Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

New Toolkit Helps Mediators Manage Power Imbalances Within Eviction Cases

Victoria Wang, February 11th, 2026

What happens when one party is an experienced attorney ready to negotiate, while the other is a self-represented tenant who is unsure of what to say or what the terms in the agreement really mean? This scenario is common in eviction mediations, where differences in legal knowledge, resources and confidence can create a stark imbalance in disputes between landlords and tenants. These imbalances are not always obvious, but they can quietly shape the course of the discussion and the fairness of the outcome. For mediators, navigating these dynamics is one of the toughest challenges of eviction cases. How does a mediator balance power without going too far in assisting the tenant? 

To better support mediators in this critical work, Resolution Systems Institute (RSI) has developed a Power Imbalance Toolkit. This resource draws on direct observation of eviction mediations, review of academic literature, and feedback from practitioners to identify the most common imbalance issues and provide practical strategies for mediators to address them. The toolkit is designed to be both accessible and actionable: Mediators can use it for training, preparation or even a quick reference during a session.

Why a Toolkit on Power Imbalance?

Since 2021, as an aspect of fulfilling its mission to enhance court alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems, RSI has administered an eviction mediation program in Kane County, Illinois. As part of this work, RSI observes eviction mediations from time to time to identify what is working well and where additional support for mediators might be needed.

In the summer of 2025, our research team focused specifically on how power imbalance plays out in these sessions. In reviewing these mediations, we noticed recurring patterns: Tenants frequently came to mediation not understanding the court process, and they struggled with legal terms and procedures; mediators grew familiar with attorneys from past mediations; and some tenants became silent or disengaged under the stress of the situation.

Academic research confirms that power imbalances can erode mediation’s intended benefits. Research points out that while mediation has the potential to give tenants a voice and produce fairer outcomes than litigation, these benefits can be undermined when mediators lack clear strategies for addressing imbalance. Moreover, consistent with RSI’s observations, scholars highlight the persistent and layered power disparities in landlord-tenant relationships, from differences in financial resources and legal knowledge to broader structural inequalities such as poverty disparities. A review of the related literature finds a gap: Much has been written about structural reforms and ethical questions, but less attention has been paid to the micro-level conduct of mediators and the practical steps they can take during sessions to account for power imbalances.

We saw during our observations that mediators sometimes responded well to these challenges, but at other times they lacked specific tools or awareness to recognize and respond to power imbalances in real time. For example, in some sessions, tenants asked about legal terms, but mediators hesitated to provide an explanation, noting that they had not received clear guidance on how to handle such requests. This is not uncommon among mediators in general, and it is not surprising. Most mediation training covers neutrality, communication and facilitation skills in a comprehensive way, but power imbalance in eviction cases raises a distinct set of issues that may not be directly addressed in standard training. In addition, many mediators are also mindful of maintaining clear distinctions between providing legal information and providing legal advice.

We developed the Power Imbalance Toolkit to help bridge this gap, offering mediators concrete, context-specific strategies to recognize and respond to the challenges of eviction mediation in real time.

What’s Inside the Toolkit?

The toolkit is organized into nine sections, each focused on a particular imbalance that mediators are likely to encounter in eviction sessions:

  1. Technological Issues — When parties join remotely, particularly via mobile phone, and struggle with Zoom functions, electronic document signing, etc.
  2. Mediator Mediated with the Attorney Before — When mediators have mediated with the attorney before and have a level of familiarity with them, which tenants may see as an indicator of bias 
  3. One Party’s Dominance — When one party controls the conversation, sidelining the other party
  4. One Party’s Silence or Passivity — When one party remains quiet, making it possible to mistake silence for consent
  5. One Party’s Emotional Stress and Fear — When parties’ anxiety or fear inhibits participation
  6. Parties’ Unfamiliarity with Court Procedures and Legal Terms — When parties, usually tenants, do not understand legal terms like “seal the case” or “dismissed without prejudice”
  7. Complex Proposals — When attorneys suggest intricate settlement terms that may be hard for tenants to grasp
  8. Drafting Agreements — When agreements are written in legalese or terms are dictated by attorneys without tenant input
  9. Scope of the Discussion — When attorneys limit the scope of the conversation and do not address issues like unpaid rent after a tenant moves out

