Judges are extraordinarily busy, and perhaps due to a lack of time or because they take their titles too seriously, they sometimes walk into a JDR room and immediately begin mediating. Without an adequate intake interview, a judge not only risks misunderstanding the most important concerns of the parties but is disrespectful to the clients—unacceptable in today's expanding world of access to justice.

The British Columbia Court website provides a counter example, as well as resources to help clients prepare for mediation. It also allows the court to initiate an intake meeting—a vital component in the process that increases the odds that JDR judges will be properly prepared to mediate.

Intake is actually the first part of a JDR. It is a highly interpersonal meeting between the mediator and the parties; often the first moment at which we are able to begin to create that positive energy. When someone reaches out to you as a mediator, you begin to share who you are, your practice and the process. In exchange they share who they are, what they’re experiencing in their lives at that moment, and what they hope, expect, or possibly fear will happen in mediation. When this important first dialogue is positive, you begin laying the foundation for what will hopefully be a successful mediation (Brill-Case 2015).

One mediator asks this of the intake experience: “How can they make the disputants comfortable, set out the process, start the disputants on the right track, and yet not take so much time that everyone becomes bored or frustrated?” (Stitt 2003).

The mediator must set the tone and create an atmosphere that is conducive to settlement. He or she must set the table figuratively as well as literally, creating a comfortable and positive tone for the disputants by proposing a structure that encourages them to participate.

This may be the first opportunity for the disputants to meet the mediator, who will try to earn the disputants’ trust in both the mediator and the mediation process. The mediator will also attempt to calm the emotions and nerves of disputants who may be anxious about the process and outcome (Stitt 2003). Judges admit that while in court, when proceedings have started, they have a hard time assessing demeanor and body language.