We recently experienced a milestone with the 20^th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, I asked my office colleagues where they were and what they remembered about that event. Both recalled being in grade-school in their classrooms. I vividly remember where I was and what I was doing when the attacks occurred. I was meditating a sexual harassment case in a downtown bank office tower. One of the attorney’s spouse worked for an airline and was in flight at the time.

After the events of that day, the Country came together with a common purpose of supporting our Country and those who had suffered at the hands of the terrorists. The many differences between all of us were put aside for the common good. I am struck at how different our Country and political landscape is today.

What does all of this have to do with mediation. In my life outside of the law, I have come to realize that many folks do not understand the difference between arbitration and mediation. I can draw a parallel between those two disputes resolution forums and the events following 9/11 and the Country’s landscape today. After 9/11 we were like mediation – we put aside our differences to reach an agreement. Today we are more like arbitration - a trial in which one party wins and one party loses.

Therein lies the difference between these two dispute resolution forums. Arbitration is a trial in which an Arbitrator, or a panel of Arbitrators, acts as judge and jury. The Arbitrator(s) decides the case and decides who wins and who loses.  With mediation, a Mediator, helps the parties work through their differences to reach an agreement through compromise. Thus, in essence, both parties win in that they had a dispute that has been resolved and resolved in a fashion in which they participated in the decision making process.

I have mediated well over 3,000 cases and arbitrated over 200. Frankly, I prefer mediation.