Each section of the toolkit follows the same structure to make it easy for mediators to use. It begins with “What is the issue and what should I watch for?,” which describes the specific imbalance and highlights common warning signs that might appear during a session. The second part, “What should I do?,” provides concrete approaches that mediators can take, including sample questions and prompts to encourage fuller participation or check for understanding. Finally, each section ends with “Quick Tips for Your Toolbox,” a concise summary that mediators can consult at a glance, whether as preparation just before a mediation or as a quick refresher.

The toolkit also includes a plain-language glossary of legal terms that commonly arise in eviction mediation. Terms like “sealing the case” and “dismissed without prejudice” can be intimidating to tenants who are unfamiliar with court processes. The glossary gives mediators simple, accessible definitions they can use to ensure tenants understand what is being discussed.

How Mediators Can Use the Toolkit

The Power Imbalance Toolkit is meant to be flexible. Mediators can:

  • Prepare before sessions by reviewing the common issues and reminding themselves of strategies to address those issues
  • Reference it quickly during sessions for language prompts or quick tips
  • Incorporate it into training for new mediators who are just beginning to work on eviction cases

RSI sees the toolkit not as a static document, but as a living resource. We encourage mediators to share their feedback and experiences, which will help refine and expand the strategies over time.

Looking Ahead

Addressing power imbalances in mediation is essential to ensuring fairness and accessibility. While mediators cannot eliminate the structural disparities that exist outside the mediation room, they can take meaningful steps to create a process where all parties feel heard and where agreements reflect informed consent.

The Power Imbalance Toolkit is part of RSI’s broader mission to strengthen mediation practice and improve access to justice. We hope mediators will find it useful in their day-to-day work and that it sparks conversation about how to best support tenants and landlords navigating the difficult realities of eviction.

You can read and download the full Power Imbalance Toolkit on our website. We welcome your feedback and ideas for future updates. Together, we can continue building mediation practices that are fair, effective and responsive to the communities they serve.

Illinois JusticeCorps Volunteer Helps People Seek Rental Support, Navigate Court

Just Court ADR, January 26th, 2026

Since spring of 2025, RSI’s Kane County Eviction Mediation Program has benefited from the support of Illinois JusticeCorps to help it run smoothly: Illinois JusticeCorps fellow Sophie Rexrode has worked alongside RSI in the courthouse, providing parties information about the eviction court process, mediation and rental assistance. Sophie was kind enough to sit down recently and answer a few questions for us about her work. We’re so grateful to Sophie for all she does to help the program serve the Kane County community! Please note that the views expressed below do not represent those of Illinois JusticeCorps, AmeriCorps or the Kane County Law Library.

Can you tell us a bit about the Illinois JusticeCorps program? When did you join?

Sophie Rexrode

I joined Illinois JusticeCorps in the fall of 2024, because I knew I was interested in (and frustrated with!) the legal system and wanted to devote time to serving people impacted by it.

Illinois JusticeCorps is an AmeriCorps program that places volunteers in courthouses across the state to help people who don’t have lawyers navigate the legal system. We field all kinds of questions, from “Where is the courtroom?” to “How do I file an employment discrimination complaint?” to “I was just served with divorce papers, and I don’t know what that means or how to proceed.”

JusticeCorps members aren’t lawyers, and we can’t give legal advice, but we can provide legal information like forms and guides, and explain how court processes work. The court system is incredibly stressful and confusing, so we’re here to listen, share resources and hopefully make people’s experiences a little bit easier.

What led you to join Illinois JusticeCorps, and how did you get connected with RSI?

I’d always been interested in law, but I didn’t have any background in it before joining Illinois JusticeCorps — I studied cognitive science and theater in college. But in my time as a JusticeCorps member I expressed a strong interest in housing and eviction issues, so when my supervisor, Hallē Eichert (the Director of the Law Library), heard that there was a need for help with Court-Based Rental Assistance Program (CBRAP) applications, she put me in contact with (RSI Eviction Mediation Program Manager) Christina Wright and RSI.

