Abstract: The two main goals of the dispute resolution policy in a state are: protection of the parties from any possible damage caused by the conﬂ ict of interests and creation of the proper impressions about the dispute resolution alternatives in a society. These objectives are essentially important since both risks threaten to public trust towards dispute resolution procedures generally. The possibility of judicial participation in the mediation process may have a positive effect on the public opinion about ADR in a state. Consequently, as far as the regularly increasing requirements of the legal profession arise this issue, research of a successful practice of the different states’ legislation establishes grounds for making the following recommendations: establishment of an institute of judicial mediation in Georgia is preferable; Additionally, judges hearing a case, must have an opportunity to carry out mediation proceedings by their own initiative and upon the consent of the parties; A question – who shall guide the mediation process – either judges hearing a case, or a specialized court-mediator / judge-mediator, must fully depend upon the will of the parties and the decision of the judge. In case there is an agreement between the parties on the abovementioned issue, no restrictions should be imposed by the legislation.