Attorneys have long debated the effectiveness of court-based mediation programs with regard to conserving court resources and saving litigants time and money. Anecdotal evidence supports claims of such cost saving benefits, although few courts have tested them with much success, until now.

The Maryland Judiciary’s Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO) recently released a major study conducted by the Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research at UMBC on the effects of mediation in workers’ compensation cases. The MACRO-sponsored project was initiated by the Hon. Ellen M. Heller, Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, with Marilyn Bentley, Differential Case Management Coordinator, providing oversight of the on-site data input. The researchers collected information about comparative outcomes, cost, court time, and settlement rates. In this rigorous, scientific evaluation, a total of 400 workers’ compensation cases filed in the Baltimore City Circuit Court were randomly assigned - 50 percent to a control group and 50 percent to mediation. The study revealed that cases referred to mediation spend less time in the system overall. In fact, a higher portion of cases referred to mediation were disposed of prior to the three time-line benchmarks: discovery deadlines; the mandatory pre-trial settlement conferences; and, scheduled trials. There were also fewer notices of discovery filed among cases referred to mediation, indicating cost savings. The study revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups, supporting the conclusion that, at least in workers’ compensation cases, referring cases to mediation in the manner outlined in Title 17 of the Maryland Rules saves time and money for litigants and for the court.

Among the most significant findings were:

Approximately 24 percent of the cases in the mediation group were disposed of prior to the discovery deadline, compared with only 11 percent in the control group.

About 43 percent of cases in the mediation group were disposed of prior to their scheduled settlement conference, compared to only 28 percent in the control group.

About 83 percent of cases in the mediation group were disposed of prior to their scheduled trial date, compared to only 70 percent in the control group.

The length of time per case as stated above, and the reduced number of discovery motions filed, as outlined in the full report, are both indicators of money spent by litigants and court resources used. As such, the findings of this study show that mediation referrals offer cost saving opportunities for litigants and help conserve court resources.

While further study would be required to test whether court-based mediation programs have similar effects in other kinds of cases, this experiment clearly provides some hard evidence regarding the value and effect of mediation, in terms of time, costs, and agreement rate. Since the experimental group and the control group in this study were formed through a strict process of random assignment, we can be confident that the observed and statistically significant effects are due to mediation rather than to subtle innate differences between the groups. As MACRO continues its new focus on statewide ADR evaluation, there will be more opportunities to measure the results and benefits of ADR programs such as this one.

Call MACRO for more information or a copy of the study. A more detailed article regarding the study will appear in the next issue of MACROScope, due in mid to late June, 2002. MACROScope is a publication of the Judiciary’s Maryland Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office.