Just over a week ago, Governor Newsom signed Assemblymember John Harabedian's AB 1950 into law, creating a temporary mediation pilot program in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Under the pilot, the court can refer eligible civil cases to mediation without relying on the existing $75,000 limitation. Mediation does not eliminate the parties' ability to proceed to trial if their dispute is not resolved.
The goal is straightforward: reduce pressure on an overloaded court system and give parties another opportunity to resolve their disputes before trial.
That is a welcome step. But whenever we make a system faster, we should also ask a basic question:
Faster for whom, and at what cost to the person sitting across the table?
Mediation works because it gives people a chance to decide what happens next. That might mean reaching an agreement, repairing a relationship, finding a practical solution, or deciding that no agreement is possible and going to trial.
That idea of personal choice is not new. In 1859, John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that government should not interfere with a person's freedom simply because someone else believes there is a better choice to make. His harm principle recognized an important boundary: intervention may be justified to prevent harm to others, but personal decisions should otherwise remain personal.
Dispute resolution has also taken many forms throughout history. Ancient Greek societies used arbitration and private settlement as alternatives to formal adjudication. Some Indigenous legal traditions have emphasized participation, reconciliation, community healing, and repairing relationships, although those traditions are diverse and should not be treated as a single model. The details differ, but the history reminds us that how a dispute is resolved can matter as much as the result.
That history should make California thoughtful as it expands the use of mediation.
The pressures that undermine a person's choices in court do not disappear when the parties enter a mediation room.
Litigation is expensive. Court calendars are crowded. People get tired and want their disputes to end. Those realities create pressure to settle, and sometimes that pressure becomes the loudest voice in the room.
A person may agree to a settlement because they cannot afford another year of litigation. They may agree because they are exhausted. They may feel that everyone expects them to just get it over with.
A signed agreement does not necessarily mean the person felt they had a meaningful choice.
As mediators, we should take that responsibility seriously in every session. Parties should understand from the beginning that mediation is a process for reaching agreement, not a substitute for their ability to have their case decided in court.
We also have to notice the difference between a party agreeing because they genuinely see a path forward and a party agreeing because they simply want the room to stop.
That means paying attention to the quieter person, too. The loudest voice in the room should not automatically become the most influential one.
And sometimes the right outcome is an impasse.
We should not treat every mediation that ends without an agreement as a failure. If the parties have honestly considered their options and determined that they cannot reach a resolution, that may be the most authentic result the process can produce.
California is also paying closer attention to the quality and professionalism of alternative dispute resolution. SB 940, enacted in 2024, created a voluntary State Bar certification program for alternative dispute resolution providers and practitioners, including mediators. The State Bar's ADR Certification Working Group has developed proposed standards and procedures for the program, with formal adoption still pending.
That matters. If more cases are directed toward mediation, the qualifications, ethics, and conduct of the people conducting those mediations matter more, not less.
AB 1950 also gives California an opportunity to measure whether this approach works. The law requires reporting on the number of cases ordered into mediation, the effect on trial dates, and the number of cases that result in full or partial settlements.
Those numbers will tell us whether the pilot is moving cases and producing settlements. But they should not be the only measure of success.
We should also ask whether people felt heard. Whether they understood their choices. Whether they had a meaningful opportunity to participate. And whether the process preserved the autonomy that makes mediation different from a decision imposed by a court.
Los Angeles County now has an opportunity to relieve pressure on a court system that clearly needs help, and AB 1950 could make a meaningful difference.
But speed should not become the only measure of success.
A fair mediation process must protect a person's ability to make a real choice. That means explaining the process clearly, making space for every voice in the room, recognizing when pressure is affecting a decision, and accepting that sometimes the honest answer is no agreement at all.
California can have a more efficient court system without sacrificing individual autonomy.
But we have to remember what mediation is supposed to be about.
The goal is not simply to get people out of court. It is to give them a meaningful say in what happens next.
*Lizbeth Grant Viales is a mediator and entrepreneur with experience spanning dispute resolution and business development. She is currently a volunteer mediator with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She holds a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) from King's College London and an LL.M. with a Graduate Certificate in Alternative Dispute Resolution from the USC Gould School of Law.*
*Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, in her individual capacity, and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views, positions, or policies of any organization, board, committee, or entity with which the author is or has been affiliated, whether as a member, committee member, director, or otherwise.*