By the Templateez Team · Licensed Attorney · June 2026

Intake Forms for Dispute Resolution: Mediation, Arbitration, and Settlement Conferences

Alternative dispute resolution is growing faster than litigation in nearly every practice area. The American Arbitration Association administered over 300,000 cases last year. Court-annexed mediation programs are now mandatory in the majority of federal districts and in most state courts for civil matters above a threshold dollar amount. Settlement conferences — once an informal hallway conversation between a judge and two lawyers — have become structured, multi-hour proceedings with their own preparation requirements and documentation expectations.

All of this growth has created a practical problem: the intake forms that work for litigation do not work for dispute resolution. A litigator takes on one client and builds a case against the other side. A mediator serves both sides simultaneously. An arbitrator occupies a quasi-judicial role with procedural obligations that look nothing like a retainer agreement. A settlement conference neutral needs information from both parties, the court, and sometimes the insurer — all before the conference begins.

If you are a neutral, a firm that handles ADR matters, or an attorney preparing a client for a mediation or arbitration, your intake process needs to reflect these differences. Here is what dispute resolution intake actually requires — and why a generic litigation intake form leaves critical gaps.

Why dispute resolution intake differs from litigation intake

The fundamental difference is structural: in litigation, you represent one side. In ADR, the neutral serves the process. That distinction reshapes every field on the intake form.

In a litigation intake, you ask your client about the facts, the injuries, the damages, and the goals. You are building a case. In a mediation intake, you ask both parties for their version of the facts, their assessment of damages, and their settlement parameters — and you do it in a way that treats each side with equal formality and equal depth. A form that gives the claimant three pages and the respondent a half-page summary box is not neutral, and the respondent's counsel will notice.

Confidentiality operates differently too. Litigation intake captures information that may eventually become part of the public record through filings, depositions, and trial testimony. Mediation intake captures information that is statutorily protected from disclosure in most jurisdictions. The form itself needs to document the confidentiality framework — which statute applies, whether the parties have signed a confidentiality agreement, and what exceptions exist — because that framework governs what the neutral can and cannot do with the information collected. Practitioners dealing with sensitive information in intake forms face similar challenges, though the legal framework for mediation confidentiality is distinct.

Voluntary versus mandatory participation is another critical distinction. A client who walks into a lawyer’s office chose to be there. A party ordered to mediation by a court may be hostile to the process, and the intake form needs to capture whether participation is voluntary or court-ordered — because that affects the neutral’s strategy, the good-faith participation requirements, and the reporting obligations back to the court.

Mediator intake: what the neutral needs before the first session

Mediation intake serves a dual purpose. It gives the mediator the substantive background needed to prepare, and it establishes the administrative and procedural framework for the session. A mediator who walks in blind — who does not know the dispute type, the settlement history, or whether the people at the table can actually make a deal — is going to spend the first two hours catching up instead of making progress.

Nature of the dispute. The type of dispute determines the mediator’s approach. A commercial contract dispute between two companies with an ongoing business relationship calls for facilitative mediation focused on preserving that relationship. An employment discrimination claim with significant emotional stakes may require separate caucuses from the outset. A construction defect case with six parties and three insurers demands a different structure entirely. Classify the dispute at intake so the mediator can prepare the right strategy, not a generic one.

Parties and their relationship. Who is involved, and what is the nature of their relationship? This goes beyond listing names. Are the parties in an ongoing business or personal relationship that will continue after the dispute is resolved? Or has the relationship terminated, and the dispute is about unwinding it? Ongoing relationships create incentives for creative, non-monetary solutions. Terminated relationships tend to reduce the mediation to a negotiation about money. The mediator needs to know which dynamic is at play.

Prior negotiation attempts. Has there been direct negotiation? A prior mediation that failed? Demand letters exchanged? The mediator needs the full resolution history because repeating a failed approach produces the same result. If the parties mediated once and it stalled because the respondent’s representative lacked settlement authority, the mediator’s first priority this time is confirming authority before the session begins.

