Mediation Settles Cases

Why Civil Mediation Settles So Many Cases — and What That Means for You

In the realm of civil litigation—encompassing torts, personal injury, and commercial disputes—one of the most compelling features of mediation is its strong record of achieving settlements. Many lawyers, mediators, and judges quote a figure of roughly 85 percent of cases submitted to mediation ending in resolution. But how reliable is that number? What does the evidence actually show about settlement rates—and what does it mean for parties considering mediation?

Getting parties together resolves claims and settles cases.

The Evidence for a High Settlement Rate

Several studies and practitioner reports confirm that mediation achieves settlement in a large majority of cases, although the actual rate depends on the case type, forum, and methodology.

1. Federal Litigation Context (Eisenberg & Lanvers, 2009). In a landmark empirical study of roughly 3,300 federal district-court cases, Theodore Eisenberg and Charlotte Lanvers found an overall settlement rate of 66.9 percent, with substantial variation by subject matter. Tort cases settled most often—approaching 85–87 percent in some districts—while constitutional torts and employment discrimination claims settled far less frequently. The authors cautioned that the “often-quoted 85–95 percent” figure for civil-case settlements is misleading when applied across all federal filings; however, tort litigation indeed demonstrates the highest settlement propensity.¹

2. Practitioner Observation (Sussman 2008). In an address at Fordham Law School, mediator and arbitrator Edna Sussman observed that “settlement rates in mediation are said to be on the order of 85–90 percent,” reflecting widespread practitioner experience rather than a formal statistical study. Her paper, The Final Step: Issues in Enforcing the Mediation Settlement Agreement, underscored the rapid growth of mediation in the United States and Europe and examined how mediated settlements are enforced—as contracts, judgments, or arbitral awards.²

3. International Empirical Evidence (Kaiser et al. 2023). A 2023 peer-reviewed longitudinal study of 303 court-connected mediations in Germany reported that 85% of cases reached an agreement, and 91% of parties confirmed the settlement in follow-up surveys.³ The authors, Philipp Kaiser, Gerhard Eisenkopf, Anja M. Gabler, and Felix L. B. Lehmann, also found that one-year compliance and satisfaction rates declined modestly (to about 65–75 percent), indicating that mediation succeeds overwhelmingly at resolution but that long-term satisfaction varies.

4. Mandatory Court Mediation (Flynn & Kirgis, 2024). By contrast, a 2024 empirical study of mandatory mediation in the Missoula Justice Court (Montana) revealed more modest results. Brock Flynn and Paul F. Kirgis found that while 55 percent of cases reached an initial agreement, only 40 percent remained settled without further court involvement. Remote mediations yielded slightly lower durable rates, and cases involving represented tenants settled far less frequently—raising concerns about fairness in mandatory, small-claims contexts.⁴ The authors concluded that compulsory mediation may enhance docket efficiency but yields lower long-term success than voluntary programs.

Mediation works. Plain and simple.

What We Don’t Know—and Why It Matters

Although these studies collectively affirm that mediation resolves most civil disputes, several cautions apply:

• Aggregation hides variation. Settlement likelihood depends heavily on case type, representation, and forum.

• Federal data understate private mediation. Eisenberg and Lanvers analyzed court filings, not private mediations, so overall settlement rates in private practice may indeed approach the higher end of reported figures.

• Practitioner statistics are descriptive, not empirical. Sussman’s 85–90 percent figure reflects broad professional experience rather than a controlled study.

• Program design influences outcomes. As Flynn and Kirgis demonstrate, mandatory or low-value cases tend to settle less often and with weaker durability.

  
  

What This Means for Tort, Injury, and Commercial Mediation

Taken together, these findings support using a benchmark of roughly 75–90 percent as a credible estimate for civil mediation settlement rates. In tort and personal-injury cases—where damages are quantifiable and both sides face litigation risk—rates near the upper range (80–90 percent) are common. Commercial and contract disputes exhibit similarly high resolution rates, driven by a focus on cost control and the preservation of relationships.

Eisenberg and Lanvers’ federal analysis corroborates this pattern: torts settle most readily, followed by contract cases, then employment and civil-rights claims.¹

Why the Rates Are So High

Several structural and behavioral factors explain mediation’s success:

• Willingness to negotiate: Parties who choose mediation are typically predisposed to settle.

• Facilitation and realism: Skilled mediators help participants assess the strengths, weaknesses, and litigation risks of their cases.

• Timing: Mediation often occurs before positions harden, preventing escalation.

• Autonomy: The process offers parties greater control and confidentiality than court adjudication.

• Cost and risk avoidance: The financial and emotional incentives to resolve disputes without trial are powerful motivators.

A high settlement rate is a compelling reason to consider mediation before submitting a case to a judge or jury.

How to Use These Statistics in Practice

When advising clients, attorneys, or insurers, these figures provide a realistic benchmark:

“Empirical studies show that mediation in civil disputes typically results in settlement in the range of 75 to 90 percent—many sources cite an average of about 85 percent.”

The caveats can also be explained: the rate depends on case type, stage of litigation, mediator skill, and whether participation is voluntary. Eisenberg and Lanvers’ 2009 analysis found that settlement rates averaged 67 percent overall, with tort cases approaching 85–90 percent—figures that, while lower than the popular 85 percent claim, remain strikingly high compared to trial resolution.¹

The bottom line is that mediation consistently offers far higher odds of resolution, lower costs, and greater satisfaction than litigation.

Endnotes

1. Theodore Eisenberg and Charlotte Lanvers, “What Is the Settlement Rate and Why Should We Care?,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6 (2009): 111–146, https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/203/.

2. Edna Sussman, “The Final Step: Issues in Enforcing the Mediation Settlement Agreement,” Fordham Law School Conference on Mediation (2008), https://sussmanadr.com/docs/Enforcement_Fordham_82008.pdf.

3. Philipp Kaiser, Gerhard Eisenkopf, Anja M. Gabler, and Felix L. B. Lehmann, “Qualities and Long-Term Effects of Mediation,” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 16, no. 2 (2023): 132–164, https://doi.org/10.34891/2022.612.

4. Brock Flynn and Paul F. Kirgis, “The Efficacy of Mandatory Mediation in Courts of Limited Jurisdiction: A Case Study from the Missoula Justice Court,” American Journal of Mediation 17 (2024), https://scholarworks.umt.edu/faculty_lawreviews/223.