Mediation Vs Negotiation

There are more pros than cons when it comes to deciding between litigation and mediation. First thing that jumps to mind is costs, and for those that are like me and have a thing (unexplained feelings of mistrust) about lawyers, it quickly becomes an easy decision. In terms of linguistics differences between the two. There are quite a few pointers that have been discussed and reviewed. However, I would like to plainly point out the most obvious of differences between litigation and mediation. How these differences linguistically characterise and constraint litigations and perhaps throw in my two pence on why I think mediation is a wise if not better alternative to litigations overall.

Everyday Language versus Legalese

The fact that the law

Legal language as I have come to know in this unit is everywhere (Coulthard and Johnson 2007). It is dealt with on a regular basis and in a regular manner by all citizens of the world. However, take the regular citizen of the world and place him or her in a courtroom, the legal language is unrecognisable to the regular citizen (Coulthard and Johnson 2007, Wagner and Cheng 2011) . The regular citizen becomes John or Jane Doe to all that takes place in the courtroom. An interpretor is not even available to these poor souls to explain what is going on. With or without a legal representative, the regular citizen cannot effectively and efficiently communicate across his/her grief or complaints. It is at most oversimplified and prettied up in long winding sentences that make no sense to the regular citizen (Correa 2013, Coulthard and Johnson 2007, Pøidalová 1999, Wagner and Cheng 2011). This is the most obvious of characteristics of courtroom language that is in itself a constraint; The legal language practised in the courtroom. The legal language spoken, written and practised in the courtroom is alien to all that is not a counterpart or extension of the legal system. This is a constraint in that not every regular citizen of the world, regardless

There is no legalese as such. There is but an opening and closing statement and the rest is a free range. All misunderstanding circumstances and situations are discussed for the sole goal of compromising instead of compensation, profits and victory ((National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council 1999, Conley and O'Barr 2005, Eades 2010). The regular citizen can speak for themselves and communicate what they infer of the situation. This allows everyone an opportunity to resolve legal issues with an clear understanding of what they are heading in to. So that they can make sound decisions on disputes that is beneficial for all (National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council 1999, Conley and O'Barr 2005, Eades 2010). This is not to say that litigation has no place in modern society or that society has no place for litigation. Just the contrary, society has become too frivolous with many nonsensical issues and disputes landing in courtrooms that perhaps to save both resources and time, mediation can hope to answer more than half of legal disputes that ends in litigations (National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council