What does your JusticeCorps work at eviction court entail?

I’ve been assisting with CBRAP applications and tabling with RSI outside eviction court since spring 2025. I table with (RSI Eviction Mediation Program Assistant) Cathy McCoy each week to provide information on the court process, mediation and rental assistance. 

Much of my work is helping tenants fill out the rental assistance application. You can only apply for CBRAP on a website, so if people want to apply but don’t have access to/aren’t comfortable with computers, I’ll help them through the process of scanning and uploading documents. Because transportation poses a hardship for many tenants in eviction proceedings, I travel all over the county to meet people at public libraries near where they live and help them in person.

Outside of evictions, most of my work is at the Kane County Law Library & Self Help Legal Center in St. Charles, where I work alongside the fantastic staff there to provide legal navigation. I also assist with the Lawyer in the Library programs (bringing free legal advice to local public libraries) and help to redesign signage and resources to make court processes easier to understand.

How many hours a week do you generally spend on JusticeCorps work?

It really depends on how many people I’m working with! I’d estimate I spend anywhere from 2–8 hours per week, including time at eviction court and helping people with applications. I know I’ve volunteered over 95 hours in the time I’ve been doing this.

Do you live in Kane County?

I do! I’m originally from the East Coast but moved here to work with Illinois JusticeCorps. I’ve really enjoyed getting to know the community here and exploring up and down the river and through all the parks!

What is your favorite part about your Illinois JusticeCorps work?

My favorite part about tabling and assisting with CBRAP is the people. The meetings I have with tenants can be stressful and difficult, but they are also full of real connection and (surprisingly) laughter. Even while navigating one of the hardest things in life, the tenants are kind, generous, and funny. It’s a privilege to get to work with them.

What do you find challenging about your work with the eviction mediation program?

I find the limitations on resources available and the services we can provide to be frustrating at times. It’s wonderful that mediation exists as an opportunity, but it can still be an inequitable arena for tenants going up against their landlord’s attorney without any representation, especially for those who aren’t comfortable with computers or have other accessibility or access needs. Similarly, while the CBRAP program is fantastic, far too many people still fall through eligibility gaps and are blocked by procedural obstacles.

Do you have future career plans/goals that relate to this work?

Yes! I’m currently starting the law school application process, with the hopes of pursuing legal aid work specifically around housing and evictions.

Do you do other volunteer work? 

I volunteer lots of places! Some of my volunteering relates directly to housing: I take shifts at the Aurora Overnight Warming Shelter and help build houses with Habitat for Humanity. I’ve also done volunteering with local forest preserves, local food pantries/banks and community fridges, and as a “snow angel” (shoveling driveways for neighbors).

Working in an environment where eviction is on the table can be stressful. What do you like to do for fun/to relieve stress?

I love trail running, and try to get outside whenever possible. I doodle in the margins of notebooks and like to write letters to friends and family.

How do you think the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program is important to the community it serves?

I think building out parallel and alternative ways of resolving issues is tremendously important if we are interested in having a justice system that works for everyone, and the eviction mediation program is a significant step in that direction. I also think that opening doors for dialogue in the community is critical, and the benefits from that ripple outward even if an individual case doesn’t get resolved.

Is there anything else you’d like to talk about that might be interesting/relevant to RSI’s readers?

I just want to emphasize how serious evictions are, and the gap that exists in legal services for low-income people. 96% of tenants don’t have lawyers but are stuck navigating a process that was built by and for attorneys. Almost all landlords are represented by attorneys, many of whom specialize in evicting tenants. Court processes are challenging at the best of times, but they become impossibly confusing in the chaos that ensues when someone is threatened with being removed from their home. Evictions are catastrophically destabilizing events, jeopardizing tenants’ jobs, families, communities, and health, yet there are few support systems for people thrown into this process. Against this backdrop, I am grateful to be able to provide the small assistance I can to tenants, but there is such a tremendous need.

