Now available to all mediators and advocates: IMI Mediation Logbook and Feedback Hub! Learn more here

Mixed Mode Task Force

IMI’s Mixed Mode Taskforce is examining and seeking to develop model standards and criteria for ways of combining different dispute resolution processes that may involve the interplay between public or private adjudicative systems (e.g., litigation, arbitration, or adjudication) with non-adjudicative methods that involve the use of a neutral (e.g., conciliation or mediation), whether in parallel, sequentially or as integrated processes.

Learn about Mixed Mode (Hybrid) Dispute Resolution Processes >


The Task Force is a combined effort by the College of Commercial Arbitrators (CCA), the International Mediation Institute (IMI) and the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine School of Law. The Task Force has been charged with examining and seeking to develop model standards and criteria for ways of combining different dispute resolution processes that may involve the interplay between public or private adjudicative systems (e.g., litigation, arbitration, or adjudication) with non-adjudicative methods that involve the use of a neutral (e.g., conciliation or mediation), whether in parallel, sequentially or as integrated processes, which the Task Force has called “Mixed Mode Scenarios.” The terms of reference for the Task Force can be found under ‘Documents’ on this page.

Practically speaking, this means exploring and investigating mixed mode practices from various cultural and legal standpoints, including information about current experience, best practices, and, where appropriate, the development of protocols to guide future implementation of mixed mode processes by neutrals more broadly. Some examples of questions to be explored are as follows:

  • What are the dynamics of and appropriate uses of non-binding or non-adjudicative processes (including non-evaluative facilitation as well as non-binding evaluation or advisory opinions) in promoting settlement?
  • In what ways may neutrals help parties tailor better dispute resolution processes, such as mediation “setting the stage” for arbitration and vice versa?
  • Under what circumstances, if any, might it be appropriate for a mediator to become an arbitrator or judge, or an arbitrator or judge to become a mediator, during the course of resolving a dispute?
  • Since recent studies show settlement is becoming increasingly likely during the course of commercial arbitration, should arbitrators be more deliberate about helping to set the stage for potential settlement? If so, what are appropriate ways in which this might be done? Might arbitrators, for example: (1) make decisions on discovery/information exchange issues or rule on motions which dispose of some aspects of the dispute; (2) encourage mediation or work with the parties to arrange mediation windows in the adjudication timetable; or (3) offer parties preliminary views on issues in dispute or issue preliminary findings of facts or conclusions of law?
  • What is the proper protocol for arbitrators or institutions to follow when parties ask them to convert a settlement agreement into an arbitration award? What other issues arise in enforcing mediated settlement?
  • In what ways, if any, might non-adjudicative neutrals and adjudicative neutrals appropriately communicate in the course of working together on resolving a particular dispute, whether in a sequential, parallel or integrated manner?
  • What combinations of non-adjudicative and adjudicative processes are most appropriate in the real-time management of conflict in ongoing relationships? 
These questions are of growing global significance in the management of conflict.

The Taskforce exploring these issues is comprised of international experts in arbitration, adjudication, conciliation, litigation and mediation. The Task Force is divided into six different Working Groups (see ‘Composition‘, below.)

A key premise of our work is that perceptions and practices regarding the mixing of modes in domestic and international dispute resolution are often heavily influenced by one or more of the following: (1) national culture(s) and legal tradition(s), (2) the local legal profession; (3) practices in specific arenas of conflict; and (4) party priorities in specific transactions or circumstances. This premise has been borne out by recent feedback from the initial results from the Global Pound Conference (GPC) Series.

Keeping these important influencers in mind, the Task Force’s Working Groups will be asked to consider and to collect descriptions of experiences with mixed modes in their assigned Working Group topics, taking into consideration, among other things:

  • What culture(s) and legal tradition(s) are at work in this example? How might they have affected the choice of or nature of the process?
  • What impact did lawyers [or the neutral] have on the choice of or nature of process?
  • What is the commercial or relational background of the dispute(s) (e.g., construction, IP, IT, labor, etc.)? What impact did this have on the choice of or nature of the process? Were specific published dispute resolution procedures used?
  • To what extent was the choice of and nature of the process dictated by the particular priorities of the parties or other specific circumstances?
  • What are likely trends and points to watch out for in the future in relation to such processes (e.g., using internet and information technology).

The people participating in this Task Force and its Working Groups do so in their personal capacities. Their views, opinions and output should not be interpreted as reflecting the positions of any of their employers or other organisations with which they may be affiliated.


