Mediation vs. Arbitration WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
WHAT’S THE FUTURE OF WORK? In-Person, Remote, or Hybrid Workplaces
Hi! Michael here again. Recently, I prosecuted a case where our client had fractured her foot because of the dangerously uneven cobblestone path she was walking on. Her injuries were severe, and her treatment called for the surgical installation of several screws to mend her broken bones. Experience has shown us, time and again, that no two cases are the same. Some cases should be tried before a jury at trial, and some cases should settle before trial. The unique characteristics of this case made her claim a favorable candidate for arbitration. By gathering and presenting all available relevant evidence to the arbitrator, much as we would if we were arguing to a jury, we were able to win an excellent result expeditiously. How do we know if arbitration or mediation is right for your case? Here are some of the pros and cons we weigh, as we fight to win the best possible outcomes for our injured clients. Arbitration PROS: The best way to describe an arbitration is almost like a mini trial. It’s more formal than a mediation. During an arbitration, there’s an arbitrator (usually a retired judge or senior lawyer), and, much like a regular court proceeding, lawyers can question witnesses from both sides. An arbitrator’s final decision is legally binding, and the award is enforceable in American courts and the courts of 142 countries. CONS: Because the decision is legally binding, you must be certain that you’re willing to accept the results of your arbitration. The element of risk can potentially be offset to a degree, as there are ways to set the minimum and maximum award of your arbitration beforehand. That way, even if the arbitrator awards a low dollar amount, you’ll still be awarded whatever amount was agreed upon to be the minimum award. The trade-off here is the “cap,” or maximum award that the defending insurance company will insist upon in order to agree to arbitrate. Typically, at trial there would be no such cap which is one reason why arbitration is sometimes not in our client’s best interest. Mediation PROS: Mediations are relatively informal. In a mediation, you can argue your case and the strict evidentiary requirements for submitting evidence at trial do not apply. This lack of formality can expedite the process. Mediators (again, typically a retired judge or senior lawyer), will act as the intermediary between you and the other party. Just as two parties locked in their position sometimes need a disinterested entity to help move the process forward, (otherwise the case would settle), as with a jury in a trial, a mediator similarly acts as such a disinterested entity to move negotiations past a sticking point. CONS: The results of mediation are not legally binding. Therefore, the mediation process may help resolve the case or it may not be fruitful at all. If either or both sides remain unable or unwilling to settle, the case will typically proceed along the path of litigation leading to a trial. If you have questions about the mediation, arbitration, or litigation processes and how they may apply to a matter you are concerned about, please reach out to me. It will be my privilege to review your situation with you and discuss which option may be best for you.
After more than a year of working remotely, the initial excitement of being able to work in your sweats probably wore off long ago. But for some, this stint of remote work has shown many upsides: Productivity has increased. Eliminating the daily commute has been good for the environment, and workers are spending more time with their families, pursuing hobbies , or exercising . Having a more flexible work schedule has also meant there’s a better work-life balance for many working parents. But for all the benefits, there are plenty of downsides, too. Many have struggled to set boundaries as the line between work and home has blurred, leading to overwork and burnout. Others complain about myriad distractions they face while working from home, especially those who don’t have a dedicated workspace and are also trying to help their children with virtual schooling. That’s not to mention potential tech issues, loneliness or alienation from coworkers, and increased barriers to effective collaboration. Yet, nearly half of those currently working remotely say they want to continue to do so 1–4 days per week even once it’s safe to fully return to the office. That’s led many employers to consider a hybrid model that incorporates remote and in-person work options. Publications like The New York Times and Forbes are touting a hybrid model as the way of the future. But what exactly would this look like? A productive hybrid work model wouldn’t simply mean workers come into the office a few set days a week. The smart approach, says Forbes writer Anna Convery-Pelletier , is to have employees come into the office for collaborative tasks and stay at home to work independently on tasks that require sustained focus and deep thinking. In-person meetings are especially good for “brainstorming sessions, introducing new projects, or team-building exercises,” Convery-Pelletier says. This focus on in-person collaboration may also mean that the office will look different when you return. Some businesses are opting to redesign their physical space to accommodate this kind of collaborative in-person work and eliminate costly individual work spaces now replicated at home. Whatever the future of work holds, many workers will be happy to safely return to their workplaces and see their coworkers in person again, whether full time or just a handful of days a month.
2
FRIEDMANSIMON.COM
Published by Newsletter Pro • www.NewsletterPro.com
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog