing the flexible mediator archetype after the LASPO reforms

In England and Wales, and many other jurisdictions, debates around how to reform family mediation often become circular. It is said that change is needed to provide a better service. However, such change is not possible under the traditional conceptualisation of the (limited) family mediator. Rethinking Family Mediation submits that this stagnancy is resolved if the flexible mediator archetype is explicitly recognised.

To inform debate, the book outlines findings from an empirical project, consisting of a content analysis of family mediation Codes of Practice and semi-structured interviews with 17 family mediators. Its empirical findings first reveal a new theoretical framework of four mediation functions, all of which are recognised and adopted by both family mediators and their regulatory bodies (figure 2). Mediators are primarily helpers, but regularly evaluate the proposed settlement or party dynamic to determine if they should become referrers to another service (notably legal advice). Mediator evaluation becomes significantly more prominent as they become assessors and, furthermore, intervenors. Additional interview data shows that mediators feel that they are responsible for responding to difficult party dynamics and unfair settlements, justifying their more evaluative practices. Of particular note within the empirical data is the mediator sample’s regular reference to legal rules, set out in both legislation and case precedent. This alludes to a growing quasi-legal role for today’s family mediators, most likely influenced by the withdrawal of accessible legal support after the LASPO reforms.

Figure 2: The mediator function framework, plotted on a continuum of facilitative to evaluative strategies

These more evaluative behaviours are discussed by the entire mediator sample, even if a participant understands their neutrality in very strict, absolute terms. Intriguingly, over two-fifths of the mediator sample prefer an alternative understanding of their neutrality that enables them to intervene in negotiations to encourage a good quality settlement. This stance appears more closely aligned with the concept of impartiality, rather than neutrality, though whether the former is a better term to describe the flexible mediator archetype is unclear (mirroring similar debates in Australia).

Implications for family justice going forward

The quasi-legal role of flexible mediators, as identified through the monograph’s empirical data, has significant implications for the professionalism and training of the profession. One chapter of Rethinking Family Mediation specifically considers the extrinsic and organisational barriers to reform, asking whether family mediation should be regarded as a ‘legal service’ under English and Welsh legislation. While the monograph does not provide a definitive answer to the question, it hopes to reinvigorate debate in the area. The chapter also uncovers findings on the current status of family mediation services at a time when the government expects parties to mediate but has provided very little government funding to support mediators themselves.

Importantly, the findings covered in this book have significant implications for our understanding of family justice. Family justice is generally understood as something that is only available through court (and supported by legal representation). Yet much of the empirical data discussed in the book is evidence of a shift in not only family mediator practice, but family justice itself. In the contemporary English and Welsh, as well as Australian, landscape, family justice is increasingly provided through non-lawyers, such as mediators, who are often informed by legal norms. The book connects these changes to a rising hybridity across family law practice, with lawyers additionally becoming more collaborative and less adversarial over time.

This contemporary vision of family justice is not ideal, nor perfect. Without further scrutiny of the various professionals within the family justice system, the risk of improper or unfair outcomes increases. However, Rethinking Family Mediation is premised on finding pragmatic solutions to the challenges within our modern family justice systems. In order to do so, the reality of non-dispute resolution practice must be identified and, importantly, recognised.

It is of no surprise that the monograph regularly returns to the concealment of the flexible mediator archetype – and most likely many other flexible practitioners – as a key issue within our current discourse around family justice reform. Ultimately, it argues that the changes in family mediator practice have been both a natural part of the profession’s development, as well as a consequence of the contemporary family justice system with limited funding and inaccessible legal support. The book will therefore be of significant interest to anyone interested in learning more about family dispute resolution in terms of not simply how the process was traditionally conceived, but how it operates in reality.

Author Biography

Dr Rachael Blakey is an Associate Professor at the University of Warwick. Her research focuses on family mediation and access to justice. She is a co-opted Director of the Family Mediation Council, the main regulatory body for family mediators in England and Wales. Rachael is interested in legal professionalism more widely, and is currently conducting the first empirical study on the English and Welsh ‘one-lawyer-two-clients’ format of family law support.

Author details: rachael.blakey@warwick.ac.uk | University Profile | LinkedIn | Rethinking Family Mediation: The Role of The Family Mediator in Contemporary Times (Bristol University Press 2025)

All figures were provided with permission from Bristol University Press.

Are Mediators Ever Liable? Rethinking Accountability in Our Practice

Posted on by
1

Samantha Hardy
This article has been republished with permission. The original publication can be found at The Conflict Management Academy.

Inspired by Jennifer L. Schulz (2023). Mediator Liability 23 Years Later: The “Three C’s” of Case Law, Codes, & Custom. Ottawa Law Review / Revue de droit d’Ottawa, 55(1):151–186. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7202/1112508ar

A Quiet Assumption

For many of us working in the mediation field, there’s a quiet assumption we rarely question: that we’re not likely to be sued for what happens in a mediation room.

And, to date, that assumption has mostly held true. While a few attempts to sue mediators have occurred in different jurisdictions around the world, none have resulted in a mediator having to pay compensation to a party.

Canadian mediator and law professor Jennifer Schulz reviews 23 years of case law across six common law countries—including Australia—asking why mediators are not being held liable and arguing that they should be. The article is well worth reading in full, as the detailed summaries of the cases examined provide a vivid picture of the current gap between our aspirational standards of practice and the lack of accountability for those who do not meet them.

The Current Reality: A Legal Shield

Schulz’s research confirms what many of us might suspect: across Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, England, and South Africa, courts are still not holding mediators legally liable for negligent practice.

Even in cases involving mediator coercion, numerical errors in settlements, inappropriate behaviour, or poor handling of vulnerable parties, the most common judicial response is to set aside the agreement—not to hold the mediator accountable.

There are four main reasons for this legal shield:

  1. Causation hurdles – it’s hard to prove that a mediator’s actions caused a party’s loss.
  2. Mediator immunity – either through legislation (as in many US states and Australian courts) or through contractual terms.
  3. Mediation confidentiality – which often prevents complainants from even introducing evidence of wrongdoing.
  4. Lack of a defined standard of care – without it, there’s nothing to measure negligence against.

As Schulz puts it, we’re operating in a legal vacuum—where professional expectations are high, but legal consequences are rare.

The “Three C’s” Proposal: A Way Forward?

Schulz doesn’t advocate for a wave of mediator lawsuits. Instead, she proposes a more thoughtful framework for developing legal accountability: the Three C’s.

