Logo
  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter



This website is authored by Lester Levy, Esq.
a founding member of JAMS.

  • About
    • About Lester Levy
  • The Basics of Environmental Mediation
    • What types of Environmental Cases can be mediated?
    • The Benefits of Environmental Mediation
    • The Environmental Mediation Process
    • Insurance Company Involvement
    • The Mediation Outcome
  • Case Studies
    • Case Study 1: Objectivity as Resolution Tool Provided Through A Neutral Expert
    • Case Study 2: Working Together
    • Case Study 3: Swift, Fair and Efficient: Awarding Compensation to Toxic Tort Victims
    • Case Study 4: Sequenced Regulatory and Insurance Negotiations
    • Case Study 5: How Communication Both Causes and Ends Conflict
  • Blog
  • In the News
  • Contact
You are here: Home / Mediation vs. Litigation / Why Mediation is Superior to Traditional Litigation: Putting Meat on the Bones

Why Mediation is Superior to Traditional Litigation: Putting Meat on the Bones

January 18, 2016 by Lester Levy Leave a Comment

mediation better than litigationI’d like to put some meat on the bones of the cost-saving aspects of environmental mediation.  I have argued that environmental mediation, properly executed, provides the opportunity to eliminate costs of duplicate work by multiple parties, while preserving every party’s right to negotiate hard on the merits of the dispute and to reach an agreed-upon allocation of the costs of dealing with the contamination at issue.  In this blog, I present a hypothetical situation – based on successful mediations I have conducted – to help the reader understand why I say this.

Consider the following:  There are 4 corner gas stations operating at 4 corners of an intersection.  A plume of petroleum contamination has migrated down gradient (downstream) in the groundwater and threatens to contaminate nearby drinking wells.  The governing environmental regulatory agency has identified each station as a potential contributor to the plume of contamination and has ordered that an investigation be undertaken to see where the contamination is located, how it got there, whether it requires a cleanup and, if so, what technology will be most effective.

Under standard practice, each party (station owner and/or operator) will hire a lawyer and retain an environmental scientist or consultant to perform the necessary investigation.  The consultant will investigate levels of contamination in the soil and groundwater beneath the site owned or operated by the party that retained it.  Each consultant will also install monitoring wells both above (up gradient) and below (down gradient) its own site to determine a number of things, including the areal extent of the plume, concentration levels throughout the plume, and whether potential off-site sources have contaminated that party’s property (thereby seeking to shift liability to other parties).

Focusing on the offsite, “regional” plume, lets assume that each party will pay its own environmental consultant $150,000 to study the plume – and thereby repeats, to a large extent, the investigative work that each of the other party’s consultants will also undertake.  Let’s further assume that each party will pay an additional $350,000 in pre-trial and trial costs (including depositions, expert discovery, soil and groundwater testing, summary judgment practice, pre-trial preparation and trial).  At the end of the trial, a judge or jury will allocate, probably on a percentage basis, how much of the costs of investigation and remediation that each party must pay.  In other words, under this simplified scenario, each party will pay $500,000 for the privilege of paying more money to clean up the site.  (By the way, depending on the case, the per-party cost of investigation and lawyers could be, and often is, much, much higher).

By contrast, in mediations I have handled, the parties have agreed to stay discovery and other potentially unnecessary trial-related costs and retain a joint consultant to investigate the scope and extent of the groundwater plume once – and for everyone.  So instead of each party paying $150,000 in investigation costs, each pays only one-quarter of that, or $37,500.  This results in a per-party savings of $112,500 off the bat.  Then, if we substitute, a mediation – even a multiple session proceeding given all the tasks which need to be performed and the time it will take to complete them – the $350,000 in trial-related costs comes off the table and is substituted by a significantly lower cost of mediation.  Those costs include the mediator’s time (which is normally split per-capita, or four ways in this case) and lawyer and consultant time needed both at and away from the mediation table.  That cost would be substantially less than $350,000 – probably substantially less than ½ of the avoided trial costs.  And, importantly, in mediation the parties control their own destinies by negotiating the best possible settlement of the common investigation and remediation costs and the costs – rather than leaving it to a third party to decide.  (For more on this, please see my other writings on what goes on in mediation and why it leads to optimal results for all parties).

I know this to be true because this has been a core part of my mediation practice for the last twenty-odd years.  Over that span of time I’ve helped resolve hundreds of environmental disputes – many implementing variations on the cooperative schema describe above.  I am confident it can work (as described in my various blog posts and case studies posted on my website) in the overwhelming number of cases, no matter how complicated the science or legal issues in the underlying controversy may be.

 

Share this:

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Related

Filed Under: Mediation vs. Litigation Tagged With: environmental disputes, environmental law, mediation process, mediation vs. litigation

inter-generational-theft-Brexit-climate-change

The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change

In last week’s Brexit vote results, there was a tremendous divide between age groups. 73% of voters under the age of 25 voted to remain in the EU, while about 58% over the age of 45 voted to leave. This generational gap is among the many parallels … Read More...

drinking-water-regulation

Our Drinking Water Regulation Is So Weak Even Flint’s Water Got A Pass

WASHINGTON — Federal drinking water rules are so relaxed that not even the city of Flint, Michigan, has been cited for a violation, even though many Flint residents have been relying on bottled water for drinking and cooking since last year. The … Read More...

Environmental Mediation: A New Paradigm for Resolving Multi-Party Disputes

Some of you may already have seen a copy of my new ebook, in which I propose a new paradigm for resolving complex, multi-party environmental disputes. It relies on mediation -- not as it has been compromised and incorporated into standard litigation … Read More...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Tweets by @environmentadr

Environmental Mediation Newsletter

Sign up to receive my environmental mediation newsletter on a monthly basis

Tags

ADR agriculture alternative dispute resolution Apple Apple phones big data Bio diversity Brexit class actions climate change contamination data data analysis eco-friendly environment environmental clean up environmental disputes environmental mediation environmental technology EPA farmed fish Flint global water challenge green living infrastructure legal strategy litigation alternative mediation mediation process mediation vs. litigation nature negotation New Jersey pollution oceans protected areas recycling renewable energy role of mediator settlement sustainability technology toxic tort water water contamintation water summit

About Me

lester-levy

I strongly believe in the value of mediation – said another way, environmental mediation really works. I would go even further: I believe that environmental disputes are perfectly suited to the mediation process – perhaps more so than any other area of legal practice. I have formed these views after mediating environmental cases for more than 20 years, throughout the United States, and having worked with thousands of lawyers, companies, insurance carriers, regulatory agencies and courts. My … Read more

My Latest Posts

  • The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
  • Our Drinking Water Regulation Is So Weak Even Flint’s Water Got A Pass
  • Environmental Mediation: A New Paradigm for Resolving Multi-Party Disputes
  • Flexibility Is Key to Success in Mediation
  • Leaving the EU would put our environment at risk

Connect with Me

Lester Levy

JAMS- New York
620 Eighth Ave. (NY Times Building)
34th Floor
New York, NY 10018
P (212) 751-2700

JAMS- San Francisco
2 Embarcadero Center
Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
P (415) 982-5267

Copyright 2016-2020 Lester Levy | Site developed by Good2bSocial