Quadra operates since 2003 as a private provider of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) services for management of conflicts and commercial and civil disputes
Quadra administers mediation, arbitration and expertise procedures,
promotes diffusion of ADR principles and realises world-class training
10 April 2013
IMI invited in-house counsel responsible for managing dispute resolution in international corporations to participate in an IMI Survey looking into their attitudes and approaches to arbitration and mediation. The Survey ran from mid-January to mid-March 2013. This seems to have been the first time that in-house dispute resolution counsel had been asked for their views on many of the issues raised at an international scale. Seventy-six in-house dispute resolution counsel from North America and Europe completed all (or in the cases of 5 responders, almost all) of the Survey.
The IMI Survey was designed to address gaps not covered in two previous user surveys, both conducted in 2011. The IMI Survey focused more on in-house counsel needs, attitudes and preferences regarding issues concerning information, professional quality standards and the skills they expect from their arbitrators, mediators and outside counsel.
The IMI Survey was circulated to an informed group of in-house dispute resolution counsel, including members of the Corporate Counsel International Arbitration Group (CCIAG - www.CCIAG.com) and the Mediation and Conflict Management Round Table of German Business (RTMKM - www.RTMKM.de). The majority of responders (64%) had arbitration and mediation experience, with 14% having experience of mediation but not arbitration, and a further 14% having experience of arbitration but not mediation. Only 8% of responders had no personal experience in either mediation or arbitration.
Most responders were either senior in-house legal counsel (63%) or senior management (20%) in their companies with 17% indicating they were engaged in other corporate roles. 71% of responders were from corporations with over 10,000 employees, and 18% were employed by companies having between 1,000 and 10,000 employees.
The IMI Survey, like most other surveys, was based on multi-choice answers to a range of propositions, principally to enable the Survey to be completed relatively quickly. Many of the questions referred collectively to "Neutrals" which the Survey's preamble defined as meaning both arbitrators and mediators.
There were 10 sections in the IMI Survey and the results are summarised below (the full results are at: www.IMImediation.org/imi-international-corporate-users-adr-survey-full-results).
In-house counsel would rely on the following when selecting a mediator:
Criteria |
Agree % |
Neutral % |
Disagree % |
Experience as a mediator |
99 |
1 |
0 |
Experience as a lawyer |
56 |
38 |
6 |
Expertise in the core issue of the case |
85 |
10 |
5 |
Evidence that the mediator's competency has been independently assessed |
83 |
14 |
3 |
Mediator's ranking in league tables |
38 |
41 |
21 |
Independently-verified feedback from users |
88 |
9 |
3 |
Anonymous user quotes on mediator's website |
16 |
38 |
45 |
Recommendation of law firm/other adviser |
78 |
19 |
3 |
Mediator's personality and attitude |
93 |
7 |
0 |
Past experience with a particular mediator |
97 |
3 |
0 |
Mediator subscribes to a Code of Conduct of a professional institution for mediators |
77 |
15 |
8 |
Gender of the mediator |
4 |
33 |
63 |
Culture of the mediator |
38 |
36 |
26 |
Criteria |
Agree % |
Neutral % |
Disagree % |
Experience as an arbitrator |
95 |
5 |
0 |
Experience as a lawyer |
89 |
9 |
2 |
Experience in the sector to which the case relates |
96 |
3 |
1 |
Evidence that the arbitrator's competency has been independently assessed |
84 |
15 |
1 |
Arbitrator's ranking in league tables |
38 |
45 |
17 |
Independently-verified feedback from users |
87 |
8 |
5 |
Anonymous user quotes on arbitrator's website |
15 |
43 |
42 |
Recommendation of law firm/other adviser |
83 |
16 |
1 |
Arbitrator's personality and attitude |
85 |
14 |
1 |
Past experience with a particular arbitrator |
91 |
8 |
1 |
Arbitrator subscribes to a Code of Conduct of a professional institution for mediators |
72 |
21 |
7 |
Over three quarters of responders (77%) favoured this proposition with only 8% against and 15% ambivalent:
Three quarters of responders favour this proposition, with 4% against and 20% ambivalent:
60% responded that competency-certifying bodies should not provide ADR services to the dispute resolution market or otherwise earn service income from users. 28% considered that service providers could do this, and 12% had no view.
