Mediation resolves disputes by facilitating agreement between the parties. The mediator does not decide the outcome, but helps the parties develop a solution that is mutually acceptable. This “self-determination” is the fundamental difference between mediation and litigation or arbitration, in which a judge, jury or arbitrator determines the outcome.

Steve Zikman facilitates agreements by helping the parties and their representatives:

• Examine the facts, issues, and interests involved;
• Identify and evaluate possible solutions to the dispute; and
• Negotiate a resolution that is acceptable to all parties

A variety of mediation tools and techniques are used, depending upon the circumstances of the participants and the dispute. Most mediations involve face-to-face meetings, although teleconferencing technology is often used when distance or participant unavailability is a factor.

Mediation offers many potential benefits and advantages over other dispute resolution processes, including:

• Mediation is typically much faster and less expensive than litigation.
• The time, location and other logistics can be arranged for the participants' convenience.
• Communications and resolutions are ordinarily private and confidential.
• Mediation helps the participants communicate their viewpoints and understand each others' perspectives.
• Mediation can address important concerns of the parties that may be disregarded as being "irrelevant" in itigation or arbitration.
• The parties can agree to solutions that are not available remedies in the other processes.
• A mediator can help the participants overcome obstacles to negotiating an agreement directly.
• Parties are usually more satisfied and likely to comply with solutions they have agreed to than those imposed by others.
• Mediation can improve interpersonal relationships and prevent future disputes.

Please feel free to consult with Steve Zikman to determine if mediation is appropriate for your particular circumstances.

When serving as a mediator, Steve Zikman acts as a neutral and does not represent any of the parties as their attorney, or provide legal advice to them. No attorney client-relationship arises between Mr. Zikman and the participants from any consultations or services performed as a mediator. The parties are encouraged to obtain legal advice and representation from independent attorneys. Legal representation is provided only pursuant to a written agreement which expressly creates and defines the attorney-client relationship. Absent such a written agreement, no attorney-client relationship or legal representation arises.

Over the course of his career as an attorney, facilitator and mediator, Steve Zikman has acquired extensive knowledge and expertise in a broad range of complex environmental and public policy-related subject areas. He has also developed the ability to quickly identify and understand new or unfamiliar fields. Most important to the practice of mediation are Steve’s unique skills in using the mediation process to help conflict parties reach agreement, whatever the subject matter might be.

While these processes are interrelated and have much common ground, there are differences.

The process of ‘facilitation’ is a collaborative process in which a neutral facilitator assists a group of individuals or stakeholders to constructively discuss a number of complex, and usually controversial, issues. The facilitator typically works with participants before and during these meetings to assure that the appropriate parties are at the table, help them set and enforce ground rules and agendas, assist them in communicating effectively, and help them stay on track in working toward their goals.

‘Consensus building’ describes a number of collaborative decision-making techniques in which a facilitator or mediator is used to assist diverse or competing interest groups to reach agreement on policy matters, environmental conflicts, or other issues in controversy affecting a large number of people. Consensus building processes are typically used to foster dialogue, clarify areas of agreement and disagreement, improve the information on which a decision may be based, and resolve controversial issues in ways that all interests find acceptable. Consensus building typically involves structured (yet relatively informal), face-to-face interaction among representatives of stakeholder groups with a goal of gaining early participation from affected interests with differing viewpoints, producing sound policies with a wide range of support, and reducing the likelihood of subsequent disagreements or legal challenges.

Please feel free to consult with Steve Zikman to determine which process would be most appropriate for your particular circumstances.