The subject matter of the »Mediation Moves…« conference was very broad. Presentations covered the current state of mediation in a wide swath of nations and contexts. Importantly though, not all of these examples of mediation call for formal regulation, such as statutes or court rules that require mediators to make certain disclosures or specify the conditions under which courts may enforce agreements to mediate or settlement agreements resulting from mediations.

In this Essay, therefore, I will focus on only selected mediation contexts – those that most obviously require consumer protection or public accountability. These are the mediations and mediators that should be subject to some form of formal regulation and necessarily, data collection and reporting.

My focus here therefore is on mediation that is imposed (by a court, agency or the more powerful party in a contract of adhesion) and mediation that is granted either expedited judicial enforcement or very deferential judicial review of its outcomes. These mediations, more than any others, should be regulated because they invoke the power of the state in their occurrence, the enforcement of their outcomes, or both.