What’s the difference between a settlement conference and a mediation?

A settlement conference takes place with a judge. The parties and their lawyers meet with the judge in the judge’s chambers (his office) and try to resolve the case. The judge makes no rulings and issues no orders during the conference. The decision either to settle or to proceed to trial remains with the parties.

A mediation is similar to a settlement conference. Your attorney is there with you, and the mediator makes no decisions. But instead of the settlement talks being supervised by a judge, in a mediation, the talks are supervised by a “mediator,” who is a neutral lawyer or a retired judge. The parties pay the mediator for his time.

Cases are often more likely to be resolved in mediation rather than settlement conference. First, the mediator, unlike a sitting judge, has no docket pressures and may spend several days working with the parties if that appears constructive. Second, while a settlement judge is assigned to the case, a mediator is selected by the parties. The parties select a mediator because he or she has experience — as either a lawyer or judge — in cases involving the type of injuries (such as brain, spinal cord, or burn injuries) that the client is dealing with. The expertise means that the mediator is “on the same page” with the parties as well as with any insurers who may be involved.

Regardless of whether you participate in a settlement conference or mediation, the decision as to whether to accept the amount of money defendants offer you or continue on towards trial is always yours to make.