26 ways for a retired judge to F$@! up a will contest mediation
(pictured: retired Judge hearing for the first time that his job as a mediator is to facilitate a negotiated resolution, not to decide the legal action in the absence of evidence)
I have often bemoaned the spotty state of mediation education, training and mentoring in the ranks of those people who mediate litigated cases. My own recent mediation experience - as a party - makes me even more concerned about the state of mediation practice. As you can see below, it also makes me feel what many people feel post-mediation and that feeling is anger.
For those lawyers who judge mediator competence on self-reports of mediation "success" or on hearsay about the number of "settled case" notches a mediator has on their "neutral" belt, let me say this one more time.
Settlement is not the goal.
A mediator who "settles a lot of cases" is not therefore a "great mediator."
A mediator who "settles a lot of cases," particularly those involving unsophisticated players (i.e., people) may be a terrible mediator.
The purpose of mediation is to serve litigants' justice interests while at the same time helping them negotiate a resolution to litigation if a negotiated resolution is a better alternative to trial.
Below, 27 ways to F$#@up a will contest mediation and 10 things to do if you want to learn your trade.
- don't ask counsel and the parties how you can help them facilitate resolution
- have so little group facilitation experience that you're afraid to let the parties speak during any session - whatever its purpose and however short - that is a joint session
- After you've instructed the parties not to speak in joint session, bark in disapproval when one of them asks the "presenter" to repeat something they said (could you repeat that number?)
- after you've told the parties that you're conducting a "settlement conference," bridle when one of them asks you to clarify that it's a mediation, not a settlement conference, with broader confidentiality protections than a settlement conference provides
- get angry at one or more of the parties
- fail to resolve your anger, thereby failing to resolve a dispute and compromising your neutrality
- although you've said in joint session that the mediation is about reconciliation, when you get into separate caucus, tell the parties "it's only about money"
- when the parties talk about their emotional experience, interrupt them, saying that they have to set aside their emotions to settle the case
- when one of the parties asks you to obtain information not disclosed in discovery, say nothing, heave a deep sigh of disapproval, turn away and leave the room
- when you return with a small part of the information requested, respond to the parties' disappointment by saying "thank you Judge" in the tone of a disapproving parent
- when one of the parties suggests (an hour and a half into the mediation) that they'd like to begin the negotiation by putting numbers on the table, tell them it's "too early" to do so
- twenty minutes later, before you've obtained the requested information and before you've "permitted" the parties to negotiate, tell them you're going to make a mediator's proposal.
- when the parties object, say "then you'll never settle the case."
- if you've already made your mediator's proposal in the other room, fail to understand that you've already F%#ed up the negotiation by anchoring it yourself
- Fail to understand that a pre-negotiation mediator's proposal would deprive the parties of all their potential bargaining room
- Fail to understand that a pre-negotiation mediator's proposal would immediately create impasse from which it would be very very difficult, if not impossible to recover
- when one of the parties opines that a mediator's proposal is premature, become visibly angry and say again that the case will never settle
- when one of the parties asks what you'd base a mediator's proposal on, say, "upon my evaluation of the merits."
- when told that you do not yet possess sufficient facts upon which to provide an evaluation of the merits, insist again that the case will not settle.
- after this exchange, be afraid (or too angry) to deal with the conflict that has arisen between you and one of the parties
- don't return to the separate caucus room until the party with whom you're now in conflict requests her attorney to ask you to please return
- when you do return, refuse to make eye contact with the party with whom you now are now in conflict
- as offers and counters are being proposed and rejected, respond to the process as a waste of your valuable time and a burden on your patience
- forget that you -- not the parties - are the presumed expert in resolving conflict
- when the "other side" finally admits that they didn't account for $100,000 that they admittedly owe, fail to understand a premature "mediator's proposal" would not have taken that $100,000 "mistake" into account
- act like the Judge you once were (imperious, impatient, judgmental and all-powerful) rather than the mediator you now are (or presumably wish to be unless you're just phoning this in from your retirement haven).