Download all

Mixed Mode Task Force Documents

TitleDescriptionVersionSizeHitsDate modifiedDownload
An Empirical Study of Arb-Med 164.22 KB181924-11-2017 DownloadPreview
Checklist of criteria for mixed modes process design

Working group document

230.26 KB50328-12-2018 Download
Comments on Gao Haiyan 393.37 KB216524-11-2017 DownloadPreview
Integrating Mediation into Arbitration_Why it Works in China 244.76 KB128424-11-2017 DownloadPreview
Memo on the Task Force and Project CCA/IMI/Straus Institute International Task Force on Mixed Mode Dispute Resolution - Memo on the Task Force and Project1132.77 KB87804-04-2019 DownloadPreview
Proposed ADR clause for the Appointment of a Guiding Mediator for Commercial Agreements

Working group document

227.48 KB49328-12-2018 Download
Table summarising the composition of the 6 Working Groups 76.41 KB79404-04-2019 DownloadPreview

Taskforce Members

Those participating in this taskforce do so in their personal capacities. The views, opinions and output of the taskforce do not necessarily reflect the position of the member’s employer or other affiliation.


Working GroupChair(s)Members
WG1: Mediators Using Non-Binding Evaluations and Making Settlement ProposalsKun Fan, Veronique Fraser.Kenny Aina, Shahla Ali, Sverre Blandhol, Dawn Chen, Jim Groton, Vivian Gu, Howard Herman, Alexander Insam, Christopher Lau, Paul Mason Joe Tirado, Tony Willis, Jawad Sarwana
WG2: Mediators Setting the Stage for Adjudicative Processes and Other Dispute Resolution Options (e.g., Guided Choice processes)Laura Kaster, Jeremy LackNadja Alexander, Louise-Marie Bélanger, Howard Herman, Céline Jaspers, Mark Morril, Christopher Newmark, Dilyara Nigmatullina, Laila Ollapally, Marcelo Rosadilla, John Sherill, Mercedes Tarrazon
WG3: Neutrals “Changing Hats” (e.g., Med-Arb, Arb-Med or Arb-Med-Arb)Moti Mironi, Thomas StipanowichShahla Ali, Dawn Chen, Ellen Deason, Renate Dendorfer, Kun Fan, Veronique Fraser, Dr Chen Fuyong, Patrick Green, Vivian Gu, Barney Jordaan, Alan L Limbury, Richard Mainland, Jonathan Marks, Dilyara Nigmatullina, Jan K Schafer, Mohamed Abdel Wahab
WG4: Arbitrators Setting the Stage for SettlementKlaus Peter Berger, Edna SussmanNadja Alexander, Gary Benton, Dominique Brown-Berset, Sverre Blandhol, Renate Dendorfer, Cary Ichter, Catherine Kessedjian, Christopher Lau, Erika Levin, Xinbo Liu, Edward W Luke, Paul Mason, Christopher Newmark, Tom Stipanowich, Mercedes Terrazon, Tony Willis
WG5: Consent Awards and the Enforceability of Mediated Settlement AgreementsKathleen PaisleyDominique Brown-Berset, Dr Chen Fuyong, Vivian Gu, Christopher Lau, Xinbo Liu, Jane Player, Ann Ryan Robertson, Jan K Schafer, Marcio Vasconcellos, Karinya Verghese
WG6: Possible Interactions between Adjudicative and Non-Adjudicative Neutrals.Jeremy Lack, Deborah MasucciShahla Ali, David Burt, Maria Chedid, Malik Dahlan, Merrill Hirsh, Christopher Miers, Mark Morril, Jackie Nolan-Haley, Susan Nycum, Jean-Francois Roberge, Joe Tirado, Nancy Vanderlip


Alan Limbury (Australia); Alexander Insam (Germany); Amanda Lees (Singapore); Ana Vermal (France); Anil Xavier (India); Ann Robertson (USA); Anna Grishchenkova (Russia); Barney Jordaan (Belgium); Brownwyn Lincoln (Australia); Cary Ichter (USA); Catherine Kessedjian (France); Céline Jaspers (Belgium); Charles Howard (USA); Chen Fuyong (China); Chen Guang (Dawn Chen) (China); Chiann Bao (Hong Kong); Christine Kang (China); Christopher Lau (Singapore); Christopher Miers (UAE); Christopher Newmark (UK); David Burt (USA); Dilyara Nigmatullina (Australia); Dominique Brown-Berset (Switzerland); Eleonora Coelho (Brazil); Ellen Deason (USA); Eric Green (USA); Erika Levin (USA); Fabiana Leite (Brazil); Gary Benton (USA); Gracious Timothy Dunna (India); Howard Herman (USA); Jackie Nolan Haley (USA); Jalal El Ahdab (France); Jan K. Schäfer (Germany); Jane Player (UK); Janet Walker (Canada); Jawad Sarwana (Pakistan); Jean-François Roberge (Canada); Jessica Fei (China); Jim Groton (USA); Joe Tirado (UK); John Bosnak (Netherlands); John Sherrill (USA); Jonathan Marks (USA); Josephine Hadikusumo (Singapore); Kabir Duggal (India); Karinya Verghese (USA); Kenny Aina (Nigeria); Kim Rooney (Hong Kong); Kun Fan (Canada); Laila Ollapally (India); Louise-Marie Bélanger (Canada); Malik bin Rabea Dahlan (UK); Marcelo Rosadilla (USA); Marcio Vasconcellos (USA); Maria Chedid (USA); Mark Morril (USA); Mercedes Tarrazón (Spain); Merril Hirsh (USA); Michael McIlwrath (Italy); Mohamed Abdel Wahab (Egypt); Nadja Alexander (Singapore); Nancy Vanderlip (USA); Patrick Green (UK); Paul E. Mason (Brazil); Rekha Rangachari; Renate Dendorfer (Germany); Richard Mainland (UK); Rowan Gregg (UK); Ruth Glick (USA); Shahla Ali (Hong Kong); Song Lianbin (China); Stephan Breidenbach (Germany); Steven Lim ( Singapore); Susan Nycum (USA); Sverre Blandhol (Norway); Tan Jinghui (China); Tony Willis (UK); Ute Quinn (USA); Vivian Gu (China); Wolf von Kumberg (UK); Xinbo Liu (China);


