"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..."

Today I returned to my main job-like activity for the past two plus months: working as a small-claims mediator at Orange County Superior Court. It's nice to be active again, using the Alternate Dispute Resolution skills I learned during law school, and providing a needed service to the community.

I have mediated or co-mediated about 30 cases, reaching a settlement in all but one. Business disputes, landlords and tenants, creditors and debtors, ex-boyfriends and girlfriends - I've handled the whole range. I like the business cases most (contractors, credit unions, etc). That may seem counterintuitive for a "fuzzy" like me, but in fact such disputes only involve money and are the least stressful, for the parties, and hence for me. Those people tend to be nice and are almost always professional. Today a man agreed to repay several hundred dollars mistakenly deposited into his bank account - the second time this mix-up has landed on my lap. Apparently, he spent this money by the time the bank caught its mistake.

Since mediation is voluntary, almost everyone who participates is civil - as they chose to negotiate an agreement with my help, rather than argue their case before a judge (like they had intended). In fact, roughly half of my "successful" resolutions are worked out in principle by the parties in the hallways before they talk to me. That happened today. So my awesome success rate has little to do with my abilities as a mediator, which are just adequate enough not to impede them from helping themselves.

Even though I've chosen the path of law, I believe that the law often interferes with justice and fairness - not only in its "objective" meaning, but also in its shared "subjective" meaning. The former is easy to understand. By the latter, I mean that the law may take a dispute out of the hands of the two parties. Mostly for the good of society, which wants to discourage a plaintiff or victim from resorting to "self-help" (i.e., me and a few buddies). And if the original act was criminal...

However, in some cases, two people or organizations might want to resolve their dispute without going through civil litigation. Neighbors, family members, parents sharing custody of children, people with long-term business relationships benefit from sitting down and resolving their argument without the time, cost, and emotional strife that lengthy litigation or even small-claims court, can bring. Even a small formal step such as being served by a stranger is off-putting to many people. And personally, I enjoy being the neutral, the third-party who brings people together, helps them realize what their shared interests are, and leaves them on friendly terms with each other, sometimes even a hug between former friends.

Mediation holds natural incentives for both plaintiff and defendant (if you're wondering why they'd show up). For the defendant, it's a way to resolve their situation without a court judgment. They may not owe the whole amount, but most of the time they owe something - and if a judge enters that "something" against them, it will damage their credit rating for years to come. For the plaintiff, payment is more likely if the defendant helped fashion the payment plan himself, as the court does not assist plaintiff in collecting judgment.

For myself, I need to purge from my system the emotional traces from the more complicated cases. Sometimes I don't realize how a certain defendant or plaintiff or broken relationship has stayed in my mind. And I could do better to find ways to find release - other than reading, which if it involves the news does the opposite! Even something simple like treating myself to ice cream, or catching an afternoon matinee alone - I can't recall the last time I did either. Sounds fairly pitiful, no? Striking a steady balance between extremes: if I can help others do it, surely I can help myself.