How the AAA-ICDR Institute™ and Education Services are responding to a rise in self-represented cases with practical training for experienced arbitrators and mediators.
As part of AAA’s broader commitment to access to justice, the new programs address nuanced questions of neutrality, procedural fairness, and party self-determination, equipping panelists to navigate evolving challenges while maintaining the integrity of dispute resolution.
Fulfilling an access-to-justice mission requires continual attention to how people experience dispute resolution in practice. For a dispute resolution organization, that means examining how participants navigate its processes, identifying where circumstances are changing, and responding in ways that preserve both fairness and rigor. AAA® data showed that between the first quarter of 2025 and the first quarter of 2026, cases involving self-represented parties increased 54%. The increase meant that arbitrators, mediators, and staff were encountering the dynamics of self-representation more frequently, creating an opportunity to examine what additional support could be useful.
For the AAA, a not-for-profit organization whose mission includes expanding access to justice, the increase called for more than an operational response. It also raised a broader question about what meaningful access requires from both sides: the people navigating alternative dispute resolution (ADR) without counsel and the panelists responsible for maintaining a fair proceeding. The AAA-ICDR Institute is leading that effort through its Self-Represented Party Initiative, applying a systems-level approach to the changing needs of participants, panelists, and the dispute resolution process.
Responding to a Changing Caseload
The Institute extends the AAA’s impact beyond the administration of individual cases by tackling consequential issues affecting ADR and the justice system. Its work spans access to justice, fairness, innovation, and the future of dispute resolution, with a focus on translating research and ideas into practical action. The Self-Represented Party Initiative applies that approach across the participant experience rather than treating self-representation solely as an information problem. Its work includes Guiding Principles for Self-Represented Parties, participant resources, measurement and feedback, internal support, user experience, and professional educational opportunities.
Panelist education is integral to that work because access is shaped not only by the information available to someone entering ADR, but also by what happens once the process begins. Building on earlier programming and feedback from AAA panelists, AAA’s Education Services team developed new interactive training programs for arbitrators and mediators as part of the Institute-led initiative. Translating complex questions of neutral practice into practical and engaging training, the programs examine practical scenarios and ethical questions drawn from the realities of dispute resolution to extend AAA’s ongoing investment in panelist education and professional development.
Clarity without Advocacy
AAA panelists bring substantial subject-matter expertise and professional experience to their work, supported by continuing education that reflects the circumstances they encounter in practice. As the arbitrator training emphasizes, the governing rules remain the same, but the experience of managing a proceeding can feel different when one or more parties do not have counsel.
One practical question illustrates the complexity: how much should an arbitrator explain? Lawyers generally enters arbitration understanding its terminology, procedural conventions, and the respective roles of the participants. Someone appearing without a lawyer may understand the substance of the dispute well while having far less familiarity with the process itself. An arbitrator may therefore need to make an expectation or procedure clearer while remaining careful not to cross the line into advocacy. The training explores that boundary in practical terms, reinforcing that clearer communication can support meaningful participation without altering the panelist’s role or the standards applied to the case.
The programs also caution against assumptions that can arise from the label “self-represented.” Representation status alone says little about a person’s professional background, subject-matter expertise, technological fluency, or ability to understand and make decisions about a dispute. Both the arbitrator and mediator trainings emphasize the importance of responding to the individual participant and the circumstances of the case rather than assuming that lack of representation equates to lack of sophistication.
Difficult Questions, Practical Judgment
Mediation raises a related set of challenges, particularly when a party looks to the mediator for guidance that could blur the line between facilitating a decision and influencing it. “What would you do if you were me?” captures that tension. A self-represented party may understandably look to an experienced mediator for guidance, but the mediator cannot substitute personal judgment for the party’s own decision-making. The training explores how mediators can respond by helping parties identify considerations, examine alternatives, reality-test assumptions, and think through consequences while preserving the distinction between process guidance and legal advice.
That distinction becomes especially important as a mediation approaches resolution. Terms that lawyers routinely encounter in settlement agreements may be unfamiliar to someone without counsel, creating a need to check understanding without advising the party whether a particular agreement should be accepted. The training addresses techniques for reviewing terms, confirming that the mediator has correctly understood the party’s position, and recognizing circumstances in which independent legal review may be appropriate. It also examines how mediators can maintain clear ethical boundaries without making participants feel dismissed or unsupported, particularly when a party may naturally look to the mediator for guidance beyond the mediator’s role.
Technology introduces its own considerations. Virtual proceedings create opportunities for participation and efficiency, but panelists cannot assume that every participant has the same level of comfort with online platforms. Generative AI makes legal information easier to access while also enabling inaccurate material to appear polished and authoritative. The mediator training treats these issues as part of the practical realities panelists now encounter, alongside skills like active listening, reframing, de-escalation, and managing emotion when conflict itself becomes a barrier to productive participation.
The objective is to preserve procedural rigor while ensuring that unfamiliarity with ADR does not become an unnecessary obstacle to participation. Procedural fairness is expressed through formal rules, but it is also experienced through explanation, communication, and the way panelists manage the human dynamics of a proceeding.
Mission in Practice
The growth in self-represented matters offered an opportunity to put AAA’s not-for-profit mission into practice by recognizing a change in its caseload, understanding the implications, and responding with targeted resources.
The Institute helps carry that work forward by connecting data and research with practitioner expertise and operational experience, while the new Education Services training translates those insights into practical tools for arbitrators and mediators. Sustained attention to how people understand and participate in dispute resolution can expand access while preserving the standards, neutrality, and integrity of the process—strengthening both access to justice and the quality of dispute resolution itself.
About the AAA-ICDR Institute™
The AAA-ICDR Institute™ is the "think and do tank" of the American Arbitration Association® (AAA). The Institute shapes the future of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) through applied research, partnerships, and strategic initiatives. It generates pioneering insights and develops practical, evidence-informed solutions involving AI, access to justice, and court-connected ADR that advance fair, efficient, and accessible systems for resolving disputes.