State AG mediation of consumer complaints
<p>I was referred to my state Attorney General's Office (AGO) for mediation of a consumer complaint I filed. How effective will that mediation be?</p>

<p>Mediation, which is another name for a settlement negotiation facilitated by a third-party, doesn't always resolve a dispute, but it generally resolves disputes more often than the parties expect that it will going into the process. </p>

<p>In many jurisdictions, it is required before going to trial on the merits in anything other than a special expedited proceeding. Neither party is required to agree to a settlement in mediation. If they go through the process and don't reach an agreement, they can proceed to trial. Implementation of mandatory mediation usually reduces the number of cases that go to trial significantly.</p>

<p>Mediation that results in the conclusion of a matter by settlement is almost always more cost effective than litigating a case to completion on the merits and eliminates the uncertainty of an outcome at trial (commonly called "rolling the dice" by lawyers and judges in the U.S.), instead putting control of the way that the case is resolved in the hand of the parties.</p>

<p>Mediation is something of a waste of money if the parties could have resolved the dispute without the time and expense of a mediation. But, even in cases that do go to trial, mediation is often not a complete waste of time because it often results in an exchange of information in the interest of settlement that informs your later litigation of the case even though information exchanged in mediation is not itself admissible in evidence in a trial.</p>

<p>On the other hand, mediation almost always results in a compromise that leaves neither party completely happy with outcome, and the result almost never results in what an idealized since of "justice" would produce from the situation. The more certain it is that you will prevail at trial, the less you have to gain from reaching a mediated compromise solution.</p>

<p>But, mediation can also result in settlement terms that you could never be awarded at trial. For example, in a a civil lawsuit for a violation of civil rights, you may mostly want reforms in police procedure, or to have the offending official fired, but a court cannot award either of those remedies without the consent of the governmental agency accused of violating civil rights.</p>

<p>This said, some mediators are more effective than others. Often government sponsored mediation service will be the least expensive, but also the service with the least skilled mediators. State sponsored mediators often lack the specialized expertise to help parties to settlement a complex or technical dispute - in those cases, hiring a private mediator may be a better choice.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>How effective will the mediation be?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That is hard to tell. But depending on the laws of your state/jurisdiction, going through mediation might be a jurisdictional prerequisite for filing suit in Small Claims (or the applicable) court.</p>

<p>Mediation might be perceived as a waste of time when the other party's course of conduct reflects a pattern of disregard, dishonesty, blatancy, or akin approach. However, mediation is preferable to <em>arbitration</em> because the findings and/or decisions reached by an arbitrator are given high deference in courts. This means that the outcome of arbitration is quite hard to reverse even if the appellant is right.</p>

<p>By contrast, the mediator mostly aims at facilitating the concretizing of the issues in dispute. The mediator might share his or her perspective regarding the parties' approach during the negotiations, but will not impose conclusions of fact or of law. The mediator leaves it up to the parties whether to settle the controversy or to move forward with the court proceedings.</p>

mediation