Virginia
Court-Connected ADR
Dispute Resolution Services
Supreme Court of Virginia
Development of
Dispute Resolution
1989 Futures Commission Report –
Vision 3: Judicial system needs to provide
an array of dispute resolution options
 April 1991 - Department of Dispute
Resolution Services created
 1993 - Enabling legislation passed

Goals of Alternative
Dispute Resolution
To reduce the cost for litigants and the
judicial system
 To enhance the quality of the court process
 To offer a range of options for resolving
disputes
 To provide faster resolution of cases
 To improve public satisfaction and
perception of the court

Goals Continued



To encourage parties to take
responsibility for their disputes
To broaden access to dispute
resolution services
To encourage innovation and
create new methods of dispute
resolution
Continuum of
Dispute Resolution Processes
Dispute Resolution Processes
Conflict Negotiation Conciliation Mediation
Avoidance
Least Formal
Neutral Settlement Adjudication
Case Conference
Evaluation
Most Formal
Mediation
Process in which a neutral facilitates
communication between the parties to help
them resolve their dispute
 Mediator does not make decisions for the
parties
 Parties are responsible for the resolution
of their own dispute
 Process is voluntary
 Attorneys may attend

Stages of Mediation





Introduction
Sharing of Information
Identification of Issues
Generation of Solutions
Agreement/Resolution
Why Mediate?








Allows parties to express their feelings
Helps parties understand each other’s perspectives
Transforms miscommunication into
understanding/trust/problem-solving
Helps parties recognize their underlying interests,
overlapping interests and areas of agreement
Helps parties devise their own solutions, building on
interests they identified
Establishes a safe, informal environment
Offers a voluntary and confidential process
Ability to negotiate win/win outcomes
Advantages of Mediation
Improved communication
 Creative solutions
 Stronger ownership of agreement
 Opportunity to deal with underlying
interests
 Reduced time and expense
 Model for future conflict resolution

Virginia – Leader in ADR







Legislation authorizing use of ADR
Guidelines for the Training and Certification of
Court-Referred Mediators
Searchable Mediator Directory
Standards of Ethics/Grievance Procedures
State Funding for access to mediation services
Rules of Professional Conduct encourage ADR
Exit surveys indicate >90% party satisfaction and
80 – 85% settlement rate
Virginia Model







Judges have explicit authority to refer all civil
matters to a dispute resolution orientation session
Mediation Coordinators assist with screening and
referral process
Parties may opt out of free orientation session
Further participation in mediation is voluntary
Rules of Professional Conduct require attorneys to
consider ADR with the client in every case
Mediation is held within 15-30 days after referral
Mediation services available state-wide at no cost
in J&DR and General District Courts through a
system of contracts/state funding
Current Court Procedures




Court shall set date for parties to return in
accordance with regular docket .
Parties may voluntarily agree to pursue
mediation or other ADR process following the
orientation session.
Parties may select mediator from searchable
directory at www.courts.state.va.us.
For mediations conducted under an OES contract
and for J&DR custody, visitation and support
cases, services are free. Otherwise, parties pay
mediator.
Confidentiality
of Mediation Process



All memoranda, work product, and case files are
confidential
Final written agreement not confidential
Materials and communications can be disclosed
(1) if all parties agree, (2) if there is a dispute
between parties and neutral, (3) where a threat to
inflict bodily injury is made, (4) where
communications are used to plan, commit or
conceal a crime, or (5) where material is otherwise
subject to discovery
Cases Appropriate
for Mediation






Parties have an ongoing relationship
Communication problems exist
Parties want to tailor a solution to meet
their specific needs
Privacy is important
Parties want control over the outcome
Incentive to settle due to time, money, etc.
Cases Inappropriate
for Mediation






Party wishes to establish legal precedent
Party cannot negotiate for herself or himself
Physical or psychological abuse impairs ability
to protect his or her interests
Inequity of knowledge is extreme
Public policy development - openness/record
needed
Options are dictated or limited by law
Coordinators
OES has contracts with 31 mediation coordinators
statewide who assist clerks’ offices in managing
the mediation program in various courts.
Coordination and provider models vary
depending on the need of the court.
Coordinators:
 Serve as a liaison between the court and the
mediation providers
 Provide case management services
 Perform other duties identified by the individual
court
Orientation Session






Parties may opt out of no-cost orientation
session by stating in writing that they do not
wish to participate.
Conducted by coordinator or mediator
Assess appropriateness of ADR
If adjudication selected, case continues as
originally docketed
If ADR selected, information on private neutral
selection and free contract mediators provided
Decision to proceed with ADR is voluntary
Contracts
OES has mediation services contracts with
48 mediation providers statewide
 Contractors include non-profit community
mediation centers, attorney-mediators and
private providers
 Services are provided at no cost to the
parties at J&DR and General District Court
levels throughout most of Virginia