  • Case Law – court decisions that, even if inconsistent, begin to sketch the boundaries of acceptable practice.
  • Codes of Conduct – such as those issued by AMDRAS, state-based mediator panels, or court-connected schemes.
  • Custom – what a reasonable mediator would do in a given situation, based on community norms and practice standards.

I would personally add another C, perhaps attached to the Codes of Conduct item – and that is Complaints. More could be done to educate clients about what they should be able to expect from their mediator, and mediator complaints services could be more courageous and transparent about how they respond to client complaints. Complaints handling that is half-hearted or that aims to protect mediators rather than hold them publicly accountable only exacerbates the problem and pushes it underground.

These sources could help courts (and the profession) articulate what counts as competent mediation (the basis for a standard of care in negligence) and what crosses the line.

What the Cases Tell Us

The article walks through dozens of cases—some troubling, some absurd, many familiar. A few key themes emerge:

1. Coercive Behaviour Is Common—But Unpunished

Multiple cases involve mediators who pressured parties to settle, made legal predictions, lost their tempers, or belittled participants. Courts have rarely responded with consequences—unless the party was unrepresented and severely disadvantaged. The courts typically assume that if a party is legally represented, their lawyer will protect them from any harm.

Notably, some cases even include allegations of racist or discriminatory remarks by mediators—again, without findings of liability.

2. Vulnerability Is Often Overlooked

Incapacity cases—where a party was overwhelmed, unwell, or otherwise unable to engage effectively—are nearly always dismissed. Courts seem to assume that the voluntary nature of mediation allows a party to stop participating at any time, so choosing to continue negates their right to claim. This type of thinking shows a lack of understanding of how incapacity might show up, in that it might also make someone incapable of making a good choice to leave the mediation.

3. Mediators Who Make Mistakes Still Escape Consequence

From drafting errors to bad legal advice, mediators are largely shielded unless the consequences are glaring and the party can prove they were misled into harm. In such cases, courts tend to place responsibility on the parties’ lawyers—even where the mediator dictated the settlement. Even where there is no lawyer involved, the likely outcome is that the agreement will be set aside, rather than any consequences for the mediator.

Implications for Australian Practice

So what does this mean for those of us practising under the AMDRAS framework or in private, court-connected, or hybrid contexts?

  • Legal immunity doesn’t mean ethical impunity. Just because we’re unlikely to be sued doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold ourselves—and each other—to higher standards.
  • Custom matters. If the law ever does change, it will likely rely on what we say is normal, ethical, and good practice in our mediation communities.
  • The codes we sign up to should guide us daily—not just when we’re audited or accredited. They may form the basis of future legal standards.
  • Training matters. When mediators pressure parties, overlook incapacity, or provide questionable advice, it’s often due to poor training, not bad intentions.
  • RABs need to have rigorous complaints processes.  Until the courts step up and impose consequences on mediators who behave badly, the mediator’s accreditation body must be able to manage complaints effectively to prevent harm to parties and the profession’s reputation. This means holding mediators accountable for improper behaviour and educating members about where the line will be drawn.
  • Industry/peak bodies could play an important role in educating clients about their rights/expectations of a mediator. It’s one thing for mediators to hold themselves accountable (and be required to do so through professional standards). It’s another for a client to be informed and educated about the treatment they are entitled to receive.

It is also important to acknowledge that there are many cases in which aggrieved clients lash out at mediators who have done nothing wrong. Vexatious complaints seem particularly common in the family sector, and it is important that the practitioners involved are treated with respect and allowed to defend themselves with dignity.

A Profession at the Crossroads

Mediation has come a long way—from fringe alternative to mainstream dispute resolution. With that growth comes a challenge: do we want the status of a profession without the accountability?

Schulz’s article offers a roadmap. The future of mediator liability may not lie in sudden lawsuits or rigid standards, but in a profession willing to evolve its own definitions of excellence, to recognise when harm has been done, and to hold people accountable.

As Australian mediators, particularly with the new AMDRAS standards about to come into effect, we’re well placed to lead this conversation. The question is: will we?

13th Australian Dispute Resolution Research Network Roundtable

Posted on by
Reply

27-28 November 2025 Monash University

Call for Paper Proposals

The Australasian Dispute Resolution Research Network is pleased to be hosting its 13th research roundtable on 27-28 November 2025 at Monash University Clayton campus, Melbourne. The roundtable is supported by the Faculty of Law at Monash University and the Australian Centre for Justice Innovation.

The roundtables are designed to encourage a collaborative and supportive research environment in which papers are work-shopped and discussed in detail. Papers in draft form are distributed one month ahead of time to participants, to enable thoughtful and constructive quality feedback.

We welcome proposals that consider dispute resolution from a scholarly, critical and/or empirical perspective. Topics can be addresses for any disciplinary perspective and we are especially interested in interdisciplinary approaches to dispute resolution. We particularly encourage submissions from postgraduate students and early career researchers. All proposals will be considered. Papers must not have been published or submitted for publication, as the focus is work in progress.

There will be a limited number of papers accepted for inclusion in the roundtable discussions. A panel will select roundtable papers from abstracts submitted. The aim is to be as inclusive as time and numbers allow. The following selection criteria will be applied:

  • Papers take a scholarly, critical and/or empirical perspective on an area of dispute resolution;
  • The roundtable will include a spread of participants across stages of career; and
  • A well-balanced range of work will be presented at the roundtable to provide diversity, to develop the field and to enable cohesive discussion.

Participation is on a self-funded basis.

We will also be asking you to draft a short (1,000 words max) blog post about your paper prior to the roundtable. Our blog reaches over 17,000 individuals per year and has over 25,000 hits – so your blog will be widely read. You will have a chance to fix up your blog post after the roundtable in case you’d like to make any adjustments after feedback.

On the day, speakers are given up to 30 minutes for presentation, with 30 minutes for feedback and discussion. Two primary commentators will be appointed for each paper.

Attendance at the Round Table is only open to individuals who are contributing to the scholarly discussions by presenting a paper, or commentating and/or chairing a session.

Deadline for paper proposals: 30 September 2025.

(300 word maximum plus short bio, to https://forms.gle/sNfifQPx8TrJG8cD9 or follow this link to our Google Form)

We will have rolling acceptances for papers.

Draft (full) papers + blog post due: 10 November 2025 (to send to participants mid Nov.)

