International Law School Mediation Tournament Judging Instructions
PURPOSE OF THE COMPETITION. The purpose of the competition is to promote greater knowledge and interest among students in the process of mediation.
We greatly appreciate your being a Judge in the International Law School Mediation Tournament.
We greatly appreciate your being a Judge in the International Law School Mediation Tournament.
- Role. Your role is to observe a mediation and to evaluate and grade the four teams participating in the mediation. Each team is composed of a co-mediator or an attorney and a client, and in any one round the mediators and attorney/client pairs will all be from different schools. After the mediation, you will score each team and then critique them.
- Preparation. Each team received the general information for the mediation problem two weeks or so in advance of the competition. The attorneys and clients received the confidential information approximately 60 minutes before the mediation.
- Format. There are three qualifying rounds, with the sixteen top teams in mediation and advocacy going on to the semifinal round. The four top teams in each category will advance from the semifinal to the final round.
- Teams. Each team is given a neutral designation so you do not know what school they attend. If you recognize any student, notify the administrator before the mediation begins. Do not ask any student where they are from.
- Time. Each round includes a 90-minute mediation (with no breaks), 5 minutes of preparation for Self-Evaluation, 20 minutes of Self Evaluation, and a 15-minute critique of the students by the Judges. The students are obligated to keep track of their time, and the judges should strictly enforce the time deadlines.
- Procedures. The specific competition procedures regarding the mediation are contained in the Competition Rules. If you do not have a copy, ask for one.
- Evaluation. After the mediation, you may take a break and you should independently score each team by completing two Team Evaluation Forms.
- Critique. Then you are to critique the teams together for no more than 15 minutes. .
- End. After each round, hand in your evaluation forms to the competition administrator or assistant and accept our deep thanks for serving as a judge and helping students achieve a better understanding of the mediation process.
International Law School Mediation Tournament
Team Evaluation Form and Instructions
After the mediation and after the students have left the room, you are to score each team using the Evaluation Forms. The Evaluation Form is primarily used to determine which teams advance to the semifinal rounds.
Grading and Critique We need your independent judgment. And so, do not discuss with other judges your grading on the Evaluation Forms until both forms have been completed.
During your critique, you may discuss with the students and other judges your reasons supporting your evaluation of the teams, but do not tell them the scores you gave them.
Evaluation Form On the Evaluation Form, the number 10 is at the high end of the performance scale, and the number 1 is at the low end of the scale. You should score compared to the expected performance of a developing mediator or attorney, rather than an experienced practitioner, with 5 or 6 being an average score. Write in your score for each of the categories listed. Do not use half points.
The Comments Section on Page 2 of the Evaluation Form provides the only written feedback the teams will receive. Please complete each category and make brief comments, positive or negative, or both. These comments will be useful during your oral critique of the teams, and you may tell the students whatever comments you have written. Be sure during your critique that your oral comments and written comments are consistent. The written comments will be given to the students at the end of the competition.
Your Evaluation Form scores should reflect the teams’ performance based on the stated criteria.
There are six evaluation scales. While you can fill out the first five scales during the round or during the 5-minute period when the teams are preparing for their self‑evaluations, Scale VI, Self Evaluation, can be filled out only after you have seen this final aspect of the session.
The evaluation form scales attempt to divide what is recognized as a dynamic and complicated process into discrete components or attributes that should be present in any approach to mediation.
These standards are also based on the premise that there is no one “correct” approach to effective mediation in all circumstances. Instead, the strategies and techniques used will vary with the nature of the problem, the specific mix of personalities involved, and other circumstances. Judges may evaluate the effectiveness of the mediators’ choices and strategies in the context of the particular mediation, but should not substitute personal preferences as to mediation styles/approaches for those used by the students.
Whatever approach is used, mediation effectiveness can be judged in part by its outcome. A good mediated outcome is one that:
· Is better than the best alternative to a negotiated/mediated agreement (with this party)
· Satisfies the interests of:
the client – very well
the other side – acceptably (enough for them to agree and follow through)
third parties – tolerably (so they won't disrupt the agreement)
· Is legitimate – no one feels "taken"
· Involves commitments that are clear, realistic, and operational
· Involves communication that is efficient and well‑understood, and
· Results in an enhanced working relationship, so the parties and/or their lawyers can deal with future differences more easily.
While these criteria are helpful in evaluating a particular mediation and identifying problems connected with it, they should not be read as requiring that the parties reach agreement. In some situations, e.g., where the last offer satisfies few of the relevant criteria, the best outcome might be no agreement at all. Thus, the judging standards focus on the process, allowing a team to achieve a high rating even if no agreement was reached.
*PLEASE BE SURE TO COMPLETE ALL CATEGORIES BEFORE TURNING IN THE EVALUATION FORM.
Grading and Critique We need your independent judgment. And so, do not discuss with other judges your grading on the Evaluation Forms until both forms have been completed.
During your critique, you may discuss with the students and other judges your reasons supporting your evaluation of the teams, but do not tell them the scores you gave them.
Evaluation Form On the Evaluation Form, the number 10 is at the high end of the performance scale, and the number 1 is at the low end of the scale. You should score compared to the expected performance of a developing mediator or attorney, rather than an experienced practitioner, with 5 or 6 being an average score. Write in your score for each of the categories listed. Do not use half points.
The Comments Section on Page 2 of the Evaluation Form provides the only written feedback the teams will receive. Please complete each category and make brief comments, positive or negative, or both. These comments will be useful during your oral critique of the teams, and you may tell the students whatever comments you have written. Be sure during your critique that your oral comments and written comments are consistent. The written comments will be given to the students at the end of the competition.
Your Evaluation Form scores should reflect the teams’ performance based on the stated criteria.
There are six evaluation scales. While you can fill out the first five scales during the round or during the 5-minute period when the teams are preparing for their self‑evaluations, Scale VI, Self Evaluation, can be filled out only after you have seen this final aspect of the session.
The evaluation form scales attempt to divide what is recognized as a dynamic and complicated process into discrete components or attributes that should be present in any approach to mediation.
These standards are also based on the premise that there is no one “correct” approach to effective mediation in all circumstances. Instead, the strategies and techniques used will vary with the nature of the problem, the specific mix of personalities involved, and other circumstances. Judges may evaluate the effectiveness of the mediators’ choices and strategies in the context of the particular mediation, but should not substitute personal preferences as to mediation styles/approaches for those used by the students.
Whatever approach is used, mediation effectiveness can be judged in part by its outcome. A good mediated outcome is one that:
· Is better than the best alternative to a negotiated/mediated agreement (with this party)
· Satisfies the interests of:
the client – very well
the other side – acceptably (enough for them to agree and follow through)
third parties – tolerably (so they won't disrupt the agreement)
· Is legitimate – no one feels "taken"
· Involves commitments that are clear, realistic, and operational
· Involves communication that is efficient and well‑understood, and
· Results in an enhanced working relationship, so the parties and/or their lawyers can deal with future differences more easily.
While these criteria are helpful in evaluating a particular mediation and identifying problems connected with it, they should not be read as requiring that the parties reach agreement. In some situations, e.g., where the last offer satisfies few of the relevant criteria, the best outcome might be no agreement at all. Thus, the judging standards focus on the process, allowing a team to achieve a high rating even if no agreement was reached.
*PLEASE BE SURE TO COMPLETE ALL CATEGORIES BEFORE TURNING IN THE EVALUATION FORM.
law_school_ballots.pdf | |
File Size: | 95 kb |
File Type: |