Settlement authority. This is the single most important field on a mediation intake form. For each party, confirm who has authority to settle, what the limits of that authority are, and whether the decision-maker will be physically present or available by phone. A corporate defendant whose representative needs to “check with the home office” on any number above $50,000 is a fundamentally different mediation than one where the general counsel with $2 million in authority is sitting at the table. The mediator who discovers this limitation at 3 p.m. during the session has lost the day.

Desired outcomes. What does each party actually want? Not the legal demand — the real outcome. Some claimants want money. Others want an apology, a policy change, or reinstatement. Some respondents want a full release. Others want confidentiality. Mediators who understand what the parties actually value can find solutions that pure dollar-amount negotiation misses.

Confidentiality agreement. Most jurisdictions have mediation confidentiality statutes, but the parties may want additional protections — non-disclosure of the fact of mediation, restrictions on using mediation communications in subsequent proceedings, or confidentiality of settlement terms. The intake should capture whether a confidentiality agreement has been signed or whether the mediator should provide one. This is not a formality. It is a prerequisite to candid conversation.

Fee arrangement. Who pays the mediator? ADR fees work differently than attorney fees. The most common arrangement is a 50/50 split, but variations exist: one party pays the full fee (common in consumer and employment disputes where the company pays), sliding scale based on case value, or advance deposits against an hourly rate. The intake should capture the fee arrangement and confirm that both parties agree to it — a dispute about fees at the start of the session is a terrible way to begin a process designed to resolve disputes.

Arbitration intake: procedural framework and binding authority

Arbitration intake looks more like litigation intake in some ways — but the procedural differences are significant enough that a litigation intake form will miss critical fields.

Arbitration clause or agreement. Most arbitrations arise from a contract. The arbitration clause defines the scope of arbitrable issues, the selection mechanism, the governing rules, and potentially the seat and language of the arbitration. Attach the clause to the intake. Many arbitrations begin with a fight about what the clause actually requires, and the arbitrator needs to read it before the preliminary hearing.

Governing rules. AAA, JAMS, ICC, UNCITRAL, CPR, or ad hoc? Each institution has different rules on arbitrator selection, discovery, interim measures, award format, and appeal. If the parties have agreed to modify institutional rules — expanded discovery, limited depositions, no dispositive motions — the intake should capture those modifications. An arbitrator who assumes standard AAA rules when the parties have negotiated specific departures starts the case on the wrong procedural footing.

Discovery scope. This is where litigation expectations collide with arbitration reality. One side wants full document production, interrogatories, and depositions of every witness. The other wants documents only, produced in two weeks, with no depositions. Arbitration discovery is typically more limited than litigation discovery, but “more limited” means different things to different practitioners. Capturing each party’s discovery expectations at intake lets the arbitrator prepare for the preliminary hearing with a realistic sense of where the procedural disputes will arise. This is similar to how intake forms for high-ticket services need to surface expectations early to avoid downstream conflict.

Hearing preferences. In-person, virtual, or documents-only? A full evidentiary hearing with live testimony and cross-examination is a different proceeding — in duration, cost, and preparation — than a documents-only arbitration or a hybrid format with limited witness testimony. The intake should capture each party’s preference and any constraints (witnesses in different jurisdictions, party with mobility limitations, international time zone issues).

Interim relief needs. Does either party anticipate seeking emergency or interim relief? Preliminary injunctions, asset freezes, document preservation orders, or temporary restraining orders? If so, the arbitrator may need to act before the preliminary hearing, and the intake should flag this urgency so the arbitrator can establish an expedited schedule for emergency applications.

Damages claimed. Break this down by category: compensatory, consequential, lost profits, emotional distress, punitive, statutory, attorneys’ fees, and interest. The composition of the damages claim tells the arbitrator as much as the total. A case claiming $500,000 in lost profits with no documentation is a different case than one claiming $500,000 in unpaid invoices with attached statements of account. The breakdown also helps the arbitrator assess whether the case is suitable for expedited procedures or whether it needs full hearing treatment.

Settlement conference intake: court-ordered preparation

Settlement conferences occupy a middle ground between mediation and litigation. They are typically conducted by a judge or magistrate, they may be mandatory, and they have their own documentation requirements that differ from both mediation and arbitration.

