Don't Stop Working Toward Resolution When the Mediator Leaves the Room
When it is just you and your client, strategies such as goal-setting, continual trust-building and constant expectation management help to ease frustrations and increase output.
November 05, 2019 at 10:12 AM
7 minute read
One of the most underused times at mediation is when the neutral has left the room.
Attorneys often see this as a great time to respond to that nagging email or another issue in their other cases, but optimizing your time outside of joint sessions can mean the difference between time wasted and time well spent.
Whether you represent the plaintiff or the defense, your alone time with your client should be seen similarly to a huddle in sports, which provides an important opportunity to shift the ultimate outcome of the game.
When it is just you and your client, strategies such as goal-setting, continual trust-building and constant expectation management help to ease frustrations and increase output.
Our ability to be efficient at meditation is often impacted by the emotional obstacles the clients face. On occasion, I have entered a conference room and the animosity of the client hits me at the door. Whether it is through body language or verbal cues, it is obvious that the client feels they must defend themselves against me and sometimes even their own attorney. In my experience, this behavior is rarely personal. Whether founded or not, aggression usually points to a lack of confidence in their representative or the process. They are not simply acting distrustful. In reality, they truly may not know who they can trust.
Managing emotions in these scenarios is positively correlated to maximizing productivity. While every case and client takes on its own tenor, lawyers have an opportunity to increase efficiency simply by remaining present and reassuring to their client. When faced with an emotionally sensitive client, sometimes it is enough to just be there. Where at all possible, reducing the amount of time your client is left alone can work wonders on even the most challenging attitudes.
Sure, there are certain circumstances that make it necessary for you to step away while the mediator is with the opposing side. Chatting with friends in the hallway is not off-limits. Certainly, the lobby at Miles has provided ample opportunity to connect with old colleagues and even make a little progress on outside projects. But outside of these situations, stay present and physically invested. Sit at the table with your client. Break bread with them when it is time. Your absence can suggest that you have a higher priority than the client's case. Leaving the room happens, but setting up an alternative workspace or refusing to stay in the room for a significant amount of time will speak to your priority. And, most often, your client will often respond in kind.
To make your closed-door discussions most effective, make sure that your client understands the challenges of your position and how you plan to use me, the neutral, to overcome them. Remind them that you play for the same team. Explain your bluffs. Take this time to create expectations that are shared only by you and your client.
With each offer, there is an underlying message that must be translated. After a few cycles of negotiation, it is just as important that the client knows the current offer as it is that they understand why the opposing side chose the offer. To be truly effective during your client time, decode the message behind each number. Outside of considering the neutral's opinion, hypothesize about why the offers have changed or stayed the same. While your posture may be different when the mediator is in the room, be sure to get real and have an honest conversation with your client about the impact of each argument.
If you know your client has certain needs related to understanding a specific risk, let the mediator know so that they can provide additional clarity. This is a great place for neutral collaboration on both sides. If you want to drill a point home, the mediator can help to reinforce or emphasize that point when he or she comes in. This allows the client to process the same risk from two different sources, allowing them to participate in the conversation rather than simply being dictated to. With true mutual understanding, time can be optimized.
While the neutral plays a leadership role in the mediation process, the decisive authority belongs to the participants. Empowerment, especially for plaintiffs, is directly linked to their ability to actively participate in the negotiation. Creating a plan and expectations gives them clear parameters on how and where they will participate. It is a disservice to your case if you are not working on continuous trust-building every time the mediator leaves the room. On a very basic level, this shows your client you are engaged in the process and believe in the process. It's hard for a plaintiff and even an adjuster that mediates every week to buy in if their representative only engages when the mediator is in the room.
A priority of any attorney when the mediator leaves should be to give their client-specific expectations for the process. Surprises can quickly cause emotional upheavals bringing us back to an avoidable inefficiency. The neutral should help this with detailed expectation setting. When the door closes and you remain, ensure that the client understands what the opposing side's responses could be and why. This is more than just stating a number in a bidding war. Explain whether you agree with the neutral's assessment and advice. Then, get specific about what your united front will be when the neutral returns: If the response is lower than expected, we will do this. If it is higher than expected, we will do this.
It is important for clients to feel like they have a reasonable expectation for the reactions coming from the other room. It is even more important that they know what the plan will be, regardless of that response. This builds confidence in the attorney as an authority, especially if your client relationship has been rocky. As a byproduct, it builds trust and faith in the mediation process as a whole. In a successful mediation, the attorney will have built the client's confidence up so much that they will be ready to close this chapter. They will make decisions in their realistic best interest. Resolution can be experienced as a welcomed conclusion rather than an uneasy concession.
Practicing these new habits may take some time to get used to, especially if you tend to multitask during mediation. However, by owning these mutual priorities, neutrals and attorneys can help speed the resolution process. Navigating misplaced distrust is simply inefficient but can be reduced through staying present. Setting goals with your client at each break while explaining the role that the mediator will play in achieving it, helps to move the conversation forward. The lawyer's active participation and creation of a plan to give the client expectations help build confidence in the process. It also helps your client trust the neutral's advice. Using your time behind closed doors thoughtfully will provide the most efficient, effective and empowering experience for all parties involved.
Gino Brogdon Jr. is a a neutral at Miles Mediation and a trial attorney at The Brogdon Firm.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBusiness Breakups: Why Business and Commercial Cases Are Well-Suited to Mediation
5 minute readIn RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250