Workshops Can Help Courts, Others Better Communicate with Self-Represented Parties

Stephen Sullivan, January 14th, 2026

RSI is offering a series of online workshops to help courts and organizations enhance their ADR program communication materials. During these workshops — From Confusion to Clarity: Court Communications that Work — RSI’s researchers will work with participants to review and improve their communication materials, including notices, webpages and videos. Participants will walk away with new or updated materials and the strategies to ensure future communications can effectively serve their communities, including self-represented litigants (SRLs).

Improving Court Experience Remains a Priority

Courts continue to face diminished public trust and a lack of confidence among those who go through the legal system. The 2025 State of the State Courts report by the National Center for State Courts found that poor communications are a major driver of access to justice issues. People find court forms and paperwork confusing or hard to understand, and they lack information about what to expect from court processes, the report notes. In line with these findings, a recent Pew study on perceptions of state and local courts found that US adults want courts to be easier to navigate, to work for all users and to be more user-friendly.

According to the Pew study, one-third of people who have had a court experience emerged with diminished confidence in the courts. More than half of those with court experience found it difficult to understand how to fill out court forms and to understand the steps of their cases. The latter finding held true across demographic groups, including age, education level and income level, and regardless of whether the respondent was a plaintiff or defendant.

Most people also said courts should focus on making processes easier to navigate rather than making them faster. The same Pew study found that 71% of survey respondents with court experience and 68% of survey respondents without court experience said courts should make it easier for people to navigate the system rather than diverting their resources to speed up cases and reduce costs.

Why We Designed the Workshops

RSI’s OPEN research demonstrates that simple and easy-to-understand communications can meaningfully address some of the biggest challenges facing court users. Through usability testing, we found that our accessibly designed OPEN communication models boosted people’s confidence in navigating their case and enabled them to more capably follow the steps required to participate in ADR programs.

Easy-to-understand court communications are especially important for SRLs, people with low literacy and people with low digital literacy. Courts can make important inroads to improving court experience and building trust by addressing barriers in their communication materials. Our OPEN research also highlights scaffolding as an effective strategy for making the steps within court programs easy to follow.

Yet RSI recognizes that courts may not have sufficient resources for a full consultation to improve their materials. We developed these workshops to be low-cost opportunities for court staff to begin addressing these issues. By participating in our workshops, participants can take the first step to improving their existing communication materials or creating new materials that better serve their communities.

What the Workshops Will Cover

We are offering four workshops over the next few months. Each workshop will be 3 hours long and cost $350. Each will take place 12-3 pm Central/1-4 pm Eastern, via Zoom. Below are descriptions of each workshop:

Wednesday, February 25Workshop 1: Public-Facing Documents. Bring the documents you would like to modify or thoughts on what you want to create. You will leave with documents that are written and formatted so that SRLs will understand and act on any instructions. Register & pay now for Workshop 1, or Register & receive an invoice for Workshop 1. Please register by February 18. 

Wednesday, March 25 — Workshop 2: Websites. Bring your webpages or ideas. Leave with a layout and draft content you can bring to your IT department. Register & pay now for Workshop 2, or Register & receive an invoice for Workshop 2. Please register by March 18.

Wednesday, April 22 — Workshop 3: Videos. We will help you take your ideas for a video and turn them into a storyboard to provide your communications department or consultant, or ready for you to create your own video. Register & pay now for Workshop 3, or Register & receive an invoice for Workshop 3. Please register by April 15.

Wednesday, May 20 — Workshop 4: Putting it All Together. Learn how to take your different communication methods and turn them into a workflow that enhances SRL trust and confidence in navigating an unfamiliar process. Register & pay now for Workshop 4, or Register & receive an invoice for Workshop 4. Please register by May 13.

We are excited to use what we have learned through the OPEN Project to help you with your communication needs. Please reach out to research@aboutrsi.org for any questions you may have about the workshops.

How Well Can an AI Facilitator Recognize Emotions During Dispute Resolution?

