DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT ATTITUDE ON MEDIATION DAY?

Recently I was contacted by a representative of a local political group that heard some comments I made at a recent luncheon about my frustration with local politics and our City’s government. There seems to be no effort for consensus building and coming to grips with differences of opinion to implement solutions. Each member of our Board of Supervisors seems committed to a particular agenda, with no interest in resolving differences and creatively finding common ground.

The conversation reminded me about how lawyers representing clients in mediation must have a different attitude from that which they carry into the courtroom. As trial lawyers and litigators we emphasize advocacy, putting the right spin on our client’s case to prevail on the issues presented and ultimately obtain the best result in an adversarial environment.

That is not the right attitude for mediation. I have stressed in my writings on this subject the three “C’s” essential to a positive mediation day: Credibility, Confidentiality and Communication. While they are essential you, and your client, need to adopt a different attitude as well – one that fosters the common ground that the San Francisco political leaders seem unable to achieve. In my experience, the “mediation process” begins when the client first meets with our lawyers and staff to discuss the case. It is important that the client understand the difference between advocacy in the courtroom, where we fight hard for our client (taking strong positions on the issues) and the mediation conference room where a less adversarial, and more diplomatic demeanor, is appropriate (while not giving up on the strength of our clients’ cause).

Here are some suggestions:

1. Make sure the client understands the differences of courtroom advocacy and the approach to mediation, where we are trying to get the defendants to pay money to resolve the case. This is the figurative “more with honey” approach.

2. Normally I avoid an opening statement – certainly one that is adversarial. Any initial comments are informational. I say to the defendants: “Here is what you need to hear about our case to evaluate it” or “Here is some additional information about this case that might help you.” No finger pointing, hostility or standing on a soap box. Some lawyers have hostile body language that only raises the room temperature; not good and it sends a bad message to the client.

3. I use the mediator as my advocate. I try to get the mediator to make any adversarial points and be the “Devil’s Advocate” or, perhaps better, the “Angel’s Advocate.” Let the mediator do his/her work by questioning your opposition about its position in the case.

4. I look for deal points we can agree on early in the negotiations to try to move the case to center. No matter how small, if there are points of agreement bring them to the surface early, identify them and paste them into the settlement document that you are crafting (in your mind) as you proceed. Four or five agreed-upon points gets you closer to the final resolution and sets the tone.

5. Make sure the negotiations don’t get sidetracked on a major point of contention. If there is a major sticking point, try to work through it and get as much agreed upon as possible. Be prepared to compromise if the issue is a major one and you know the issue could increase the risk of loss or reduce the client’s recovery.

It is much about attitude. Once the right attitude is embraced by all concerned, the approach focuses on resolution and compromise— and makes settlement more likely.