From CPR's Annual Meeting: The Structural Importance of Deliberative Practices in Mediation

The author, a former CPR Intern now based in Paris, attended the CPR Institute’s 2026 Annual Meeting in Coronado, Calif., in February, and provides these reflections.

* * *

In mediation, the approach to a problem is to promote respect and mitigate threats in a legal environment characterized by invective. The ability to perceive a rational path amid an authoritative or confrontational approach is what leads to effective dispute resolution.

At CPR’s 2026 Annual Meeting, I had the opportunity to observe expert opinions on practices of mediation and the new currents of thought assessing evaluative measures of dispute resolution. The current state of mediation was discussed, along with perspectives on how to increase its effectiveness.

Mediation practice is based on the belief that there is a fundamental structural principle of deliberation embedded within social and legal discourse. Mediation addresses tensions arising from our legal and local and national political systems, and its practice is necessary to sustain democratic values. 

There is both an ethical and moral dimension of mediation that is necessary to maintain its practice. With the diminishing value of traditional mediation, it is important to develop new tools and practices to alleviate the pressures and risks that litigation poses in these fields. 

Mediation: An Industry Without Time? 

In the CPR Annual Meeting opening panel, “Excellence in Mediation: New Challenges, New Tools,” the discussion focused on how to bring about generational transitions in mediation given that neutrals are increasingly pressed for time and that all cases must be examined in hindsight. That is, the continual process of being posed with new cases without knowledge beforehand of what they will entail leads to the question of whether mediation is, in fact, an “industry.” 

For instance, the role of mediation statements was examined in the discussion. Panelist Cynthia Randall, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Litigation of Microsoft Corp., in Redmond, Washington, discussed whether mediation statements should be treated as another opportunity to argue a case, on terms that are agreed on in advance. The discussion held that most of the time, such statements intend to deliver a “win” at a “compromise,” rather than solving a problem. The mediation statement should be framed differently, to allow it to address the case on its own terms.

Settling Behind Closed Doors

A separate issue can be addressed on the question of who defines and controls what a “win” is.

Panelist Kenneth Roberts, a Chicago-based Venable partner, mentioned that there are cultural barriers to knowing what a “win” is, and it is difficult to describe and have all parties understand. Would the decision maker have a better perspective on the case for the mediation?

Generally, the panel suggested that commercial entities are more navigable than government entities in terms of flexible decision-making authority. There is an additional problem that businesses do not really see the matter of a win as a legal issue; rather, it is on the general counsel to determine this. Some cases ultimately will need to have a trial instead.

Mediation as a Deliberative Tool

Mediation needs to be deliberated upon and to be structurally relevant in legal discourse to promote peace and reciprocity. The ethical and moral influences on the legal communities that ADR practice upholds are necessary to reduce the negative pressures of competition, entrenchment, and conflict.

In addition to managing civility, authenticity, and respect, effective ADR tools and practices mitigate the high cost and time spent in court.

The panel, and indeed, the entire CPR Annual Meeting for me highlighted the current deconstruction of traditional mediation and the need to undertake critical work, both in thought and in practice, to enable transformative change.

Furthermore, the “Excellence in Mediation” panelists addressed the structural relevance of ADR and their commitment to preventing disputes and leading to facilitative discourse. (The panel also included Neel Chatterjee, a partner in King & Spalding's Palo Alto, Calif., office; Heather Humphrey, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Evergy Inc., a Kansas City, Mo.-based utility company, and Jeff Kichaven, a veteran Los Angeles mediator who heads his own firm.)

Encouraging neutrality and navigating tensions leads to effective change and longstanding relationships in an increasingly polarized world.

* * *

The author was a CPR Institute Summer 2025 Intern and is now a senior at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa. He has studied at Sciences Politiques Strasbourg and interned at the Council of Europe. He will be studying at the Catholic University of Paris until December 2026.

[END]