For further information, please contact:

Conference Convenors and 2025 Network Presidents:

Becky Batagol and Jackie Weinberg via adrresearchnetwork@gmail.com (monitored twice weekly)

About the Australasian Dispute Resolution Research Network

The Australasian Dispute Resolution Research Network brings together leading dispute resolution scholars and provides a collaborative environment to foster, nurture and enrich high quality research and scholarship. The Network is inclusive and forward-looking and seeks to bring together emerging, mid-career and established scholars to build excellence in the field and provide peer support. Network activities are expressly designed to provide a supportive and collegial presentation environment in which meaningful discussion and constructive feedback is provided to the presenter.

Network activities include maintaining the ADR Research Network blog at www.adrresearch.net on Twitter and conducting annual scholarly round tables of work in progress since 2012.

Guest blog post proposals are always welcome. Contact Blog Editors in Chief, Sam Houssain and Milan A. Nitopi.

Membership of Australasian Dispute Resolution Research Network

We don’t like hierarchies or unnecessary administration, so we don’t have any membership list or legal organisational framework.

The way to become a member of the ADR Research Network is to subscribe to the blog. This is our primary means of communication.

Subscription will mean that every time a post is made on the blog you will receive a notification alert to your email address. Other ways to follow blog activity is through Facebook ADR Research Network page and Linked In discussion group but engagement on these platforms is not necessary to keep track of blog activity.

What’s the alternative to mediation? Meet the European Board Game Going Global

Posted on by
Reply

Responding to @Massimiliano Ferrari’s recent post sharing @Dr. Anna Maria Bernard’s powerful insights about digital conflicts in Basilicata. Here’s what we’re seeing as Medianos spreads globally…

Massimiliano Ferrari’s sharing of Dr. Anna Maria Bernard’s insights from Basilicata Region perfectly captures what those who understand transformation are witnessing worldwide – the emerging need for approaches that naturally dissolve digital-age conflicts. Dr. Bernard’s experience with Medianos confirms what you may already be sensing as this remarkable method continues spreading across continents.

She writes about how “digital conflicts are the order of the day” and as you consider this, you might recognize the truth in her observation. Just last month, I watched a CEO and his teenage daughter discover something profound as they sat across from each other, both having believed the other “just doesn’t get it” about screen time boundaries. Traditional mediation would have had them negotiate rules and compromises. But what happened next was something that transforms everything.

In the past, families like theirs relied on authority-based solutions that inevitably left children feeling unheard and parents feeling frustrated. When conflicts arose over homework, curfews, or device usage, conversations naturally escalated into battles of will rather than becoming opportunities for deeper understanding. The tools available were limited to expensive counseling, theoretical parenting books, or time-consuming mediation processes that few families could access or sustain effectively.

Then the digital revolution changed everything, didn’t it? As Dr Bernard observes, we’re dealing with conflicts our parents never imagined: How much screen time creates balance? What about online privacy and safety? How do we manage social media wisely? The generational digital divide widened as children became native users while parents struggled to keep pace with change. These “digital conflicts” became daily occurrences, with the adolescent brain still developing and naturally impulsive constantly stimulated by digital temptations that multiply exponentially.

What she discovered in Basilicata, you’re now beginning to see replicated across Europe and beyond. Medianos – The Game isn’t just resolving these conflicts; it’s fundamentally transforming how families, schools, and even workplaces naturally approach disagreement.

That CEO and his daughter? Within two hours of facilitated gameplay, something remarkable began to unfold. By “playing” each other’s roles in a safe, structured environment, they started to understand perspectives they’d never allowed themselves to consider. The daughter experienced the weight of parental responsibility for digital safety, and the father felt the frustration of being constantly monitored and distrusted. When they returned to their original roles, their conversation had completely shifted – from positional bargaining to collaborative problem-solving that felt surprisingly natural.

This is the power Dr Bernard wrote about when she described how Medianos allows participants to “go beyond the conflict and enhance what you feel at the level of emotions, thoughts and behaviours.” And what’s truly exciting is how rapidly this approach continues spreading globally, creating transformation wherever it goes.

Created by Massimiliano Ferrari and supported by a rapidly expanding community of Ambassadors, Medianos is spreading across the world at unprecedented pace, and as it does, more people are discovering its effectiveness. Recent weeks have seen new Ambassadors recognized across Italy, Canada, France, Spain, Brasil, Latvia, Ecuador, and Albania.

I, Rory Gowers, as the newly appointed Australasian Medianos Ambassador and creator of the My-RESPECT-Ability negotiation framework, am curious to discover how this face-to-face board game experience will resonate with digital natives here in Australasia while delivering the profound results Dr Bernard described.

The game format creates what she calls “a safe, secure, and stimulating environment” where participants naturally develop genuine empathy through facilitated face-to-face interaction. Communication skills emerge organically as players learn active listening and assertive expression without it feeling like traditional training. Hidden needs surface safely as the game reveals unexpressed fears that fuel conflicts. Most importantly, players develop what I call “respect-ability” the expanding capacity to engage respectfully even during difficult conversations.

Dr Bernard’s observation that “gaming experience with Medianos was pivotal in translating theoretical concepts into practical skills” captures exactly why this approach succeeds where traditional methods struggle. In our screen-saturated world, bringing the power of gaming back to physical interaction creates genuine human connection that digital experiences simply cannot replicate.

The transformation extends far beyond individual families, doesn’t it? As she noted with the teachers in Basilicata who were “fascinated by the educational and formative opportunity,” we’re witnessing schools, workplaces, and communities naturally develop cultures of respectful engagement. When conflicts become catalysts for deeper understanding rather than relationship damage, entire organizational cultures begin to shift.

Imagine, if you will, boardrooms where disagreements become opportunities for innovation rather than positional battles. Picture classrooms where teachers and students collaborate through understanding rather than authority. Envision families where generational divides bridge naturally through shared gaming experiences that honour everyone’s perspective completely.

This is the future Dr Bernard glimpsed in Basilicata – and it’s spreading globally with increasing momentum. Her closing question resonates deeply, and you might find yourself wondering: “What strategies are you using to manage digital conflicts in the family or at school, or in the workplace?”

The answer, increasingly, is becoming Medianos – The Game. We’re actively preparing for launch in Australasia in Quarter 4 2025, bringing this proven approach to a region where digital conflicts are as prevalent as anywhere in the world, and where solutions are needed most.

As Dr Bernard concluded, “Open dialogue, empathy, emotional intelligence education and novel tools like Medianos are the key to transforming ‘digital conflicts’ into opportunities for growth and deeper bonds.” The enthusiasm she witnessed in Basilicata is now spreading across continents – one family, one school, one workplace at a time, creating lasting change.

