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.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.