It should be known that "mediation" only means settling cases, and the mediation person is not usually advocating for your side, he/she is just there to settle the case. Now that doesn't mean he/she may not explain the law, but seriously, how can just explaining the law point out each person's rights without an opinion on what is right?
Clients usually don't know the law or their entitlement rights, that's why they hire attorneys; but hiring mediators that just settle cases doesn't mean necessarily that YOUR rights will be necessarily covered. Why? Well if a mediator doesn't tell you your rights then what rights do you have? If a mediator can only point out things, because they do not actually advocate for one side, you can hire your own advocate who will ONLY take your side for whatever position you have, explain the details, and explain (to you only) --- why or why not you might or might win a specific point?
The adversary system is normally used to cover each party's rights. That's why in criminal cases you will not see mediators appointed. Oh sure they can make "plea" negotiations between the People and the PD or private attorney-- but NEVERTHELESS---- the defendant is entitled to his rights under the law.
One of the many problems in Family Law is that clients are misinformed or don't understand their rights, and the procedures, and what Judges actually do. Judges are people like everyone else and they are not necessarily the same. A good advocate will be familiar with the Judges. Attorney herein would NEVER recommend using a Mediator to determine all issues. Mediation is often used by those attorneys that cannot litigate, or don't like litigation. Or for some reason, they make make more income in using mediation, or somehow be seen as friendlier. Friendly is good, but a good litigator can be very friendly, or very aggressive. A real effective attorney can do any of these things.
In very difficult cases, sometimes a Judge will appoint a Special Master because the issues are just too complex, long-winded or otherwise too time consuming and would require a separate trial (if it went that far..) (Attorney herein used to be a law office with a civil litigator, and a Special Master in San Diego.)
Real advocates and litigators seldom settle cases with mediators because in most cases, part of mediation requires people to give up things they may not want to give up. In this attorney's view, only a litigator can help a client determine what or which choices should be given up?? Client has the ultimate choice, but what attorney wants to see the client give up what he/she wants without correct compensation???
Clients usually don't know the law or their entitlement rights, that's why they hire attorneys; but hiring mediators that just settle cases doesn't mean necessarily that YOUR rights will be necessarily covered. Why? Well if a mediator doesn't tell you your rights then what rights do you have? If a mediator can only point out things, because they do not actually advocate for one side, you can hire your own advocate who will ONLY take your side for whatever position you have, explain the details, and explain (to you only) --- why or why not you might or might win a specific point?
The adversary system is normally used to cover each party's rights. That's why in criminal cases you will not see mediators appointed. Oh sure they can make "plea" negotiations between the People and the PD or private attorney-- but NEVERTHELESS---- the defendant is entitled to his rights under the law.
One of the many problems in Family Law is that clients are misinformed or don't understand their rights, and the procedures, and what Judges actually do. Judges are people like everyone else and they are not necessarily the same. A good advocate will be familiar with the Judges. Attorney herein would NEVER recommend using a Mediator to determine all issues. Mediation is often used by those attorneys that cannot litigate, or don't like litigation. Or for some reason, they make make more income in using mediation, or somehow be seen as friendlier. Friendly is good, but a good litigator can be very friendly, or very aggressive. A real effective attorney can do any of these things.
In very difficult cases, sometimes a Judge will appoint a Special Master because the issues are just too complex, long-winded or otherwise too time consuming and would require a separate trial (if it went that far..) (Attorney herein used to be a law office with a civil litigator, and a Special Master in San Diego.)
Real advocates and litigators seldom settle cases with mediators because in most cases, part of mediation requires people to give up things they may not want to give up. In this attorney's view, only a litigator can help a client determine what or which choices should be given up?? Client has the ultimate choice, but what attorney wants to see the client give up what he/she wants without correct compensation???