UNSOLICITED ADVICE TO ANY LAWYER OR JUDGE WHO WANTS TO MEDIATE WITHOUT MEDIATION TRAINING
- This is not "retirement"
- Learn your trade
- Understand that behind every accusation is a cry for help
- You're still in the justice business
- no dispute is "simply about money"
- If you don't like conflict and don't know how to deal with it, get a real estate license
- The mediation is not about you; it is about the parties
- If you have no group facilitation skills, acquire them
- Follow up with the parties for their constructive feedback
- Understand that although the case settled, it was not you who settled it; this case settled despite you, not because of you




Comments (6)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endJoe Markowitz - August 7, 2010 3:36 PM
I would be angry too, with a mediator like the one you are describing. But I wonder how many parties (and attorneys) go to mediation expecting or maybe even wanting, the mediator to act that way. Is there actually a demand for this kind of mediator, or is the market just so insufficiently developed that people don't understand what they should be seeking in a mediator?
I agree with you 100% that the goal of mediation is not settlement. But when I ask parties in mediation what they think the goal of mediation is, they usually say it is settlement. No, I say, the goal of mediation is enlightenment. After you find enlightenment, then you can try to find justice, or maybe peace, and usually you will conclude that it is in your best interests to settle, but you might instead decide that you are better off having the case decided in court. Either way, my goal is to help people understand their choices, and make decisions that they are going to feel are right.
But unfortunately I think a lot of litigants would just as soon walk into the mediation room and, after they've said their piece, receive whatever settlement proposal the mediator wants to hand out. Then they can either take it or leave it, and they don't have to do the hard work of trying to communicate with and understand the other side.
Vickie Pynchon - August 7, 2010 4:16 PM
Thanks, as always, for your insightful comments, Joe.
I DO believe that most attorneys have never had a truly good mediator. I never did when I was in practice (with the exception of Jeff Kichaven who my partners wouldn't let me hire again because they said our clients wouldn't accept any mediator other than a retired judge) (so much for oral advocacy).
Many mediators are in the "give the market what it wants" mode and that is an evaluative mediation. I can evaluate too. But it is me - the mediator - who sets the tone and directs the process (much to the horror of the transformative mediation crowd). When lawyers ask me for a mediator's proposal (after MUCH negotiation) I suggest bracketing to narrow the range instead. I haven't made a single mediator's proposal since I've begun to suggest bracketing as an alternative.
We do our market a disservice if we give it less than our full effort. What if the symphony orchestras said - well, the market wants easy listening so we won't play challenging work written by new composers? "The market" is not god. It also RARELY knows what it wants. It must be led, not followed. A mediator is a leader in the resolution of conflict. Just as a lawyer is in his/her own conflict resolution paradigm.
Lawyers don't do what the client tells the lawyer to do. Lawyers should LISTEN to their clients and brain storm with them and try to serve the needs the client says need to be served, But clients ask for all sorts of things that lawyers don't agree to - withholding documents from discovering, lying in response to interrogatories and the like. I recently heard a law professor ask his students what they'd do if the client said they didn't want a minority or a woman handling their case and the unanimous answer from the class was - you ALWAYS do what the client wants.
WHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA????????????? When did clients and the market become the standard of excellence or the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense? You tell the client "this is the service I provide; if you'd like an evaluative mediator to tell your clients what to do instead of helping them discover and then negotiate what they want, there are plenty of mediators I can refer you to."
There's always work at the post office.
Ann Begler - August 7, 2010 7:19 PM
It sounds like an incredibly heartbreaking experience. The moments you describe are difficult enough for clients who have no mediation education; then, to be skilled and informed and to have to participate is just heart-wrenching.
I find that a large number of lawyers who come into mediation as counsel for the parties, even though they may have done some CLE, know little or nothing about mediation, how to be a resolution advocate, are ill-prepared and, sadly, are often clueless about what is really important to the client.
While some retired judges are skilled mediators in the best sense of the word, most do exactly what you have described. I do agree with Joe, that if you ask people about their expectations, or what mediation is intended to do, we will find responses like the ones he cites. I think that is, in part, related again to the lack of real education and the lack of interest in being education. Many lawyers, and therefore, clients, don't even understand there are many other ways to actually think about intent and outcomes. If the intent continues to be to win, then that intent will determine the process, the type of participation and the quality of participation.
