When working as a conflict resolution neutral, each side, perhaps unwittingly, attempts to sway the professional to their perspective regarding the conflict. But it is the essence of being neutral that we work to understand each party’s point of view. And unlike a judge, a neutral’s take on the substance of the conflict is of little import. The work, instead, is to bring each voice into the room and to help the parties see the conflict as if stepping into the other’s shoes, in order to arrive at a compromise solution.
Therefore, as a baseline, we do not hold confidences of one party from another. There is no upside to mediators having information that one of the parties does not; Neutrals have no decision-making power in the room. Nonetheless, it is exceedingly common for parties to wish a separate meeting with the neutral, and within the mediation community it is common practice to work in a caucus model. Which leads us to question: In what circumstances and in what types of mediations is caucus productive (or counterproductive), and why?
Using a Caucus
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
