For those seeking a more formal process while avoiding court, arbitration fills a crucial gap. Its streamlined procedures and flexible scheduling make it particularly attractive to businesses and individuals who value efficiency. The private nature of proceedings adds another layer of appeal, especially for sensitive matters. While maintaining legal rigor, arbitration typically moves faster than court litigation and often proves more cost-effective. Arbitration can be binding or non-binding.

Recent innovations in dispute resolution have led to an intriguing development: combining mediation and arbitration into a single, fluid process. This approach allows parties to attempt peaceful resolution through mediation while maintaining arbitration as a backup. The construction industry has particularly embraced this model, incorporating it into standard contracts. The hybrid model is gaining popularity across practice areas and among judges.

The primary hurdle in hybrid proceedings involves information management. There are times during a mediation when information is shared with the mediator in confidence, however, nothing is confidential in an arbitration. Ex-parte communications are not permitted in that process. When one neutral party serves both roles, they must carefully navigate the shift from mediation’s confidential discussions to arbitration’s transparent process. One potential solution involves conducting the arbitration and sealing the arbitration decision before attempting mediation. The arbitrator/mediator would draft the arbitration decision and withhold it until after the mediation. If the case is not settled at mediation, then the arbitration decision can be served on the parties and filed with the court according to local rules of procedure.