The Principle of Good Faith in Mandatory Court-Annexed Mediation: Legal Nature, Violations, and Enforcement Challenges

Abstract

This article examines the principle of good faith as a fundamental legal standard governing mandatory court-annexed mediation and analyzes its normative significance for ensuring the legitimacy, fairness, and effectiveness of mediation as a consensual dispute resolution mechanism. The study argues that good faith extends beyond an ethical aspiration and constitutes an autonomous procedural obligation binding mediators, parties, legal representatives, and other participants throughout the mediation process. Through doctrinal and comparative legal analysis, the article conceptualizes the substantive content of good-faith participation, including genuine engagement in negotiations, adequate preparation, timely exchange of relevant information, cooperation with the mediator and opposing party, participation by representatives possessing full settlement authority, and the prohibition of abusing mediation for strategic or procedural advantage. Particular attention is devoted to the legal and ethical obligations of mediators, emphasizing that professional discretion must be exercised consistently with the principles of legality, fairness, party self-determination, and social justice. The article further identifies and systematizes the principal manifestations of bad-faith conduct by both mediators and lawyers, including sham participation, intentional delay, misuse of confidential information, undisclosed conflicts of interest, restrictions on party self-determination, adversarial litigation tactics, and the instrumentalization of mediation for procedural gain. Drawing upon the legal frameworks of the European Union, the United States, and selected comparative jurisdictions, the study evaluates different approaches to enforcing the duty to negotiate in good faith while preserving the confidentiality of mediation. Special emphasis is placed on the Georgian model of mandatory court-connected mediation, examining the mediator's reporting obligations, procedural consequences of bad-faith participation, and the unresolved tension between judicial oversight and confidentiality. The article concludes that effective enforcement of the good-faith principle requires a carefully balanced legal framework that distinguishes objectively verifiable procedural misconduct from confidential negotiation conduct, thereby safeguarding both procedural accountability and the essential confidentiality of mediation. Such an approach strengthens public confidence in mediation and contributes to its sustainable institutional development as an integral component of modern civil justice systems.