Washington, DC has launched a major access to justice reform. Under the new Community Justice Worker (CJW) program, trained non-lawyers can now provide limited legal services in housing and family law cases — including legal advice, document preparation, and in-court support.

This episode breaks down:

• Why most low-income residents face civil court without representation
• What the Civil Legal Regulatory Reform Task Force recommended
• How Community Justice Workers are regulated
• The proposed Licensed Legal Practitioner (LLP) model
• What this means for the future of the legal profession

In this episode, we explore the study’s key findings, trends, and practical implications for courts, lawyers, and dispute resolution professionals without revealing any names of researchers, judges, or judicial staff.

Whether you’re a mediator, attorney, or legal professional, this episode breaks down mediation, arbitration, court-referred ADR, and strategies to improve dispute resolution processes. Stay informed on the latest developments in ADR and how judicial referrals are shaping the future of conflict resolution.

Pakistan’s $1.5 billion arms deal with the Sudanese Armed Forces marks a dramatic shift from diplomacy to military escalation in the region. Supported by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, this alignment seeks to counter the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Experts warn that these moves could fuel a proxy war and prolong instability, reshaping Sudan and the broader region’s security landscape. Join us as we unpack the geopolitical stakes, regional alliances, and what this means for Sudan’s fragile future.

Jamaica is betting big on mediation and restorative justice. A new national ADR policy aims to resolve disputes before they reach the courts, prevent violence, and boost economic confidence. From community conflicts to commercial disputes, the plan positions ADR as a central pillar of justice—early, accessible, and strategic. In this episode, we break down what the policy means for communities, courts, and businesses, and explore why mediators worldwide should take notice.

In Grijns v Grijns [2025] EWHC 2853 (Ch), the UK High Court delivered an important clarification on mediation, ADR obligations, and costs sanctions.

This episode unpacks what the case really means for mediation strategy. We explore:

• When refusing or resisting mediation can be legally reasonable
• How Halsey v Milton Keynes, PGF, and the Jackson ADR Handbook (2025) fit together

• How unrealistic settlement demands and tactical litigation affect ADR analysis
• What Grijns adds (and doesn’t add) to UK and global mediation doctrine

This episode examines the EU mediation paradox and the emerging policy case for the “Easy Opt-Out” model—an approach that requires an initial mediation session while fully preserving party autonomy. Drawing on EU Commission research, comparative Member State experiences, and court-connected mediation reforms, we explore how light-touch mandates can align with the EU Mediation Directive rather than undermine it.

We unpack how structural nudges—such as automatic referrals, first-meeting requirements, and presumptive ADR—can normalize mediation as a default pathway, reduce litigation costs and delays, and improve access to justice, while allowing parties to disengage at any point without sanctions.

Key EU policy questions explored:

• Does mandatory first-session mediation violate voluntariness under EU law?
• Why “purely voluntary” mediation has underperformed across Member States
• How the Easy Opt-Out model reconciles autonomy, efficiency, and access to justice
• What EU institutions and national courts can learn from comparative reforms

Interested in becoming a mediator? Join us in March for an interactive mediation skills training. Sign up here.

In this episode, we explore the American Bar Association’s pivotal Formal Opinion 518, issued October 15, 2025, on the ethical duties of lawyer-mediators. Discover why clarity, neutrality, and truthfulness are essential when attorneys serve as third-party neutrals in mediation settings—not advocates. We break down how ABA Model Rule 2.4 requires mediators to clearly explain their role to unrepresented parties and distinguish it from traditional client representation. Learn how Rule 8.4(c) further reinforces the obligation to avoid deception, dishonesty, and misrepresentation when communicating with mediation participants. Whether you’re a practicing attorney, trained mediator, law student, or dispute resolution professional, this episode offers practical insights into maintaining ethical integrity and trust in mediation practice

Unconscious bias plays a powerful but often unseen role in mediation, employment disputes, and the legal profession. In this episode, we examine how implicit stereotypes related to race, gender, and age influence workplace dynamics and the selection of mediators as neutral third parties. Drawing on social science research and the Implicit Association Test (IAT), the episode reveals how bias operates even among well-intentioned professionals.

The conversation focuses on the challenges faced by non-traditional mediators, including the experience of “incoming bias” from parties in employment discrimination and workplace conflict cases. Rather than emphasizing identity matching, the episode makes the case for cultural competence, situational awareness, and professional expertise. It also explores how counter-stereotypical co-mediation can reduce bias and strengthen trust in the mediation process.

Listeners will learn practical communication strategies for addressing identity-based comments, maintaining neutrality, and managing conflict in an increasingly polarized legal and social environment. This episode is relevant for mediators, attorneys, HR professionals, judges, and conflict resolution practitioners seeking more effective and equitable dispute resolution outcomes.

A landmark federal court ruling has stopped deep cuts to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), preserving a critical pillar of U.S. labor relations. In this episode, we break down Judge Arun Subramanian’s December 2025 decision vacating FMCS policies that slashed mediator staffing and restricted access to federal mediation services.

We explain what the FMCS does, why its role in healthcare and collective bargaining disputes is legally mandatory under the National Labor Relations Act, and how the court applied the Administrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard to strike down the policy. You’ll also hear why the attempted cuts made little economic sense, how they threatened strikes and lockouts nationwide, and what this ruling means for unions, employers, mediators, and executive power going forward.

The 2025 International Court of Justice advisory opinion marks a turning point in climate change law, affirming that states have binding legal obligations to prevent environmental harm and protect human rights tied to climate stability. The Court signals that failure to regulate fossil fuels may constitute an internationally wrongful act, raising the stakes for state responsibility, reparations, and interstate disputes.

This episode explores why climate mediation offers a strategic alternative to adversarial litigation—using expert panels, science-based negotiation, and creative settlement design to enable accountability while fostering cooperation, technology transfer, and climate adaptation.