After visiting family in San Diego, I attended a meeting of the Southern California members of the International Academy of Mediators. Being invited to join this organization has been one of the highlights of my mediation career. All members openly share their best ideas, practice pointers, and their frustrations. I learned a lot.

Many of the members in the California group have been mediating for over 30 years. So our discussion eventually turned to the evolution of the practice of mediation. Trying to put things into perspective, we discussed how mediation has changed the litigation landscape, and how the legal culture has changed mediation.

A former California judge reminded us that in the 1980’s, when mediation was introduced as an alternative to litigation, courts across the country were described as “broken.” People waited years for a trial. A quick Google search of “court backlog 1980’s” reveals many articles expressing alarm and dismay at the condition of the courts.

Here in Connecticut, it was not unusual to wait five years for a jury trial. I recall trying a personal injury case that had been on the docket for almost seven years. The Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association filed a suit challenging the inadequate funding of the Judicial Branch. Dissatisfaction with this state of affairs led to increased court administration, more judges, and alternate dispute resolution mechanisms.

Mediation was introduced as a state court-annexed program in the early 1990’s. Back then, I went to the National Judicial College to train as a mediator and helped train other judges in this new approach to case settlement. It took 10-15 years to take hold privately and flourish.

Judging by the number of private mediators now working in the state, most lawyers and their clients have embraced mediation. It is confidential, more informal, less costly and more timely than waiting for a trial. Clients can actively participate in the resolution of their cases. Often, mediations can be scheduled early enough to avoid the emotional burden litigation imposes on clients. In a world where more than 90% of all cases settle, taking a shorter, cost-effective, client satisfying route makes sense.

We are certainly in the midst of changes in the legal landscape. As we move forward, lawyers will need to develop additional skills, suited to a world where negotiation, not trial, is the likely road to settlement.