For more information about bringing Medianos to your organisation or community, reach out to MyRespectAbility or respond to the post directly and discover what becomes possible.

What strategies are you using to transform conflict into connection? Join the conversation below and share what you’re discovering.

Author Biography

Rory Gowers is a Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR), Master of Education (MEd), certified Master NLP Practitioner, and intercultural mediator with deep experience leading transformative change across global business and community settings. Based in Greater Sydney, Australia, Rory helps leaders and organisations replace conflict cycles with clarity, cooperation, and lasting resolution.

As the founder of The Constructive Solution, Rory applies structured, values-based methodologies to resolve complex interpersonal and systemic challenges—especially in high-stakes environments like construction, government, and professional services. His work produces measurable outcomes: reduced rework, improved trust, and faster decision-making.

He also leads Mastering Intercultural Mediation Initiatives (MIMI)—a high-impact executive program that equips senior leaders to build inclusive, high-functioning ecosystems by mastering cultural agility and conflict competence.

Now, Rory is bringing the internationally acclaimed Medianos – The Board Game to Australasia. As the official Australasian ambassador, he introduces this dynamic, play-based tool to transform how professionals learn and practise negotiation, mediation, and respectful engagement.

Rory’s mission is clear: to grow respect, resolve conflict, and realise the shared vision of a place for all and peace for all in our time—by guiding people and systems to adopt practical, repeatable solutions that build trust and deliver sustainable results.

Contact Rory:
🌐 Web: www.myRESPECTability.com
📧 Email: rory.gowers@gmail.com
📱 Mobile: +61 425 292 811
🔗 LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/constructiveconflictsolutions

AI and Dispute Resolution: Why You’ll Need It Sooner Than You Think

Posted on by
Reply

John Lande
This article has been republished and adapted with permission. The original publication can be located within Indisputably.

Imagine doing your work without word processing, spell checkers, email, the internet, search engines, voicemail, cell phones, or Zoom.

That’s how you’ll probably feel in the not-too-distant future about working without artificial intelligence (AI).

Innovations often seem radical at first. In time, people just take them for granted.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 states that lawyers soon may be ethically obligated to use AI. “As GAI [general artificial intelligence] tools continue to develop and become more widely available, it is conceivable that lawyers will eventually have to use them to competently complete certain tasks for clients.”

AI isn’t replacing dispute resolution professionals any more than calculators replaced accountants. But just like calculators, AI tools are becoming essential tools for legal and dispute resolution work.

Remember when everyone freaked out when they first had to use Zoom at the beginning of the pandemic? Now people don’t give it a second thought. It probably will be the same way with AI before you know it.

You Don’t Have to Love AI – But You’d Better Get to Know It Soon

Two companion articles – How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bot: What I Learned About AI and What You Can Too and Getting the Most from AI Tools: A Practical Guide to Writing Effective Prompts – are designed to help dispute resolution faculty, practitioners, students, and program administrators get comfortable with AI. The first article tells why AI literacy is becoming more important all the time. The second shows how you can easily become more AI literate.

Together, they offer a friendly nudge for people who feel they’re behind – spoiler alert: this may be you – and training wheels so you don’t fall flat on your face.

Love the Bot describes my own reluctance to use AI. Now I use it every day to think and write better, faster, and more creatively.

But I’m not the only one. Law students are already using AI. Practitioners and clients are too.

So this isn’t a quirky corner of practice anymore. It’s the center of a growing professional expectation. Law schools are adding AI courses. Some are embedding it across the curriculum. If professors don’t engage with AI now, they’ll be learning from their students instead of the other way around.

Good Prompting Can Be Your Superpower

Getting the Most from AI Tools is a hands-on guide to producing better results with AI.

It walks you through the mechanics of writing effective prompts. It’s packed with examples for mediators, attorneys, students, faculty, program administrators, and even disputants.

We all know that AI sometimes hallucinates. But you’re hallucinating if you think that you can wait to start using AI tools until they stop hallucinating. Ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.

In the meantime, you can benefit from AI tools if you know how to use them (and how to manage hallucinations and other problems). You don’t need to be an expert – just thoughtful, curious, and careful.

The results from AI tools may depend less on the technology itself and more on users’ skills. Like other skills, it improves with practice.

Becoming AI Literate Is Easier Than You Think

These articles describe AI literacy as a process of continual learning as AI technology continues to evolve.

The first steps are just getting curious and trying it at your own pace. Try starting with simple tasks like:

  • Asking questions you already know the answers to
  • Getting recommendations for movies appealing to your tastes
  • Summarizing something long and boring
  • Brainstorming ideas for a class, article, or paper
  • Polishing a rough email, memo, or draft

As you gain confidence, you can ask it to help with your work. Professors can revise a syllabus. Students can prep for a simulation. Mediators can brainstorm tough moments. Program directors can develop orientation materials. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The possibilities are limited mostly by imagination and fear. These articles help with both.

Don’t Regret Waiting to Get the Benefits of AI

AI isn’t just about efficiency. It’s about equity, ethics, and excellence. You can choose how to express your values through it.

AI tools can reveal students’ thinking, making teaching more responsive. They can also help lawyers and clients make better decisions, especially when time or money is short. And lots more.

If you’ve been hesitant, these articles can help you do things you want to do – and things you haven’t even imagined. But only if you take the first step.

Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle writes, “We are resting in the eye of a gathering [AI] storm, and those who fail to fortify themselves now risk being swept away when the storm finally unleashes its full power.”

Take a look – and don’t get swept away.

Introducing the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre in Singapore and its Unique Approach to Mediation

Posted on by
Reply

By Eunice Chua (CEO, FIDReC) and Rachel Lim (Intern, FIDReC)

The context of consumer financial disputes

Tom went on an overseas holiday with his friends, and they went out to a pub on their last night. They drank till the early hours of the morning. Tom was in a celebratory mood and paid for everyone’s drinks with his credit card. He and his friends left for their hotel at 3am. Tom only woke up at 2pm the next day and hurriedly rushed to catch his flight back to Singapore. After he arrived in Singapore, he realised that one of his credit cards was missing. He immediately made a police report and called the bank to report the loss. In the meantime, someone had already gone on a shopping spree with Tom’s credit card and bought various items to the tune of S$7,000. The bank billed Tom for this amount, but Tom disagreed.

