Mediator Standards of Conduct for ALL Types of Mediation
Current model standards of conduct for mediators apply either to general civil cases (ABA/ACR/AAA Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators, 2005) or to domestic relations (Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, 2000). Recognizing that some mediations, such as probate, span both categories, and that mediators who practice in both areas need consistent standards, Michigan mediators drew on these resources and others to develop one set of standards useful in all types of mediation. After review by lawyers, mediators, and court personnel, the Standards were recently adopted for court-connected mediations in Michigan. See if these will assist you in your court program or practice!
Anne Bachle Fifer, ADR Section, State Bar of Michigan, Grand Rapids, MI
Zena Zumeta, Mediation Training & Consultation Institute, Ann Arbor, MI
Susan Butterwick, Susan Butterwick, JD, Ann Arbor, MI
Barbara Johannessen, Mediation Specialists, Inc., Rochester, MI
Mediators and Metaphorical Analysis: The TIMS Model
This interactive presentation is based on a two year study of Florida family court based mediators. Analysis of their metaphors about conflict concepts resulted in the Theoretical Integrative Model of Systems (TIMS). This theoretical model identifies layers of influence that become our accepted reality in mediation. Participants will explore how metaphors and language contribute to mediation style, discuss how reflective practice can be used to challenge what is accepted practice, and consider ethical impacts of program or institutional structure. The presentation will conclude with practical ways for mediators and managers to utilize the TIMS model to deconstruct mediation processes.
Rebecca Storrow, American Arbitration Association, Miami, FL
Setting the Table for Appropriate Dispute Resolution: Upstream Innovations in Program Design
The value of "upstream" programs or interventions has been demonstrated across many dispute resolution contexts, from regulatory negotiation ("reg-neg") to open door policies. This panel will showcase upstream innovations in judicial and educational arenas, with an emphasis on ideas for applying research findings to improve program design. It will conclude with commentary from a moderator/commentator with expertise in preventative approaches to dispute system design, andoffer the opportunity for audience discussion.
Tim Hedeen, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA
Donna Shestowsky, University of California, Davis, CA
Phil Moses, CADRE - The National Center on Dispute Resolution in Special Education, Eugene, OR
Lisa Blomgren Bingham, Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Bloomington, Bloomington, IN