Court-ordered versus voluntary. If the conference is court-ordered, the order itself defines the requirements: who must attend, what must be filed in advance, whether settlement authority must be documented in writing, and what happens if a party fails to participate in good faith. The intake should attach the court order and confirm compliance with every requirement. A party that shows up without the required settlement authority letter may face sanctions.

Judge or magistrate requirements. Some judges want pre-conference statements. Others want confidential settlement letters. Some require that the parties exchange their last demand and last offer at least 48 hours before the conference. The intake should capture the specific judge’s requirements, which vary dramatically even within the same courthouse. Attorneys who have appeared before the assigned judge have institutional knowledge about that judge’s conference style and settlement philosophy — and that knowledge should be documented in the intake as well.

Settlement authority limits. In a court-ordered settlement conference, the authority question is even more consequential than in mediation because the court can impose sanctions for failing to send a representative with adequate authority. The intake should capture not just whether the representative has authority, but the specific dollar range of that authority and any corporate approval requirements that might delay a decision during the conference.

Previous offers and counteroffers. The settlement conference neutral needs the complete negotiation history: every offer, every counteroffer, every condition. A case where the demand started at $2 million and is now at $800,000 while the offer moved from $50,000 to $400,000 tells the neutral that the parties are converging and a deal is likely possible. A case where neither side has moved in six months tells a different story. This is not information the neutral should be discovering for the first time at the conference table.

The “both sides” challenge: designing for neutrality

The hardest design problem in dispute resolution intake is neutrality. In litigation, the form is designed for your client. In ADR, the form must be designed for both parties simultaneously, and it must treat them with scrupulous equality.

This means parallel structure. If you ask the claimant for a two-page narrative of their position, you ask the respondent for the same. If you collect the claimant’s damages calculation broken down by category, you collect the respondent’s damages assessment the same way. If you ask one side about prior negotiation history, you ask the other side the same questions — because their accounts will differ, and the neutral needs both versions.

It also means neutral language. A form that asks the claimant to describe “injuries suffered” and the respondent to describe “defenses” has already adopted the claimant’s framing. Better: ask both parties to describe “your position on the disputed issues.” Fillable PDFs are particularly well-suited to this because you can send identical forms to both parties simultaneously, each fills independently, and the neutral reviews both before the session. The format enforces the equality that the process requires.

The equal-treatment principle extends to how information is collected and stored. Confidential settlement authority communicated by one party must be kept separate from information shared with the other side. Pre-mediation submissions marked “for the mediator only” must not be shared. The intake process should make these distinctions explicit, documenting what is confidential to each party and what may be shared. This mirrors the careful handling required when intake forms set client expectations — clarity about what happens with the information builds trust in the process.

Conflict of interest screening: the neutral’s ethical obligation

Every ADR institution requires conflict checks. Every state ethics code addresses the neutral’s duty of impartiality. But the conflict check in dispute resolution is harder than in litigation because the neutral must screen against both parties and their counsel — not just one side.

The intake form must capture enough information to run a thorough conflict check: full legal names of all parties, including parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, and d/b/a designations. Counsel names and firms for each party. Key witnesses — fact and expert — who will participate. Related matters involving the same parties or the same underlying transaction. Financial relationships with any party. Board memberships, advisory roles, stock ownership.

A conflict discovered after the mediation begins is embarrassing. A conflict discovered during an arbitration hearing is catastrophic — it can be grounds to vacate the award, destroying months or years of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. The intake form that captures complete party and attorney information for both sides is the first line of defense against this outcome. Practitioners in regulated industries face analogous compliance-at-intake requirements, though the specific obligations differ.

Pre-session preparation: what each side should bring

A well-designed intake form does not just collect background information — it tells the parties what to prepare. The neutral who sends an intake form that includes preparation guidance is signaling professionalism and setting the tone for a productive session.

Key documents. Ask each party to identify the five to ten documents most critical to their position. In a contract dispute, that is the contract, the relevant correspondence, the invoices or payment records, and any expert reports. In an employment case, it is the personnel file, the complaint, the investigation report, and the damages documentation. Asking for specific documents prevents the party that shows up with a bankers’ box of unsorted papers and the party that shows up with nothing.

