Steven P. Dinkin

Two factors are necessary for disputing parties to achieve a mutually agreeable settlement, says attorney Eric O. Freeberg, a veteran mediator. The first is that “something needs healing,” he says. The second is a “sincere desire to settle the matter.”

Many times disagreements — whether between spouses or other family members, employees and employers, organizations, businesses or cities, even the military — could be resolved through mediation. Mediation, Freeberg says, is the last opportunity to resolve disputes with a mutually satisfying solution, without going to court “where you can never really say what happened.” Mediation, on the other hand, is a confidential proceeding that allows people to say what’s on their minds. “They are free to talk about it,” Freeberg says. “They have a lot of emotional involvement” to get it off their chest.

For the past 20 years, the San Diego Mediation Center has been making that kind of talk possible. Beginning this month a name change, to the National Conflict Resolution Center, defines the organization’s ever broadening role. “The reality,” says new President Steven P. Dinkin, “is that the San Diego Mediation Center has exceeded by leaps and bounds the original expectations of its founders.”

The reorganization calls for three divisions, one of which will retain the San Diego Mediation Center name. Headed by Christina Casanova, it will continue to provide community mediation. Another division, the Business Center, headed by 20-year veteran mediator Robin Seigle, will incorporate divorce into its corporate services. The third division, The Training Institute, will continue to be managed by Barbara Filner.

Freeberg, with the Luce Forward law firm until the early ’90s, is one of more than 150 experienced mediators representing 50 occupations through the center. An agreeable solution is more likely to occur when both parties listen to the other side, or as Freeberg puts it, “they walk a mile in each other’s shoes.”

Business Center director Seigle says “mutual gain” is the desired outcome of mediation. Participants may be attracted to the process because they are “doing it now and will be done with it when they reach an agreement, and they are eliminating the risk” of going through the courts. In San Diego, she says, courts often refer parties with disagreements to mediation before continuing with a dispute.

Disagreements taken to mediation range widely, and may involve private citizens, formal and informal organizations, churches, schools, cities or any entity imaginable. During fiscal year 2002-2003, 1,175 mediations resulted in a 75 percent agreement rate at the San Diego center.

Common disputes have to do with construction defects, home improvements, squabbles between neighbors over such issues as barking dogs or property lines, arguments between family members, and business or employee-employer related disagreements.

One area in which businesses are increasingly seeking mediation is sexual harassment. “Harassment isn’t just physical,” says Freeberg. “Off-color jokes are sexist. An employee needs to know it’s not like the old days,” and the employer must provide a safe workplace.

Businesses may face conflict over company mergers, which can create conflicts over territorial, if not legal, issues. The sale of a business, Seigle says, can lead to disappointment when what seemed like promised benefits do not occur, such as profits or number of customers.

Freeberg recalls another case involving office space, in which a physician sublet part of an office to another health professional and agreed to profit sharing. The relationship deteriorated as time passed and misunderstandings were magnified. Finally the tenant, in default, moved, and the physician prepared to sue for lost rent and profit. In mediation, the two discovered mistakes on both sides, and “when the dust had settled, they could acknowledge the misunderstandings.”

Successful mediation doesn’t always occur, says Freeberg. But in the 75 percent to 80 percent of cases the center reports it settles, the disputing parties are generally happier with their own solution than risking a decision by a third party.