Mediation After 20 Years on the Chancery Bench: Resolving Complex Business Disputes
Mon, Feb 16th, 2026 | by Miles Mediation and Arbitration | Article | Social Share
For 20 years, I ruled on a number of complex business disputes. As chancellor, I followed my personal philosophy that time is valuable, and disputes did not get better by letting time drag on. I attempted to keep the lawyers focused on a trial date, ruling on motions in a timely manner, and gaining an understanding of the issues that would ultimately be heard at trial. Business owners and professionals did not want to spend additional time on litigation or in court.
My work as a chancellor has given me a unique perspective on my work as a mediator. In this piece, I’ll explore one of the first cases I handled as a chancellor, and how I use that experience as a mediator of complex business disputes.
The State Route 69 Bridge Collapse Case
One of my first cases on the bench involved the collapse of the building of a major bridge over the Tennessee River. The matter had been pending for about two years when I first was elected and inherited the dispute. I ruled on a series of motions for summary judgment over a period of several months. After a trial date had been set, one party amended its complaint. I reset the trial date and eventually issued a final order. The intermediate appellate court consolidated the appeals of the summary judgment order, together with the appeal of the final order. The appeals court recited the entire procedural history, reviewing each holding on each summary judgment before affirming the ruling on the price of the steel and in favor of the fabricator.
To move a complex business dispute forward, preparation was key. The briefs filed with each motion contain essential information about the facts, case law, standards, and statutes. Each brief was a tutorial on what would be presented at the hearing, on the motion, and perhaps again at the trial. A thorough reading of each trial brief was essential to preparing for the hearing. No one can “wing” a full trial without an understanding of the intricacies of the statutes, regulations and standards that govern the dispute. Construction laws dictate the engineering standards that must be followed as much as banking law has financial standards that must be observed. As a trier of fact, one may not be intimately familiar with the specific sections of the statute or the particular regulations, but reading the briefs guides one to those areas that are critical to a proper understanding and ruling.
Research was also required. I read the cases cited in the briefs. I examined the rules, regulations, and the applicable standards. Each step led to an increased knowledge about the dispute and the issues involved. The lawyers cited cases that helped explain the rules and regulations. Digesting that information prepared me as the trier of fact to make a proper and correct decision.
I found that many complex business disputes used their own acronyms and terminology. Understanding the significance of standards and their importance was imperative. In the case of the bridge collapse, two important questions needed to be resolved: what caused the bridge to fail, and which party would bear the burden for the loss. Ultimately, the expert testimony explained how inadequate lateral bracing, in the form of the cross frames or temporary breach, was the cause of the collapse. Further, the contractual obligations were as important as the expert testimony in ruling on the issues presented in the pleadings.
In most bench trials, including this one, I announced my orders at the conclusion of a trial, setting forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. I would request that the prevailing party’s lawyer draft an order for my approval using those oral findings and conclusions. Each attorney had a limited time within which to submit additional findings and conclusions for my consideration before I issued the written order. In this manner, I relied on lawyers who were intimately familiar with the lawsuit to help me craft an order reflecting the case’s complexity and intricacies.
Using Judicial Experience as a Mediator of Complex Business Disputes
In mediation, I do not issue orders. However, I have found my experience on the bench very helpful in my work as a mediator. The significant difference is that a court renders a decision that favors one party, not both. But preparation, research, and terminology are still important to assist the parties in reaching a satisfactory resolution, particularly in complex litigation.
Preparation is the starting point. Complex business cases rarely turn on a single issue; they involve layered facts, evolving pleadings, and interdependent legal and technical questions. At trial, briefs frame the factual narrative, identify the governing law, and previewed the most important evidence. As a mediator, I spend time ahead of the mediation reviewing the documents the parties provide so that I understand what the factual and legal issues of the case as well as the risk, cost, and leverage for each party.
Research deepens that preparation. As a chancellor, I reviewed cited cases, statutes, regulations, and industry standards to grasp the legal and practical constraints shaping the dispute. I take a similar approach n mediation so that I can assess parties’ positions, identify weaknesses and strengths, and help the parties evaluate potential outcomes.
Terminology is the final, often overlooked, component. Complex business disputes frequently rely on specialized language, acronyms, and technical standards. In the bridge collapse case, understanding engineering terms and contractual obligations was critical to identifying causation and responsibility. As a mediator, I mke sure that I’m fluent in the case’s terminology; this helps me build credibility and prevents misunderstandings that can derail negotiations.
Together, preparation, research, and terminology transform mediation from a discussion into a disciplined, effective problem-solving process.
How Mediation Differs from Litigation
Unlike a trial, mediation is not a decision that favors one party to the detriment of another party or parties. Mediation is not an either/or outcome; in mediation, the parties can embrace choices that no judge could award. It’s my role to help the parties explore all the options on the table — and suggest ones that may not have been thought of.
Finally, complex litigation generally involves multiple parties and a variety of legal disputes. My background and experience with these kinds of cases have given me insight into ways to facilitate discussion and dialogue between all parties and explore circumstances that may foster an outcome satisfactory for each party. And while I help maintain the focus on that process, the outcome is shaped by the parties, not the mediator — or a judge or jury. That makes mediation a compelling option for these kinds of complicated cases.
*Originally published in the Daily Report and reprinted with permission.
About Carol McCoy
Hon. Carol L. McCoy is a mediator with a distinguished judicial career spanning 20 years as chancellor in Nashville for the Twentieth Judicial District of Tennessee. During her time on the bench, Carol was highly regarded for her hard work, courtesy, intelligence, preparedness, and timeliness. She demonstrated the ability to handle complex legal issues, reading all briefs and cited cases then promptly rendering well-reasoned opinions.