What are the Prospects for Non-Attorney Mediators?

We have examined our sample of 579 mediated cases up to determine who is selected by parties to serve as mediator. Our sample of mediating cases comes from mediation sessions reported to the Cobb County Superior Court between 2006 and 2007.

Over 100 mediators are represented in the data sample; however, the majority of cases were conducted by a relatively small group of mediators. As the graphic below illustrates, ten mediators mediated over half of the cases. The data supports the hypothesis that a small group of the usual suspects conducts the majority of mediation sessions.

Another issue that we found of interest is the prevalence of occupations represented at the mediation table. Specifically, we wanted to know how frequently attorney-mediators were selected by parties as compared to non-attorney mediators. The extent to which legal analysis should dictate mediation is a frequently debated question in academic literature.

To determine whether the mediator in a particular case was an attorney, we cross-referenced each mediator represented in our data sample with the Giorgio Bar Directory. Additionally, we looked to a booklet of mediator biographies published by the Court.

We found that attorney-mediators represented the overwhelming majority of mediators selected by the parties for court-connected mediation sessions. 93% of mediation sessions in our sample were conducted by attorney mediators; 7% by non-attorney mediators. In part, this fact reflects the Court’s rule: only attorneys may mediate civil (non-domestic) cases. However, even in domestic relations cases in our sample, which any occupation may mediate by court rule, attorney mediators conducted 92% of mediation sessions.

	All Mediations	Domestic Mediations
Attorney Mediators	n = 540 93.3%	n = 439 91.8%
Non-Attorney Mediators	n = 39 6.7%	n = 39 8.2%

This article will not take a position whether attorneys make better mediators than non-attorneys, but the data presents some important questions:

In the long run, are new mediators provided sufficient opportunities to gain experience?

If a relatively small group of attorney-mediators actually represent the bulk of mediation practice, why is there an elaborate process at the state and local level to regulate the training, registration and qualification of mediators? If parties are frequently able to agree to utilize certain experienced mediators, is administrative regulation really necessary? Put another way, why devote such public resources to coordinating mediation sessions for a relatively small group of experienced attorney-mediators?

This finding should caution new mediators, particularly non-attorney mediators, about their prospects for serving in court-connected mediation. It appears the prospects for non-attorney mediators in court-connected mediation are very limited. As a practical matter, non-attorneys considering mediation training to start mediating court cases should consider whether applying mediation training in fields other than litigation.

Obviously many mediation sessions take place privately, without connect to the courts, but we should expect purely private mediation sessions to be relatively rare compared to court-connected mediation.