Schau's Mediation Insights

Introducing The 97% Series

2012-01-14T15:13:00.000-08:00

It occurs to me that since 97% of cases filed never get to trial, there are lots of brilliant trial lawyers and litigators who must have "seen the light" and found ways to resolve their cases and still make headline news. Why? Because that's what clients want their lawyers to do! This year, I will be writing a regular monthly interview of a dozen of these local heroes for the Women Lawyers of Los Angeles Newsletter. Here is the first of the series:

HIGHLIGHTING THE 97%:LITIGATORS WINNING CASES WITHOUT GOING TO WAR

After 20 years of practicing litigation and ten years as a mediator, I have reached the conclusion that most clients come to their lawyers not to “win a case” but to resolve some conflict they are experiencing, or to right some wrong that has occurred in the most efficient way possible. As my late friend and mentor, Richard Millen, was fond of saying, “People don’t come to their lawyers with legal problems, they come to lawyers with human problems. Lawyers make them into legal problems by fitting them into a particular cause of action or set of legal defenses.”

The most recent statistics available indicate that 97% of cases that are filed in Superior Court never get to trial. How do they get resolved? This column will explore the unique and intuitive ways in which a dozen prominent women litigators have made that happen. The reader may judge for him/herself whether the gender of the handling attorney in any way contributed to the outcome, but my hypothesis is that with so many prominent women in litigation in 2012, there’s a different, perhaps more pragmatic and some may say even “gracious” way of waging war today.

Here you will find some of the most fascinating “war stories” uniquely told by select women who have demonstrated both bravery and sensitivity in addressing their clients needs and desires.

MEET ROBYN CROWTHER, Shareholder, Caldwell, Leslie and Proctor

Jan: Robyn, how long have you been practicing litigation in Los Angeles?
Robyn: Since 1997. I practiced with Gibson, Dunn for a year and then took my position at Caldwell, Leslie. I was made a shareholder just after I delivered my first (of 3) daughters.

Jan: What was the most notable case in which you were able to avoid a trial and still get a great result for your client?
Robyn: I represented Obey Clothing in litigation with the Associated Press. It was a part of the larger dispute between Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press about copyright infringement during the Obama campaign. AP sued Shepard Fairey, the graphic artist and my client, Obey Clothing for copyright infringement, claiming that the artist used a photo of Obama owned by AP, earning multi-million dollars on the image.

Jan: What was the strategy you took to get the matter settled?
Robyn: A little background. The Associated Press sued Shepard Fairey initially and only brought in Obey Clothing, the exclusive licensee of Shepard Fairey about eight months after they brought the initial action. From the outset, our clients took our advice and aggressively litigated the case pre-trial in order to set it up for a Summary Judgment motion. We had a joint defense agreement with the artist, and were planning to join in a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was due on January 6, 2010. On January 2, 2010, we were notified that Shepard Fairey had reached a settlement agreement with the Plaintiff. We had to work round the clock in a team of 3 or 4 lawyers to get our motion filed in time. The motion was heard in New York and the District Court Judge denied both parties motions on copyright infringement, but granted the AP’s Summary Judgment on Fair Use. It was after that ruling that I reached out to opposing counsel and called her to suggest it might be a good time to discuss settlement rather than challenge that ruling on appeal.

Jan: How did you or your client come up with the idea?
Robyn: I really understood the dynamics between my client and it’s insurer by then, so I came up with the concept, but it took many, many calls and emails before we arrived at a settlement.

Jan: Why was it so effective?
Robyn: I leveraged the opposing party’s win on the Fair Practices Act as a way to suggest that the settlement would benefit them because it would avoid the potential of an appeal and reversal, which may have had much further impact on the Company than this verdict if it didn’t go their way.

Jan: What was the turning point that allowed the case to settle and avoid a trial?
Robyn: Although we were talking with opposing counsel every day in preparation for the pre-trial conferences, (we had even moved to New York for the trial by then), ultimately both parties seemed to recognize that the potential losses from going to trial were too great. For the AP, that was really a function of the possible appeal and reversal.