Court-Referred ADR Expenditures
Expenditures by Fiscal Year*
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-0
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
$ 55,715
$ 104,965
$ 126,655
$ 118,947
$ 204,247
$ 296,299
$ 567,280
$1,124,784
$1,204,410
$1,255,180
$1,551,410
$1,519,000
$1,618,797
$1,777,074
$1,860,775
$1,923,452
$1,882,329
$1,927,400
$1,941,624
$1,999,749
$2,040,942
$2,094,453
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
*Expenditures reflect mediations, mediation
coordinator contracts and Judicial Settlement
Conferences.
$0
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Family Mediation
Section 20-124.4 of the Code of Virginia
authorizes payment for each custody,
visitation and support mediation.
 This legislation has been tremendously
helpful in increasing the volume of family
mediation statewide.
 Over 12,000 family mediations were
conducted during the 2015-16 fiscal year at
no cost to the parties.

Custody, Visitation & Support
State-Funded Mediations
14,000
12,000
9,860
10,000
8,000
12,810
12,412
12,128
11,889
11,837
11,745
11,699
11,240
10,278
9,252
7,364 7,595
7,979
6,649
6,000
4,024
4,000
2,000
0
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 20152001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Data collected prior to 2000 does not identify mediations by case type or court level.
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
J&DR Non-CVS
State-Funded Mediations
450
438
400
350
300
250
195
173
200
150
100
50
0
117
53
155
125
69
50
68 48 45
45 54 44
34
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 20152001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
General District Court
State-Funded Mediations
2,500
2,322
2,029
2,000
1,707
1,801 1,832
2,059
1,974
1,965
2,206
2,090
2,071
2,083
2,010
1,957
1,973
1,500
1,091
1,000
500
0
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 20152001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Data collected prior to 2000 does not identify mediations by case type or court level.
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
Types of Family Cases
1%
Custody, Visitation &
Support
12%
3%
Truancy
Restorative Justice
84%
Other Issues (Primarily
Equitable Distribution &
Spousal Support
Types of Non-Family Cases
11%
24%
16%
2%
1%
11%
18%
16%
1%
Debt
Personal Injury
Business/Consumer
Employment
Contract
Landlord/Tenant
Neighborhood
Other Issues
Personal Property
Top 20 Juvenile Courts – 2015-16 Fiscal Year
Custody, Visitation & Support Mediation
Virginia Beach
1,800
Chesterfield
1,617
1,600
Henrico
1,400
Chesapeake
Prince William
Hampton
1,200
Norfolk
1,097
Richmond City
1,000
800
Lynchburg
Portsmouth
760 760
Fauquier
666
600
400
200
Frederick
Newport News
467 466
Spotsylvania
384
283
273 251
244 237 232
202 196 193
189 183
Amherst
137
Suffolk
Rcknghm/Harsbg
Accomack
0
Number of CVS Mediations
Augusta
Bedford
Client Satisfaction
 Mediation Process Was:
– Very Helpful
– Somewhat Helpful
– Not At All Helpful
– No Response
 Use Mediation Again:
– Yes
– No
– No Response
 Recommend Process To Others:
– Yes
– No
– No Response
 Ended With Agreement On:
– All Issues
– Some Issues
– None of the Issues
– No Response:
73.9%
19.7%
4.5%
1.1%
91.4%
5.7%
1.8%
94.7%
2.5%
1.7%
64.0%
19.9%
13.4%
1.9%
Agreement Reached




Agreements are enforceable as any other
contract
Upon request of all parties and consistent with
law and public policy, court shall incorporate
the terms of agreement into final decree
disposing of case
Judge should review agreements
Mediator should inform court if orientation
session or mediation does not occur
How ADR Process Concludes




Agreement reached should be put in writing and
terms provided to court.
Ideally, agreement is enforceable.
If parties do not reach an agreement, that should be
reported back by the neutral, without any comment or
recommendation.
Where there is no settlement, court might consider
scheduling a pre-trial conference and ask the parties
whether the issues were narrowed or streamlined as a
result of the ADR process.
Virginia Judicial
Settlement Conference Program
13-Year Cumulative Statistical Update
November 2003 – June 30, 2016
Retired Circuit Court Judges
Bringing Calm to the Storm
Referred Cases
12000
12,895
10,985
Cases
10000
10,985 cases have been paid for
since 11/03.
9,680
8000
9,680 cases have been captured
and are graphically displayed
on the following charts.
6000
4000
2,999
2000
216
0
12,895 cases have been referred
to settlement conferences
since 11/03.
2,999 cases are pending receipt
of reports or actual
conference.
216 cases were cancelled before
reaching conference.
Settlement Conference Expenditures
$300,000
$281,250
$225,200
$250,000
$220,200
$219,000
$213,200
$200,000
$223,800
$222,800
$171,000
$165,000
$150,000
$133,800
$105,800
$100,000
$57,800
$50,000
$7,400
$0
# Cases

37

289

529

669

855

825

1095

1066

1101

1126

1119
2003-
2004-
2005-
2006-
2007-
2008-
2009-
2010-
2011-
2012-
2013-
2014-
2015-