Jennifer Shack, December 1st, 2025

Recent research suggests that large-language models (LLMs) acting as facilitators in text-based dispute resolution can be trained to accurately identify human emotions and to intervene to change the trajectory of a dispute when the emotions might otherwise lead to an impasse.

The authors[1] of the August 2025 paper “Emotionally-Aware Agents for Dispute Resolution” recruited students to act as disputants regarding the sale of a basketball jersey. The ultimate dataset included 2,025 disputes, with an average 10.7 messages per dispute.

To allow for comparison with prior research, the researchers initially categorized emotions as others had done to assess LLM capacity to identify emotions in negotiations.[2] The emotions tracked were joy, sadness, fear, love, anger and surprise. The study also used a self-measure frustration scale as an indication of “ground truth” to be used as a benchmark for comparison with the LLMs’ identification of emotions. The dispute participants assessed their level of frustration during the dispute exchange, as well as their perception of the other party’s level of frustration.

To set a baseline against prior emotion models, the researchers first ran the disputants’ text exchanges through T5-Twitter, a large fine-tuned model adapted for recognizing emotions.[3] They found that T5-Twitter (T5) failed to recognize anger in conversations that participants had reported as frustrating. The researchers hypothesized that this was because T5 was classifying each dialogue turn in isolation, rather than within the context of the entire interaction. Although they had adopted the emotions used for negotiation research, the researchers also noted that those emotions were more relevant to negotiation than to dispute resolution, which concerned them.

Testing Other LLMs

The next phase of the study was to test the researchers’ hypothesis that general LLMs could better identify emotions than T5 had. The researchers prompted a variety of LLMs to analyze the same dialogues, using different prompting strategies, but with slightly different emotions. They changed the emotion “love” to “compassion” and added a “neutral” category so the LLMs were not forced to choose an emotion when none was apparent. They also prompted the LLMs to consider each dialogue turn within the context of previous turns. Finally, they helped the LLMs to learn within context by including in the prompt several sample dialogue turns with hand-annotated emotions.

Again comparing self-reported frustration with each LLM’s classification of emotions, the researchers found that GPT-4o outperformed T5 (as well as other LLMs). T5 skewed toward annotating utterances as joy or anger, while GPT-4o was more diverse in its assessments and used “neutral” as a dampener by not assigning emotions to unemotional statements. GPT-4o also recognized compassion where T5 did not recognize love.

The researchers then used multiple linear regression[4] to predict participants’ subjective feelings about the result of the dispute resolution effort (as measured by the Subjective Value Inventory) based upon the emotions that T5 and GPT-4o assigned to each dialogue turn. They found that GPT-4o provided the biggest improvement in predicting participants’ feelings about the result, even when accounting for changes in prompts to T5. They also found that buyers were more straightforward to predict than sellers.

Preventing Impasse

The researchers then examined whether GPT-4o could determine when to intervene to de-escalate anger before it escalates into impasse. This would require GPT-4o to identify a pattern of escalation. GPT-4o’s automatic identification of emotion showed that when sellers respond to buyers’ anger with anger in these dialogues, the anger spirals, and impasse results. They found something similar with compassion. When sellers began with compassion, buyers responded with compassion, and the dialogue more often resulted in agreement.

In sum, the researchers demonstrated that properly prompted LLMs with in-context learning can accurately assign emotions to text. Additionally, they found that they could predict subjective dispute outcomes from emotional expressions alone, without knowing the actual content of a conversation.

Researchers can use GPT-4o emotion assignment to reveal how emotions can shape disputes over time: Anger spirals, but so does compassion when it comes early in the dispute. This indicates that LLMs can be trained to know when to intervene in order to change the trajectory of a dispute. Future work will look at how they can do this.


[1] The authors are Sushrita Rakshit, James Hale, Kushal Chawla, Jeanne M. Brett and Jonathan Gratch.

[2] They characterize negotiations as a coming together to create a new relationship (e.g., car salesman and customer), while disputes involve an existing relationship that has gone badly.

[3] I’m extrapolating here, based on the context and what I could find about fine-tuned LLMs.

[4] Multiple linear regression uses several independent variables to predict a specific outcome.

Verified by ExactMetrics