Sally purchased a hospital and surgical insurance policy from her brother-in-law a few years ago. Because she trusted him, she left him to fill out all the details and signed where he told her to. Her brother-in-law went through with Sally a list of questions at the end of the proposal form and the terms and conditions of the policy, but Sally did not pay much attention at the time. Unfortunately, Sally was diagnosed with a tumour on her breast. She was admitted to the hospital for surgery. After her surgery and hospital stay, Sally submitted an insurance claim. As part of its usual process, the insurer contacted Sally’s doctor to request information on Sally’s condition. It was then that the insurer found out that Sally had a history of diabetes. Sally had failed to disclose this information in the insurance proposal form.  The insurer told Sally they would void her policy due to her failure to disclose her diabetes.

These scenarios reflect real cases that consumers bring to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) in Singapore. FIDReC was established in August 2025 as an initiative from the financial industry to provide an accessible platform for financial institutions to resolve customer complaints in an effective, amicable, and fair way. Accordingly, filing a claim at FIDReC is free for consumers. The process is simple, with mediation being deployed first and adjudication being offered as an option only if there is no settlement at mediation.

The FIDReC approach to dispute resolution

Five core principles shape FIDReC’s approach to dispute resolution: accessibility, independence, effectiveness, accountability, and fairness. Most of these are self-explanatory but it is worth saying more about fairness.

The FIDReC process is designed in a way that recognises the inherent imbalance of power between an individual consumer and a financial institution and seeks to address that balance in a fair manner.

First, designated financial institutions are required by regulation to subscribe to FIDReC and participate in its process. This ensures that consumers will have the opportunity to bring their claims to FIDReC and have them answered. Second, only consumers may bring claims at FIDReC. They may do so without any filing fee and the claims filing is done online. This promotes accessibility even for those that are not well off. Third, mediators are staff of FIDReC who are well versed with the regulations governing the financial industry as well as industry standards and expectations. Whilst maintaining their impartiality, they may make suggestions to parties and provide information to help them in their decision-making. This promotes a fairer playing field especially for more vulnerable consumers. Should there be any settlement, the mediator gives parties time to consider before they sign on any agreement. This reduces the risk of any pressure to settle. Finally, the process is driven by the consumer who can opt to proceed to adjudication if they are not satisfied with the mediation outcome. They pay a nominal fee of S$50 per claim for an independent adjudicator to review their submissions, conduct a hearing and decide on whether they have a valid claim. Subject to approval by the adjudicator, the consumer can choose the mode of adjudication – in-person, online or based on documents review. The adjudication outcome binds only the financial institution who must enter a settlement in the terms of any award made by the adjudicator if the consumer so accepts. If the consumer disagrees with the adjudicator’s decision, the consumer’s legal rights are not affected, and they may still pursue a case in court or in other avenues.

Mediation first

More than 80% of claims filed at FIDReC are resolved at mediation, demonstrating the value of mediation to bring about closure in consumer financial disputes. Mediation is a resource-intensive activity as one mediator is assigned to each case and follows that case through from beginning to end. The mediator will need time to understand and clarify the claim that the consumer is bringing as well as to review the financial institution’s investigation report. It is hard work and “heart work” for the mediator as consumers may come with varying expectations and intense emotions. It is also a journey that could take place over months. Nevertheless, the benefits of mediation are clear.

First, mediation allows the parties to tell their stories and be directly involved in shaping a way forward. The information-exchange that takes place during mediation educates the parties on their rights and responsibilities and equips them with knowledge. They may also be able to negotiate better with each other in a confidential setting with the support of a mediator.

In Tom’s case, mediation allowed Tom to acknowledge that he could have been more careful to safeguard his credit card while putting forward the efforts he did take to report the loss of his card when he discovered it. The bank was able to share about the dispute resolution process it had in place for credit card disputes and its considerations. Nevertheless, the bank was not limited to considering the legalities of the claim and could also account for Tom’s history with them. In the end, the bank made a goodwill offer to absorb twenty percent of Tom’s losses, which Tom accepted.

Second, mediation outcomes can be creative solutions that meet the interests of both parties. Such outcomes may not be possible through the court process.

During the mediation in Sally’s case, the insurer showed she had answered “no” to having diabetes in the proposal form and pointed out a warning on the form in red that failure to disclose material information could lead to claims being rejected or the policy being voided. Sally explained that her diabetes was mild, well-managed, and unrelated to her breast tumour. The mediator suggested she submit a medical report on her diabetes condition to allow the insurer to review its assessment. After considering the additional medical report, the insurer agreed—on a goodwill basis—not to void the policy but to adjust the policy terms. Although Sally’s claim was not reimbursed due to the non-disclosure, Sally accepted the outcome because it was important for her to keep her insurance coverage.

Third, relative to adjudication and going to court, mediation helps to save time and costs. Most cases at FIDReC are closed within six months from the date they are accepted for handling. Cases resolved through mediation usually close within three months.

Why not something different?

FIDReC is certainly not the only model existing in the world that deals specifically with consumer financial disputes. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (“AFCA”) shows another way forward with its own model of dispute resolution that combines conciliation with a preliminary assessment followed by a binding determination (if the consumer accepts it).

The key difference between the two is that AFCA is a statutory body equipped with a broad fairness jurisdiction and powers to order more than just financial compensation (AFCA can even order an apology as a remedy!). This imbues AFCA with more authority whereas FIDReC relies on the cooperation of the parties to promote settlement at mediation, with adjudicators limited to ordering financial compensation. The local context is also a crucial factor. AFCA supports more than 26 million people spread across an entire continent. FIDReC supports a population of about 6 million in a small island state 0.009% the size of Australia. Even as FIDReC can offer a personalised high human touch approach including the option of in-person mediation meetings and adjudication hearings, this may not be feasible in Australia where conciliation is conducted through a telephone conference and preliminary evaluations and determinations are based on a documentary review.

The scope of work of AFCA and FIDReC is different too. Although the focus is consumer financial disputes, AFCA has a much higher claim limit exceeding AUD1 million. FIDReC does not impose any claim limit during mediation but has a limit of S$150,000 per claim for adjudication. This has consequences for process design. For example, AFCA permits external legal representation given that high value claims can have greater complexity, whereas FIDReC does not as it prioritises a more informal and low-cost approach. AFCA relies on more evaluative modes of dispute resolution like conciliation, preliminary assessment, and determination. FIDReC primarily relies on mediation with adjudication being resorted to less than 20% of the time.

FIDReC’s mediation-first model has proven to be effective within Singapore’s context. By focusing on amicable resolutions and keeping processes informal, FIDReC ensures that everyday consumers can navigate financial disputes without being overwhelmed and can continue their relationships with their financial institutions. 