1114
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
•
1160
Effective 7/1/15, payment increased from $200 to $250 for each conference conducted after 6/30/15.
Case Type Categories
Commercial
15.1%
Miscellaneous
3.4%
Tort/Personal
Injury
34.8%
Domestic
46.7%
Tort/PI
Domestic
Commercial
Miscellaneous
Types of Cases
Other Commercial
1.2%
Contract
5.4%
Real Estate
2.4%
Landlord Condemnation
Tenant
1.6%
0.6%
Miscellaneous
3.4%
Assault
0.7%
Construction
3.0%
Auto Accident
27.0%
Medical
Malpractice
1.2%
Debt
0.9%
Libel Defamation
0.5%
Divorce
44.5%
Other Domestic
1.3%
Probate
0.9%
Other PI
3.6%
Slip & Fall
1.8%
Agreement Rate
63.3% of referred
cases successfully
reached an
agreement either
during or soon
after the
conference
36.7%
61.5%
1.8%
Reached at time of conference
Reached after, but as result of conference
Not Reached
Note: This does NOT
include pending cases
Length of Conferences
3000
3001
2585
2500
2000
Cases
1734
1500
1000
861
764
411
500
243 126
54
74
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
Hours
The average length of a conference is 3.3 hours.
Referring Circuit Courts

68% of all cases have been referred by 10 courts in the
Tidewater Area (Hampton, Suffolk, Virginia Beach,
James City/Williamsburg, Norfolk, Newport News, Isle
of Wight, Portsmouth, York and Chesapeake).

32% of the cases to date have been referred by the 111
other courts across Virginia.

All 121 Virginia circuit courts have referred cases.
Number of Cases
Referred By Court
Virginia Beach
Hampton
Newport News
3909
1673
Chesapeake
1588
JCC/Wmsbg
York
Norfolk
415
424
457 541 573
1577
628
1125
Portsmouth
Henrico
Suffolk
Other Courts
Party Satisfaction
Settlement Conference Was:
8,832
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
573
Very Appropriate
Somewhat
Appropriate
68
Not At All
Appropriate
Data reported from 9,473 exit surveys received to date. 99.2%
of parties viewed settlement conference as appropriate.
Party Satisfaction
Settlement Conference Process Was:
7,832
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
1337
2,000
304
1,000
0
Very Helpful
Somewhat Helpful
Not At All Helpful
Data reported from 9,473 exit surveys received to date. 96.8%
of parties viewed conference as very or somewhat helpful.
Party Satisfaction
Would You Request a Conference Again?
9416
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
57
Yes
No
Data reported from 9,473 exit surveys received to date. 99.4%
of parties would request a settlement conference again.
Party Satisfaction
Would You Recommend
Settlement Conference?
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
9424
49
Yes
No
Data reported from 9,473 exit surveys received to date.
99.5% of parties would recommend settlement conference.
Feedback: Exit Survey Comments





“This process was extremely effective. The demeanor and
knowledge of the judge carried tremendous goodwill and
weight with my clients.”
“This is one of many settlement conferences in which I
have participated and I highly recommend the process; it is
wonderful for the “little man” with limited resources to be
heard without going broke in the process.”
“This is probably the best system the Supreme Court has
devised to resolve matters inexpensively and completely.”
“Settlement in this case was nothing short of a miracle!
The judge has my sincere gratitude as well as that of my
client.”
“This is the most helpful process. I don’t know how we
practiced law without it in the past!”
Feedback: Exit Survey Comments




“This process is an excellent use of judicial resources and
saves the litigants thousands of dollars in trial preparation,
as well as the court’s trial calendar.”
“ …settlement conferences are 9 times out of 10 the most
efficient manner to resolve divorce matters.”
“In all, there were five attorneys involved in this case.
Unfortunately, the five of us could not agree on the time of
day, but in about five hours, with the help of [the judge],
all issues, including the original complaint and the counterclaim, had been resolved. Amazing.”
“I, too, was surprised that we could achieve a resolution
through a settlement conference. This really was client
counseling and negotiations at its best. We find this
program to be of the best quality!”
Feedback: Exit Survey Comments





“The practice of law does not get any better than this
settlement process.”
“The judge leveraged his time on the bench to offer
perspective to the parties that bridged the gap in this case!”
“The settlement judge did more than settle a tough lawsuit
by also restoring a relationship.”
“The judge was able to help the parties to use their
common sense while making decisions about emotional
issues. He was able to help them arrive at a settlement
after nine years of feuding. Excellent!”
“The judges who conduct settlement conferences are
the unsung heroes of the judicial system. They are real
public servants!”
Parent Education
§16.1-278.15 & § 20-103 provide that all parties to
contested custody, visitation and support cases must
attend a four-hour class on:
1) the effects of separation or divorce on children
2) parenting responsibilities
3) options for conflict resolution
4) financial responsibilities
Many parent education providers around the state have
received training to implement this program.