TMS Event Details

Event Title: Could Lawyers’ Court-Connected Negotiations Represent the ‘New Mediation’?

Event Type: MCLE Event


Via Zoom: Registration through ; or

TMS members must use code “TMS24” when registering to receive credit without charge. CNDR will be handling all of the MCLE processing.

Presenter: Nancy Welsh

Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023

Time: 5:15pm to 6:15pm


When proponents urged the courts to institutionalize mediation for the resolution of general civil cases, they claimed that the procedure would be superior to litigation – and also to lawyers’ settlement negotiations – in terms of parties’ exercise of self-determination, their satisfaction with their outcomes, and their opportunity for voice. At this point, it is well-recognized that mediation has evolved, and one of the models used frequently in the courts (and privately) is an evaluative, lawyer-and-caucus-dominated procedure. Less recognized is the apparent evolution of lawyers’ settlement negotiations. Data has begun to indicate that a substantial percentage of these negotiations now include the clients. In this presentation, Professor Welsh will suggest that this modern, “client-inclusive” version of lawyers’ settlement negotiations may be superior to the modern, more evaluative model of mediation. Somewhat ironically, then, just as arbitration has become the “new litigation” and mediation has become the “new arbitration,” so too lawyers’ client-inclusive negotiation could represent the “new mediation.” 

Nancy A. Welsh is Professor of Law and Director of the Dispute Resolution Program at Texas A&M University School of Law. In 2016-2017, she was Chair of the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution. Professor Welsh is a leading scholar and teacher of dispute resolution and procedural law who has written more than 60 articles and chapters that have appeared in law reviews, professional publications and books and is co-author of Dispute Resolution and Lawyers, 5th Edition. She examines negotiation, mediation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and dispute resolution in U.S. and international contexts, focusing on self determination, procedural justice, due process, and institutionalization dynamics. She has also advised state legislatures and federal and state agencies and courts regarding the institutionalization of dispute resolution, conducted empirical research, convened roundtables and symposia on various dispute resolution topics, and served as a mediator, facilitator and arbitrator.