Jan: Did you or your clients have any regrets?
Robyn: My clients were very pleased. Of course, it was probably the most fascinating piece of litigation I may ever participate in, so I would have loved to at least put on my opening statement!

Jan: Was there an “aha” moment that resulted from avoiding trial and settling the case?
Robyn: Yes. Although the terms of the settlement are confidential, the parties issued a joint press release indicating that they were planning to collaborate on future projects, which, of course, may be of enormous financial value to all parties.

Jan: Do you think that being a woman made a difference to how this case was handled?
Robyn: Once Shepard Fairey settled out, all of the lead counsel on both sides were women. I think that allowed us to dispense with some of the posturing we see and cut to the chase.

Thinking about the Future of Mediation

2011-11-06T14:48:00.000-08:00

I participated in an excellent conference yesterday for the Southern California Mediation Association, "Expanding Horizons, Expanding Opportunities" during which Keynote Speaker, Woody Mosten invited us to consider the state of mediation in 2030. It was an exciting dialogue with ideas ranging from a "Public Mediator" corps, similar to the Public Defender's office to an emergency line, where the first call in case of conflict would be to a local mediator. I was also made to consider that the "Elders" of the future will be those who fought for civil rights in the 60's and may well entertain engaging in more inclusive, collaborative processes than the elders of the last generation. Catching up with lots of colleagues and friends at a spectacular setting out in Malibu made for an invigorating, motivating day. Kudos to SCMA and all of the presenters and planners for an exceptional professional conference. P.S.: If you missed my presentation on Mediation, Ethics, Neutrality and Confidentiality, which I renamed "Dirty Little Secrets", send me an email and I'll fill you in.

The Mediator as "Silent Partner"

2011-11-03T11:16:00.001-07:00

There's been chatter lately on a variety of List serve Discussion Groups about how Mediator's can break an impasse and I have to say, I often follow my cases, sometimes daily until that log jam is broken and the case is settled. But I'm left sometimes feeling like I'm too much in the spotlight when I should be behind the camera recording the "scene" instead. For example, in several cases lately I've been asked my opinion about the following strategies while settlement negotiations are pending: how to answer discovery and when to propound it, whether to consult with bankruptcy counsel and when, whether to communicate a particular offer or rejection of a particular demand to the client now or later. Yikes! Although I enjoy the power and the challenge, I'm left questioning whether I'm becoming the Silent Partner for the inquiring counsel and whether that compromises my neutrality and impartiality in getting the matter resolved. Have we evolved to a place where we do whatever it takes to get a matter settled? Is this added value to my (lawyer) clients? Interesting queries without obvious answers.

Leaning In to Conflict

2011-10-16T11:10:00.001-07:00

Last evening we spent a magical evening in my sister's Sukkah. This week marks the Jewish harvest festival where it is tradition to share our joy and bounty by inviting strangers to dine with us in impermanent tents or booths, which are decorated with fruits and vines from the season's bounty. Because the tradition is that only one wall may be used, it is often necessary to lean in to engage one another in conversation. It occurs to me that the same is true in mediation. There, the physical "leaning in" can have several beneficial effects. First, by leaning in, you can gently push up against and ultimately penetrate those fictitious walls that have been erected around the person in conflict, literally, breaking down barriers which may have caused or contributed to the conflict at the beginning. Second, you model a sense of equality, rather than authority. For example, an employer may choose to stand, or push his chair back from his desk when confronting an employee, and a Judge usually sits on a podium, elevated from those whom he or she is "Judging". Third, by sitting across from the disputant, you can echo and demonstrate your empathy in your face and body language, so that they can feel truly heard and understood. The result can be magical, just like dining in my sister's Sukkah.