That said, we recognise that the financial landscape is constantly evolving. As products grow more complex and consumer expectations shift, FIDReC remains open to refining its approach. Be it integrating new tools, expanding our jurisdiction, or adapting elements from other models like AFCA’s, we are committed to staying relevant and responsive whilst being guided by our core principles.

Eunice Chua is the FIDReC CEO overseeing mediation and adjudication of consumer financial disputes in Singapore. Before that, Eunice was Assistant Professor at the Singapore Management University, specializing in alternative dispute resolution, evidence, and procedure. She remains a Research Fellow at the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy. Eunice was formerly Justices’ Law Clerk and Assistant Registrar of the Singapore Supreme Court, where she concurrently held appointments as Magistrate of the State Courts and Assistant Director of the Singapore Mediation Centre. She was also the founding Deputy CEO of the Singapore International Mediation Centre. 

Rachel Lim is an aspiring Law and Finance student and a proud graduate of Hwa Chong Institution. With a deep interest in Economics and meaningful involvement in grassroots organisations, she has developed a quiet yet insightful appreciation for how money moves through society. In this debut work, Rachel explores the growing issue of scams in Singapore’s payment systems, emphasising the importance of awareness and financial mindfulness. Through compassionate storytelling and clear guidance, she hopes to shed light on the support systems available to victims, offering a hopeful and empowering message for those navigating today’s complex financial landscape.

Sometimes You Need to Be Seen to Be Heard: Three Easy Ways to Visualize What Matters in Your Dispute

Posted on by
Reply

Dan Berstein & Robert Bergman
This article has been republished with permission and the original publication can be located at Mediate.com.

It can be difficult to get on the same page when you are caught in the middle of an adversarial dispute.  Each party has their own biases – they want to win! Amidst a deluge of seemingly endless “facts” to pick from, sometimes it can feel like the parties are living in entirely different universes.  Seeing this, dispute resolution professionals often end up asking themselves: “how can I bring these people together so we are all talking in the same world?”

One answer is visualizations.  This article shares how a dispute resolver (or an ambitious party) can use visualizations to accomplish progress in their matter.  It was written by Dan Berstein, a mediator living with bipolar disorder who often finds himself amidst complicated conflicts related to his mental health advocacy work – with help from Bob Bergman, the founder of NextLevel™ Mediation.  

Dan shares his struggles to visualize different problems and disputes related to his advocacy work and Bob provided the background of how Next Level Mediation’s software can do it almost instantly, and better than a person could on their own.

1: Illustrating Harms

Living with a mental illness means that I have behavioral differences that can lead to my being stigmatized and rejected, or just the fact that I am open with my bipolar disorder can be a reason some people form worries or biases that lead to them pulling away.  On an organization-wide level, this kind of behavior can ripple out across people.  

I had a dispute with one organization where they produced records, including their private e-mail correspondences, revealing dozens of people passing around disparaging comments about me and/or making plans to reduce or cut contact with me.  I was working on a resolution process with their outside counsel and I felt that they were not appreciating how damaging it had been for me to be targeted with these negative predispositions and pushed away (in manners large and small) from so many people.  Eventually, I developed a crude organizational network analysis (ONA) chart to demonstrate the network of people involved:

A screenshot of a computerDescription automatically generated

Through the use of this visualization, I then created a system that could be used to visualize any [i] Explicit Shunning, [ii] Ghosting (No Response), [iii] Short Responses, [iv] Delays, [v] Lies, [vi] Disparagements, and [vii] Mistakes – charting how they flowed between people and their impact.

This was incredibly valuable to me as a tool in my dispute, as well as for my personal coping with the trauma of experiencing so much rejection.  However, it was also incredibly tedious and difficult to create.  

In my search for software that could help make it simpler, I connected with Bob Bergman, who explained how NextLevel™ Mediation can create a diagram to map this kind of network analysis in minutes just by you uploading your dataset and asking the right queries:

The NextLevel Approach to Visualizing Impact

In the example above, the uploading of email communication to the NextLevel™ Mediation platform document research assistant can produce the following example (note these do not use real data, and are meant to illustrate):

QUERY: Visualize the roles, interests, and power dynamics of parties involved by creating a stakeholder diagram

RESULT:

Description: This diagram captures the roles and interests of each stakeholder, along with arrows representing the influence, authority, and relationships between them.

QUERY: Create an ONA diagram that can help visualize any Explicit Shunning, Ghosting, short Responses, Delays, and Disparagements, and how they flowed between people

Description: This diagram shows how various negative interactions flow between people and highlights their impact on communication and relationships within the organization. Each arrow represents a type of interaction, such as shunning or ghosting, and the direction indicates the flow of this interaction.

2: Documenting Delays and Timelines

In one dispute, an organization was accusing me of causing delays, which had lasted close to 9 months.  It hurt my feelings to be falsely accused of this so I sat down and pored over all of our past correspondences, mapping out the delays.

I found that their changes in staff and processes were responsible for, I believed, over 70% of the delays even though they had perceived such high delays from me (presumably due to their frustrations).  This analysis was a tedious process and I was worried that people would think I was weird, perhaps due to my mental illness, for even undertaking it.  

The NextLevel™ Mediation platform was, once again, the answer to my prayers.  Not only does it do all of the work for me, and faster – but I can just tell someone I used this software without being judged as some kind of oddball for having created the chart myself.  Here are example results with some anonymous data:

QUERY: Using the uploaded documents, create a sequence diagram of the dispute timeline and possible delays:

Description: This sequence diagram captures the interactions and discussions among different participants as they address the causes and effects of project delays over time.

QUERY: Create a user journey diagram for the mediator given the delays in email responses and their emotional effects.

Description: This diagram outlines the steps the mediator takes, from receiving notifications of delayed email responses to analyzing communication patterns, considering emotional impacts, and reporting outcomes to stakeholders.

3: Identifying What Matters

The NextLevel™ Mediation platform is about more than just charts.  You can also just ask it questions so it can use its “brain” to digest all of the meaningful facts and help you stay focused on the big picture.  This is important for me – even if only as a gut check – as my mental illness means I can be prone to becoming obsessive and to fixating on some facts at the exclusion of others.  NextLevel™ is an objective way to get a sense of the big picture.