Almost three quarters of responders felt that arbitration providers should be actively encouraging parties to use mediation. 22% were ambivalent and 4% disagreed.
"Compulsory" is a strong term and opinion on this issue was more evenly spread. This question followed the less aggressive proposition in Q6. Nonetheless, almost half (48%) of responders were in favour of mediation being a compulsory procedural step in both litigation and arbitration, with 37% disagreeing and 15% ambivalent.
With 77% of responders favouring a more proactive style of mediation, this result broadly confirms trends detected in previous surveys.
47% of in-house counsel agreed with this proposition and 15% disagreed with it. 38% were neutral on this subject.
An 80% positive response in support of this statement, with 14% ambivalence and 6% against it, indicates a very strong expectation among in-house counsel that their outside counsel should be trained in mediation advocacy skills.
2011 Cornell/Pepperdine/CPR Survey
In 2011, a survey of the in-house counsel in 368 Fortune 1,000 companies was conducted by Cornell and Pepperdine Universities together with CPR Institute as a follow-up to a 1997 survey conducted by Cornell. The results of this survey have been reported in Living with ADR: Evolving Perceptions and Use of Mediation, Arbitration and Conflict Management in Fortune 1,000 companies [1].
The Cornell/Pepperdine/CPR Survey, probably the most extensive contemporary research among ADR users, was designed to identify trends among corporate users, surface emerging ADR policies and practices and understand the drivers of those trends, policies and practices. It confirms the findings of the IMI Survey, although it had a very different set of goals. The Cornell/Pepperdine/CPR survey, conducted almost entirely in North America, demonstrated that a high proportion (97%) of US in-house counsel responders had experience with mediation and arbitration or both, with 45% saying they "frequently" use ad hoc mediation and 37% using mediation "occasionally". In total 12% were "frequent" users of arbitration and 35% were "occasional" users of arbitration. The IMI Survey also found a high level of mediation and arbitration experience among in-house corporate responders. It is reassuring that both surveys benefited from highly-informed and experienced users.
2011 Commercial Mediation Group (CMG) Survey
In 2011 a UK initiative, the Commercial Mediation Group, conducted a survey [2] focused mainly on mediation practice issues. Unlike the IMI Survey and the Cornell/Pepperdine/CPR survey, both of which were restricted to corporate in-house dispute resolution counsel, the CMG survey invited responses from over 60 law firms, and a smaller number of UK in-house counsel and other users were also surveyed.
Three questions similar to those in the CMG survey were also included in the IMI Survey, namely whether mediation should be a compulsory process step, whether mediators should be purely facilitative, and whether outside lawyers are an impediment to mediation (see sections 7, 8 and 9 of the IMI survey).
On the question whether mediation should be compulsory, 20% of CMG responders agreed, 13% were neutral and 67% disagreed (the IMI result was 48% agreed, 15% neutral and 37% disagreed).
On whether mediators should be more proactive than purely facilitative, 68% agreed, 25% were neutral and 7% disagreed (IMI Survey: 77% Agreed, 8% were neutral and 15% Disagreed).
On whether outside lawyers are an impediment to mediation, 5% agreed, 15% were neutral and 80% disagreed (IMI Survey: 47% agreed, 38% neutral, 15% disagreed).
IMI ADR Users Survey - Main Conclusions
April 4th, 2013
[1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2221471
and http://www.mediate.com/articles/StipanowichTbl20130315.cfm
[2] www.civilmediation.org/downloads-get?id=487
Source: IMI