If you consider the phrase “binding mediation” to be perplexing, you would be in good company. One of the first cases in the nation to address the enforceability of such a provision found the concept to be “oxymoronic,” “inherently ambiguous,” “misleading,” “self-contradictory,” “deceptive,” and, therefore, ultimately unenforceable. See Lindsay v. Lewandowski, 139 Cal.App.4th 1618 (2006). So should this novel concept be thrown into the dustbin of failed legal innovations? Based on my experience, the answer is “no!” On the contrary, it is exactly these dichotomous traits that make binding mediation so effective if used in the right circumstances.

As the old saying goes, “Sometimes it is more important for some things to be decided than to be decided correctly.” As the saying recognizes, the efficiency in achieving resolution is sometimes just as important as the substantive resolution itself. This is so often true for modest controversies that are hotly contested. Such controversies have come up repeatedly in the world of construction litigation. For such matters, consider the efficiency of binding mediation.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]