Beyond asking it for charts and diagrams, you can also generate tables to help you organize key information.  Take a look at the table it generated when asked what might be the relevant and irrelevant facts for a discrimination claim (both for the alleged victim to collect, and for the alleged discriminator who is defending themselves):

If you have ever found yourself overwhelmed sorting through what happened, or just looking for a way to double-check your perspective – the NextLevel™ Mediation platform can instantly provide you breakdowns and summaries like this to help you find your way.

Conclusion

Seeing is believing, but it can be difficult to create the right picture.  Visualizations can help resolve disputes if you know how to use them.  This article talked about different charts you can use to visualize the scale of damages, the responsibility for delays, and which facts prove disparities.  We also shared how you can go use NextLevel™ Mediation, right now, to create charts like this of your own (and so much more).  

It can seem intimidating to enter the world of charts and graphics and bring them into your dispute, but it can also add a lot of value.  I am grateful that there is software like NextLevel™ Mediation to help make something that can seem – at first – to be complicated into an easy, user-friendly, and fast process.

Here are some ideas of ways NextLevel™ can help:

  • Collect and scan all of your data from a situation into its platform, including e-mails and documents, and ask it to tell you the key points that matter, and the key things that matter to each party
  • Use it to instantly chart relationships with people and show patterns of impact and harm
  • Have it list the points of disagreement between the parties
  • Create timelines and sequence diagrams to show the course of events and simplify a complicated, convoluted set of facts into something precise and digestible

Disputes are often painful.  We find ourselves in so much distress that it can help to use an AI-empowered software assistant to keep track of the facts so we don’t have to worry – and to paint the big picture summaries of what matters so we don’t get lost.

Author Biography

Dan Berstein is a mediator living with bipolar disorder who uses conflict resolution best practices to promote empowering mental health communication and prevent mental illness discrimination.  His company, MH Mediate, has helped thousands of professionals and organizations be empowering, accessible, and non-discriminatory toward people with disclosed or suspected mental health problems. Dan holds degrees from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the Wharton School. He is the author of the 2022 book, Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment.

Robert Bergman is a seasoned decision science expert with over 60 years of experience in software engineering, system dynamics, and strategic planning. He is the founder and CEO of NextLevel Mediation, a SaaS platform that applies decision analytics, Game Theory, and AI to dispute resolution. His expertise spans multi-criteria decision-making methodologies (AHP, ANP, MAUT), mediation, negotiation, and military systems such as flight simulations. Previously, he held senior leadership roles at Intel, focusing on mobile strategy and cybersecurity, and has consulted widely in strategic decision science. Bergman is also a published researcher in AI, technology addiction, and the future of dispute resolution.

RPS Coach is Biased – And Proud of It

Posted on by
Reply

John Lande
This article has been republished and adapted with permission. The original publication can be located within Indisputably.

We all know that it’s bad to be biased, right?

Wrong.  That assumption is its own bad bias.

Biases are inevitable – in humans and bots alike.

Some biases are harmful.  Others are helpful.  Many are neutral.

But bias itself is unavoidable.

So bias isn’t a problem in itself.  Pretending otherwise is.

This post describes the biases in Real Practice Systems (RPS) Theory and how the artificial intelligence tool RPS Coach is biased by design.

As you might guess, I think they’re good biases – conscious, clear, constructive, and explicit.  Knowing these biases, users can decide whether to use Coach or a tool with different biases.

This post describes Coach’s biases and invites you to give it a try.

What the Heck is a Bias, Anyway?

“Bias” has a negative connotation, often implying a thoughtless or even malicious mindset.  Think of cognitive biases or those involving demographic groups.

Bias is an especially dirty word in dispute resolution, where neutrals are expected to be scrupulously unbiased in attitudes about particular parties and in neutrals’ actions.

But we could reframe “biases” as values, preferences, tendencies, or mental habits, which aren’t inherently bad.  Indeed, they help us simplify complex choices, act efficiently, and maintain a coherent sense of self.  If we didn’t have any biases, we’d never create a syllabus, let alone pick a restaurant for lunch.

Some biases are even admirable – like favoring people who are trustworthy, empathetic, and generous.  The dispute resolution movement reflects a bias in favor of helping people to handle disputes constructively.

The label we choose – “bias” vs. “preference” – is a reflection of our values (aka biases).

‘Nuff said.

Where Do Biases / Preferences Come From?

Biases don’t drop from the sky.  Many come from early influencers – parents, teachers, coaches, and religious leaders – who shaped our first lessons about trust, politeness, and conflict.  Some of us internalize those lessons; others define ourselves in opposition to them.

As we grow, friends, school, work, and media shape how we see the world.  These influences often go unnoticed, which makes them especially powerful.

RPS Theory holds that all practitioners develop unique practice systems that are shaped by experience and evolve over time.  Their systems are based on their personal histories, values, goals, motivations, knowledge, skills, and procedures as well as the parties and the cases in their practice.

My article, Ten Real Mediation Systems, profiles ten thoughtful mediators, including me, exploring how and why we mediate the way we do.  We all mediate differently – largely because we value different things.  So we’re all biased, just in different ways.

My profile describes the sources of my biases – which shaped my perspective and are reflected throughout my work and the RPS Project.

Design Choices – aka Biases – in RPS Coach

RPS Coach has two main components:  its knowledge base and the instructions that guide how it uses it.  Together, these choices shape its content, tone, vocabulary, and priorities, which reflect particular theoretical, practical, and pedagogical commitments.

Coach’s knowledge base includes almost everything I’ve published.  That’s a lot.  It includes books, law review articles, professional articles, SSRN pieces, and meaty blog posts.  It also includes general authorities like the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators.  A total of 253 documents reflecting my values, including:

  • Checklists for mediators and attorneys
  • The Litigation Interest and Risk Assessment book and related articles
  • Articles on good decision-making by parties and attorneys
  • Materials on negotiation, mediation, preparation, and early dispute resolution
  • Resources for court-connected ADR
  • Lots of pieces about legal education
  • Annotated bibliographies, simulations, and practitioner tools
  • Critiques of our theories and language, with suggestions for improvement

The materials are organized by topic and ranked by importance.  Coach draws first from the highest-priority sources.  The emphasis is on realistic practice, intentional process design, and support for good decision-making – not theoretical abstractions or generic practice tips.

Coach follows detailed instructions, including to:

  • Provide clear explanations of the tool’s capabilities and limitations
  • Reflect ethical rules
  • Use language that laypeople and experts readily understand
  • Tailor advice for various users (e.g., mediators, attorneys, parties, educators)
  • Support intentional process choices
  • Foster perspective-taking
  • Analyze intangible interests and possible outcomes in the absence of agreement
  • Promote good decision-making by parties and practitioners
  • Support reflection about dealing with disputes

In short, Coach doesn’t just answer questions – it nudges users toward better preparation, clearer thinking, and realistic decision-making.