Witnesses. Will either party bring witnesses to the session? In arbitration, this is a hearing logistics question. In mediation, a party who wants to bring a witness — an expert, a character witness, or a family member — is signaling something about their strategy, and the mediator should know about it in advance.

Timeline of events. Ask each party to prepare a chronological timeline of the key events. Comparing the two timelines reveals where the parties agree on facts and where their accounts diverge — which is precisely the information the neutral needs to identify the real issues. A missing timeline field means the neutral spends the first hour of the session reconstructing a chronology that should have been documented before anyone sat down.

Legal theories. In arbitration, the legal theories matter because they determine the evidentiary burden, the applicable law, and potentially the remedies available. In mediation, understanding each party’s legal theory helps the neutral reality-test positions and identify the strongest and weakest arguments on each side. A mediator who knows that the respondent’s statute of limitations defense is strong can use that knowledge to move the claimant toward a realistic number.

Fee arrangements unique to ADR

ADR fee structures have no parallel in litigation, and the intake form needs to capture them explicitly.

Split fees. The standard arrangement is a 50/50 split between the parties, but the split may be negotiated differently. In consumer arbitration, the company often pays a larger share or the entire fee. In court-annexed mediation, the fee may be set by the court’s ADR program. In multi-party disputes, the split may be proportional to the number of parties on each side.

One-side-pays. Employment arbitration agreements frequently require the employer to pay the full arbitration fee. Some mediation programs for family law cases use a one-side-pays model based on income disparity. These arrangements must be documented at intake because they affect the neutral’s independence analysis — a neutral paid entirely by one party has a disclosure obligation.

Advance deposits and retainers. Most ADR providers require advance deposits before scheduling a session. The intake should document the deposit amount, who is responsible for each portion, the refund policy for cancellations, and the billing rate for time beyond the estimated session duration. Fee disputes between the neutral and the parties are corrosive to the process — getting the financial terms clear at intake prevents them.

Sliding scale and pro bono. Some ADR providers offer reduced fees based on case value, party resources, or case type. Community mediation centers often use sliding scale models for neighborhood disputes, family matters, or small claims. If a sliding scale applies, the intake should capture the financial information needed to determine the appropriate fee level.

Confidentiality documentation: what the law requires before the first session

In many jurisdictions, mediation confidentiality is not automatic — it requires specific documentation. California, for example, requires that the parties agree in writing to mediate before the mediation confidentiality statute applies. Other states tie confidentiality protections to whether the mediation was conducted under a court order, a written agreement, or a reference from an ADR provider.

The intake form should capture three things. First, whether the parties have already signed a confidentiality agreement — and if so, attach it. Second, whether any party requires additional confidentiality protections beyond the statutory baseline — non-disclosure of settlement terms, restrictions on discussing the mediation publicly, or limitations on using mediation communications in subsequent proceedings. Third, any exceptions to confidentiality that the parties or the law require — threats of violence, evidence of child abuse, or mandatory reporting obligations.

Getting confidentiality right at intake is not just a procedural nicety. A mediation conducted without proper confidentiality protections in place may produce communications that are later discoverable in litigation — which undermines the candor that makes mediation work. The neutral who documents the confidentiality framework at intake protects the parties and protects the process.

Why fillable PDFs work for ADR intake

The dispute resolution context highlights a practical advantage of fillable PDFs that does not apply as strongly in single-client intake. The neutral sends identical forms to both parties simultaneously. Each party fills the form independently, without seeing the other side’s responses. The neutral receives both completed forms, reviews them side by side, and walks into the session with a complete picture of both positions.

No login required. No software to install. No subscription for the parties to manage. The PDF arrives as an attachment, each party fills it in Adobe Reader or any PDF viewer, and returns it. For ADR practitioners handling dozens of cases with different parties in different jurisdictions, the simplicity matters. The form works on any device, any operating system, and any email client. It works for the solo mediator handling community disputes and for the AAA arbitrator managing complex commercial cases.

Structured, consistent intake also builds the neutral’s practice over time. Every case processed through the same intake framework creates a body of practice data — case types, resolution rates, average session duration by dispute category, fee recovery patterns. That data drives business decisions about which cases to accept, how to price services, and where to develop expertise.