Can a Dispute Be Mediated Without Lawyers?

The simple answer is…. it depends.  Although virtually all disputes can likely benefit from mediation, the advantage (or necessity) to have legal representation is much more dependent on the substance of the matter.  Although there is no black and white answer to the question, I think the following observations are valid:

If the other party (or parties) are represented by counsel the safest and most advisable choice is to likewise retain a lawyer for the mediation.

Some disputes are especially suitable to resolution without legal representation.  Examples include some construction disputes, business partnership disputes, and real estate matters such as boundary or easement disagreements.   Often these situations arise from a breakdown in communications between the parties.  These often involve people or companies that have a history of communicating and compromising but for some reason it is no longer working.  The reestablishment of communication through a skilled mediator is often successful in breaking the “logjam” and moving the matter to a successful resolution.

Other matters clearly warrant the involvement of legal counsel.   In fact, some disputes are so heavily dependent on the application of law to the facts that the parties would likely be unable to adequately evaluate and negotiate the dispute on their own.   Examples include disputes involving significant violations of code or regulatory provisions, the assertion of procedural defenses, or when complex (or possibly novel) damage calculations are involved.

In sum, the facts of each dispute dictate the necessity of retaining legal counsel.  That decision should be guided by the nature of the dispute as well as the comfort level of the involved decision makers.