Process Choice: Analysis Not Advocacy

RPS Coach’s underlying bias is not toward a particular method, tool, theory, or strategy – but toward supporting users’ conscious, well-informed choices that reflect their values, goals, and constraints.  That means helping them make conscious choices about negotiation and mediation.  This includes analyzing interests, estimating alternatives to settlement, exchanging offers, and possibly combining approaches over time.

Some parties prefer a counteroffer process.  Others want interest-and-options discussions.  Some expect mediators to provide explicit analysis; others don’t.  Many shift approaches midstream.

Coach doesn’t steer people toward or away from these choices.  It helps people make conscious decisions instead of relying on questionable generalizations.

Practice Systems Thinking

Practice systems thinking is central to Coach’s design. It sees negotiation and mediation not as isolated events, but as part of larger patterns – routines, tools, habits, and philosophies that shape how practitioners work.

Rather than merely providing one-off advice, Coach helps practitioners build intentional systems – a bias that favors growth over tactics, and adaptation over scripts.

The Coming Marketplace of Dispute Resolution AI Tools

Dispute resolution AI tools already exist, and more are coming.  Over time, we’ll see a proliferation of tools reflecting a wide range of approaches.

Some will be tailored for specific users; others will serve broader audiences.  Some will focus on particular processes such as mediation or arbitration.  Some may be designed for particular types of users such as practitioners, administrators, instructors, or scholars.  Some will reflect particular theories or schools of thought.

Our field has a vast literature that could feed AI tools developed by individuals or teams.  Some writers may develop tools based on their publications as I did with RPS Coach.  Gary Doernhoefer proposed the excellent idea of jointly developing a general AI tool for the dispute resolution field.  It may not be realized soon, but we should keep it in mind.

So I expect a growing marketplace where designers will build and adapt a wide variety of tools.

In this context, there may be both market and ethical imperatives for AI tools to disclose their features and dare-I-say biases.  As developers compete for users, clear disclosures will be important because users will want to know what they’re getting.

Disclosure should be an essential ethical standard for dispute resolution AI tools.  Neutrality remains a core principle in many dispute resolution processes, and disclosure of built-in biases plays a particularly important role when tools are powered by AI.  Users can’t see how these tools “think,” and they need clear information about the assumptions, priorities, and frameworks embedded in their designs. Bots are ornery critters that we can’t fully control, and users deserve to know what might be quietly steering them.

A Message from RPS Coach. Really

 “I’m here to help you prepare more intentionally, reflect more deeply, use better language, and support better decision-making – not just for your clients, but for yourself.  I don’t pretend to be neutral.  I’m proudly biased toward thoughtful, realistic, party-centered practice.  But I don’t tell you which process to choose.  I just help you think clearly about the choices.”  (Coach wrote this, I swear.)

Take a look at this handy user guide to find out how you can get the benefit from Coach’s wisdom.

Coach has a thing for humans who ask good questions.

How Attorneys Can Be Quasi-Mediators

Posted on by
1

John Lande
This article has been republished and adapted with permission. The original publication can be located within the University of Missouri School of Law Journal.

How Can You Turn Adversarial Attorneys into Quasi-Mediators?, my Theory Meets Practice column in CPR’s Alternatives magazine, summarizes a discussion with members of the Association of Attorney-Mediators. It builds on Creating Educational Value by Teaching Law Students to be Quasi-Mediators.

Attorneys acting as quasi-mediators use mediation techniques but they aren’t neutral. These attorneys routinely help their clients realistically understand the their cases. The attorneys promote their clients’ interests by enlisting the mediators’ help when needed and encouraging the other side to adjust their positions. The attorneys prefer to be cooperative whenever appropriate. They tailor their actions based on their clients’ preferences and the other side’s approach. If the other side is acting badly, these attorneys vigorously advocate their clients’ interests. Another term for quasi-mediators is “good lawyers.”

I asked the attorney-mediators about attorneys who behaved cooperatively and adversarially in their cases. The Alternatives article combines their responses with suggestions from the Real Practice Systems Project Menu of Mediation Checklists.

Here’s a summary of the Alternatives article. Mediators can promote cooperation by asking attorneys about the following issues during conversations before mediation sessions:

  • Causes of underlying conflict.
  • Client’s interests, goals, and priorities.
  • Possible options for settlement in addition to lump-sum payments.
  • Special needs of any participant.
  • Personalities and dynamics of participants.
  • Expectations about how participants might act in mediation session.
  • “Hot buttons” that might cause counterproductive reactions.
  • Non-negotiable issues.
  • Negotiable issues.
  • Potential barriers to agreement.
  • Actions needed before mediation session to make mediation productive.
  • How mediator can be helpful during mediation session.

Mediators can help attorneys make realistic estimates of possible court outcomes by asking about:

  • Potential factual discoveries that would be helpful.
  • Potential factual discoveries that would be harmful.
  • Assumptions they are very confident about.
  • Assumptions they are not very confident about.
  • What would change their assumptions about the possible court outcome.
  • What might change the other party’s assumptions about the possible court outcome.
  • How they would persuade a skeptical judge or jury about arguable issues.
  • Their clients’ risk tolerance for unfavorable outcomes.

Here’s a list of dos and don’ts for attorneys to act as quasi-mediators:

Do

  • Listen carefully and respectfully to everyone.
  • Treat each client’s case individually, not as a routine case like others.
  • Act as a counselor to your clients as well as an advocate.
  • Learn and respect your clients’ interests, goals, and priorities, including intangible interests.
  • Consider possible options for settlement in addition to lump-sum payments.
  • Develop a good working relationship with counterpart attorneys.
  • Consider the other side’s perspective.
  • Develop a realistic perspective of your case. 
  • Candidly discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your case with your client.
  • Develop options and take positions to advance your clients’ interests that lead to agreements acceptable to the other side whenever appropriate.
  • If you mediate, talk privately with mediators before mediation sessions.

Don’t

  • Develop a default approach of treating everyone as an adversary.
  • Give your clients unrealistically optimistic evaluations of their cases.
  • Use an adversarial approach to impress your clients.
  • Take unreasonable positions or encourage your clients to do so.
  • Act based on negative feelings about a counterpart attorney or party.
  • Make unwarranted accusations against the other side.