I'm wondering how you ended up with this person as your "mediator." And, keep doing what you do; we won't make a difference every place and in every moment, however, collectively we are making and will make a difference in the lives of many people.
Hope that, in time, the wounding of participating and watching blends with many of other life experiences and just settles into its rightful place.
Victoria Pynchon - August 7, 2010 7:39 PM
Ann,
Thanks for the support!
I wasn't expecting an incredibly enlightened mediator but I did expect someone with negotiation skills. Even had I been playing win-lose hardball negotiation, I'd have wanted a mediator who didn't F#@% up my negotiation strategy by making a mediator's proposal before the parties reached at least an apparent impasse - before any offers or demands were made (!?!) I was genuinely floored as was my husband, himself trained as a mediator and serving on the federal district court panel as a public service..
I didn't need sympathy or understanding, only respect. I hear a lot of complaints from people - the parties - who feel bullied, marginalized and disrespected by mediators. Now I know what they're talking about. Fortunately, I didn't let myself BE bullied because I knew the score as so few people do. Still, this mediator may well have screwed up my negotiating strategy by telling the people in the "other room" that she recommended a settlement of $X.
That's the other problem with separate caucus mediation. You have no idea what the mediator is saying when you're not there and I've observed enough mediators in action to know that they often don't keep their promise of not disclosing what they BELIEVE to be the other side's bottom line.
I did not trust this mediator and this mediator made no effort to build trust.
I don't feel damaged or injured by the experience. I wouldn't have accepted the settlement finally reached if I didn't believe it represented some degree of very rough justice. What I feel is angry that there are no standards and that our profession is therefore marred by bad practitioners who practice out of sight, behind closed doors with no real accountability to anyone.
This mediator came highly recommended to me as someone who was highly respected in the field. It's not my field nor the field of anyone I know so I was limited in my ability to vet the mediator. And, of course, I personally know so many local mediators, I couldn't really get the mediators of my choice, all of whom I know pretty well.
As usual, world just not conforming to Vickie-expectations of excellence. Shouldn't be a surprise to me after all these years on the planet.
Best,
Vickie
Tammy Cravit - August 9, 2010 11:38 AM
Before I offer my comment, let me make clear my viewpoint: I'm a paralegal, and presently saving my bucks to go to law school in the future, but I am not presently licensed to practice law anywhere.
That said, I wonder if one of the problems inherent to mediation is the fact that the practice is dominated by lawyers (and judges, who are usually former lawyers).
Let me explain. Judges and attorneys are, ultimately, trained for litigation. Even if you're a transactional attorney, you prepare documents with the knowledge that their validity may someday be tested in court, and with an aim to ensuring that your desired interpretation of what you wrote is clear enough to carry the day in court. Our legal system, for better or worse, is inherently adversarial, and that's the mindset the vast majority of lawyers bring to things. Even the term "ADR", with its embedded "dispute" implies that conflict is the name of the game. Conflicts, as many attorneys and most lay-people view them, have a "winner" and a "loser". Given that that's the mindset going in, is it any wonder that we see problems like the ones you describe?
Becoming a "neutral" requires a shifting of mindsets, and I am sure this is a profoundly jarring experience for many attorneys and judges. It can't be easy to make that change in thinking, and I'm sure that in the presence of cognitive discomfort and dissonance, many attorneys and judges fall back on their training and land right back into that "winner"/"loser" thinking. Certainly this was true both times I was involved as a party in mediation (once in a business collections context, and the other in a family matter).
So what's the answer? Perhaps we ought to use more neutrals who don't have a career's worth of indoctrination into the "everything is a conflict, someone has to win and someone has to lose" kind of thinking. Marriage and family therapists, backed by an attorney to offer counsel as to the boundaries of what is legal, might be a good choice.
Personally, and perhaps this is my own bias showing, I happen to think a competent paralegal could make a damned good neutral.
Failing that, law schools at least ought to inculcate young lawyers-to-be with that "look for solutions, not victories" mindset much earlier in their educations.
Warmly,
Tammy
Vickie Pynchon - August 9, 2010 12:22 PM
Wow! Tammy! Brilliant! Someone get this woman a scholarship to law school RIGHT NOW!!