These profiles are shown by ‘most recent login’ by default; please scroll down to load more profiles, or search for someone by name.


  1. Combinations and Permutations: Creating a Solution-Driven Dispute Resolution Process (Video, 2020)
  2. Summary Report of the first meeting in September 23-24 2016 of the International Taskforce on Mixed Mode Dispute Resolution: Inaugural Summit at Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA (2017)
  3. The Arbitrator’s Mandate To Facilitation Settlement by Klaus Peter Berger and J.Ole Jensen (2017)
  4. Special Masters: How to Help Judges [and other Adjudicative Neutrals?] Extend Their Reach…And Exceed Their Grasp by Merril Hirsh (2017).
  5. The International Task Force on Mixed Mode Dispute Resolution: Exploring the Interplay between Mediation, Evaluation and Arbitration in Commercial Cases, 40 Fordham Int’ll L.J.839, by Tom Stipanowich and Veronique Fraser — White Paper based on the Inaugural Taskforce Summit of September 2016, available at (2017)
  6. Beyond Managerial Judges: Appropriate Roles in Settlement by Ellen E. Deason (2017)
  7. Guided Choice Dispute Resolution Processes: Reducing the Time and Expense to Settlement by Paul Lurie and Jeremy Lack (2014)
  8. Commercial Arbitration and Settlement: Empirical Insights into the Roles Arbitrators Play, 6 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation 1 by Thomas J. Stipanowich & Zachary Ulrich, available at (2014)
  9. Med-Arb: An Argument for Favoring Ex Parte Communications in the Mediation Phase by Edna Sussman (2013)
  10. Combinations of Mediation and Arbitration with the Same Neutral: A Framework for Judicial Review by Ellen E. Deason (2013)
  11. Dispute Resolution Mules – Preventing the process from being part of the problem by Michael Leathes (2012)
  12. The Neurophysiology of ADR and Process Design: A New Approach to Conflict Prevention and Resolution by Jeremy Lack and François Bogacz (2012)
  13. Med-Arb: Getting the best of both worlds, by Alan Limbury (2012)
  14. From Mediation to Settlement and from Settlement to Final Offer Arbitration: A Case Study of MEDALOA in a Transnational Business Dispute Mediation” by Mordehai Mironi in 5 New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer at p. 77 (2012)
  15. Appropriate Dispute Resolution: The Spectrum of Hybrid Techniques Available to the Parties, by Jeremy Lack (2011)
  16. Combinations and Permutations of Arbitration and Mediation: Issues and Solutions by Edna Sussman (2010)
  17. User Preferences and Mediator Practices: Can They Be Reconciled Within the Parameters Set by Ethical Considerations by Edna Sussman (2009)
  18. Hybrid Dispute Resolution Processes – ‘Getting the Best While Avoiding the Worst of Both Worlds? by Alan Limbury (2009)
  19. Developing an Effective Med-arb/Arb-med Process by Edna Sussman (2009)
  20. International compendium on the subject of Med-Arb by the New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer, No. 1 Spring (2009)
  21. East Meets West: An International Dialogue on Mediation and Med-Arb in the United States and China, 9 PEPP. DISP. RESOL. L.J. 379 (2009) by Thomas Stipanowich, et al (Transcript of international videoconference co-sponsored by The Beijing Arbitration Commission and The Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and moderated by TJS)
  22. The Interaction Between Arbitration and Mediation: Vision v Reality by Renate Dendorfer and Jeremy Lack (2007)
  23. Einstein’s Lessons in Mediation, by Bob Bulder, Willem Kervers, Michael Leathes and Manon Schonewille (2006)
  24. Commercial Arbitration at Its Best: Successful Strategies for Business Users (Final Report of the CPR Institute Commission on the Future of Arbitration) (2001), edited by Thomas J. Stipanowich & Peter Kaskell, Chapter 1, pp. 18-33.