An Assessment of Mediation in a Small Claims Court

Abstract

Mediation has frequently been advocated as an alternative to adjudication for minor civil disputes that appear in the small claims court. It has been claimed that mediation is more likely to result in compromise, greater compliance, and higher disputant satisfaction with the outcome. This article raises questions about these claims for the superiority of mediation and poses an alternative hypothesis. The hypothesis was tested in the context of a field study of a small claims court that utilizes mediation in pretrial resolution hearings. It was found that differences between adjudication and mediation outcomes could be partly explained by differences in the cases' “admitted liability.” Cases involving the defendant's denial of all liability were more likely to be adjudicated, whereas those involving admission of partial or full liability were more likely to be settled by mediation. Many mediated settlements involved no compromise; many were more the result of coercive than of consensual processes. Compromise, when it did occur, was not necessarily a satisfactory outcome for one or both of the disputing parties.