I do not want to overstate my claim. There is nothing in the UMA that precludes conducting a mediated conversation in a manner consistent with what I frame below as a "robust vision" of the mediator's role. The Act, however, does not provide sustained support for it and, more seriously, appears to license the type of intervener that I believe is inconsistent with basic process goals. Hence, I am conjecturing - though I do not believe it is "idle conjecturing" - as to how parties, representative, and the mediator shall conduct their mediation conference under the vision of mediation embedded in the Act; it is a vision, I believe, that diminishes rather than promotes mediation's salient values.
Joseph B. Stulberg,
UMA: Some Roads Not Taken, The,
2003 J. Disp. Resol.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2003/iss1/11