Diane Dalton - Attorney and Counselor at Law


	Serving as a certified Arbitrator for Fulton County State and Superior Courts since 1990 and having served as a certified Mediator at the Justice Center of Atlanta for 7 years, I am familiar with both forums of alternative dispute resolution. I believe that the goal of our justice system is to provide the highest quality of justice in the shortest possible time and at the lowest possible cost. A trail does not necessarily mete out the highest quality of justice, is rarely cost-effective and the process is often prolonged for years. Most cases have some merit on both sides, but by the time the outcome is achieved, much time and money, not to mention emotional health, is expended by clients as well as the attorneys. Hence, where appropriate, I encourage the use of Mediation or Arbitration. To enable the layman to understand more succinctly the differences between these two forms of alternative dispute resolution, Mediation and Arbitration, I will briefly emphasize their main features. Mediation is a structured process in which the mediator (third-party neutral) facilitates discussions to assist the disputants to reach a negotiated settlement of their differences. Arbitration is a structured process, less formal and less complex than court proceedings, that utilizes a third-party neutral or panel of neutrals to whom the dispute is presented via evidence and arguments so that a decision can be rendered by the arbitrator (s). There are three primary functions of the arbitrator (s): Determining the law Determining the facts Applying the law to the facts to render a binding (or non-binding) award Mediators, on the other hand, aid the parties to come up with their own solution to the dispute that is fair and livable to both. The mediator does not make a decision; only the parties do so. Arbitrators must hold a different mindset from advocates and from mediators. Where the advocate champions his client's cause zealously, arbitrators must suspend judgment until all the evidence is presented and deliberations are begun. Whereas Mediators facilitate the negotiated compromise of a dispute to assist the parties in reaching their own agreement, Arbitrators actually make the decision after the evidence and arguments are presented. Therefore, I agree that in an adversarial setting, skilled advocacy is to be respected in its' "search for the truth" but it is not the only way and often not the best way to resolve conflicts. As lawyers, we have a professional responsibility to attempt to deescalate rather than escalate conflicts. When choosing one of the alternative dispute resolution methods can save money, time, stress and aggravation for all parties, I will encourage and support the use of Mediation or Arbitration.

A time saving, less costly alternative to court proceedings!

I create spiritual wills and handle personal injury cases!

If you have been in an auto accident, call me!

Leaving a lasting legacy of love and enlightenment!

Things I enjoy such as angels, books, and movies.

Serving as a certified Arbitrator for Fulton County State and Superior Courts since 1990 and having served as a certified Mediator at the Justice Center of Atlanta for 7 years, I am familiar with both forums of alternative dispute resolution.

I believe that the goal of our justice system is to provide the highest quality of justice in the shortest possible time and at the lowest possible cost. A trail does not necessarily mete out the highest quality of justice, is rarely cost-effective and the process is often prolonged for years. Most cases have some merit on both sides, but by the time the outcome is achieved, much time and money, not to mention emotional health, is expended by clients as well as the attorneys. Hence, where appropriate, I encourage the use of Mediation or Arbitration.

To enable the layman to understand more succinctly the differences between these two forms of alternative dispute resolution, Mediation and Arbitration, I will briefly emphasize their main features.

Mediation is a structured process in which the mediator (third-party neutral) facilitates discussions to assist the disputants to reach a negotiated settlement of their differences.
Arbitration is a structured process, less formal and less complex than court proceedings, that utilizes a third-party neutral or panel of neutrals to whom the dispute is presented via evidence and arguments so that a decision can be rendered by the arbitrator (s).

There are three primary functions of the arbitrator (s):

Determining the law
Determining the facts
Applying the law to the facts to render a binding (or non-binding) award

Mediators, on the other hand, aid the parties to come up with their own solution to the dispute that is fair and livable to both. The mediator does not make a decision; only the parties do so.

Arbitrators must hold a different mindset from advocates and from mediators. Where the advocate champions his client's cause zealously, arbitrators must suspend judgment until all the evidence is presented and deliberations are begun. Whereas Mediators facilitate the negotiated compromise of a dispute to assist the parties in reaching their own agreement, Arbitrators actually make the decision after the evidence and arguments are presented.

Therefore, I agree that in an adversarial setting, skilled advocacy is to be respected in its' "search for the truth" but it is not the only way and often not the best way to resolve conflicts. As lawyers, we have a professional responsibility to attempt to deescalate rather than escalate conflicts. When choosing one of the alternative dispute resolution methods can save money, time, stress and aggravation for all parties, I will encourage and support the use of Mediation or Arbitration.