Leading from the Back of the Room

2011-09-25T19:51:00.001-07:00

I've taken a few months off from blogging during which I fear I may have become complacent with my own techniques and absorbed in a sense of competence in my mediation efforts. Then today I read about a Business leader who spoke of "leading from the back of the room" and I was struck by the notion that I had risen to the position of leadership where I take a seat which is not rightfully my own. That is an important reminder that I thought I would share. Though mediators may think we know the best way to resolve a particular dispute, leading from the front of the room can be so dangerous. Because at the end of the day, if the parties haven't come to the terms on their own, by their own volition, it may feel forced even though successful. That result is what we expect from the Court. A judge or jury may superimpose their decisions upon the parties. But mediation is supposed to be different. A reminder to lead from the back of the room--instead of the podium where the Judge sits, was really a great message for me.

What It's Ultimately All About

2011-05-22T17:04:00.001-07:00

Once in awhile, we all need to take a break from our day jobs to tend to our life's real work. For me, last week's Commencement from Columbia University, and this euphoric image of our youngest son becoming a College Graduate have fulfilled my life's true purpose. The insight for mediation and client's of mediation? Have some perspective. Most of the time the business disputes and litigation we're engaged in pales by comparison to what's really important in life: the health, success and dreams of our children. The Commencement speaker, President Bollinger, spoke of "The Butterfly Effect" and how butterflies flapping their wings independently can affect the environment worldwide. These young graduates, acting in their own communities, countries, businesses and professions, will undoubtedly change the world in which all of us live. I'm proud to have raised three responsible, college educated, decent, smart adults. I'm trusting them to make my world a better place. Judging from the past 27 years, I have complete faith and confidence that they'll do a great job at it!

Mom: The Ultimate Mediation Trainer

2011-05-08T15:49:00.000-07:00

There's some debate about whether great mediators are born or made. I say that those of us lucky enough to have Mom's as mediation trainers provide a great model for sound mediation principles. My Mom, Bette, taught me these principles which have guided and eased not only my parenting, but some good instincts which serve me well professionally, too. Here are a few: 1) Be patient. 2) Not all of your wishes will come true. Choose those that are really important to you, and give in on those that aren't. 3) Life is about compromise. You can't win "em all! 4) You are the best and the smartest and the prettiest. But you don't have to tell people that to earn their love or approval. 5) Always be respectful. 6) Develop a curiosity about people. There is something good or interesting in everyone you meet. 7) Creativity counts more than smarts. 8) Put yourself out. People will appreciate it. 9) You get out of life what you put into it. 10) Strive to be fair. If you are fair to others, they will be fair to you. 11) Watch what you eat and take care of your health. That's the only body you'll get. 12) There's a time to speak and a time to remain silent. Sometimes people just need to be listened to. 13) If you really want something, persevere. You'll get it or something else will come along. 14) Be open to new challenges and adventures. 15) Nobody can take away your self esteem but you. Stand up straight! 16) Put value in the stuff that you can't buy: love of family, friends and your good health. The rest doesn't matter.

On this Mother's Day, I appreciate these lessons and want to say "Thanks Mom" and to all of the Mom's who have spent a lifetime teaching by their example in ways that promote peace.

Learning a New Perspective at the ABA Conference

2011-04-17T20:43:00.001-07:00

The ABA Conference for the Dispute Resolution Section was inspiring this year. The keynote speaker, Temple Grandin, really made a lot of us "verbal/top down thinkers" think about different perspectives. Dr. Grandin, autistic from birth, has made her name in understanding animals, graphs, numbers, science in ways she describes as only "geeks" can do. She references the thinking of people within the autistic spectrum as "visual" and "bottom up" in contrast to verbal thinkers, whom she describes as "top down". It really made me consider different perspectives and why, despite my eloquent and painstaking efforts to explain theory, principles and justifications, sometimes people mediating before me just don't understand. On the other hand, it highlighted my own limitations as, for example, I cannot understand my own son, a computer science major, or my husband, an architect in their detail-driven thinking which sometimes flies in the face of my own overarching analyses.

In the end, I'm again struck by how much can be learned from people from different disciplines about how better to practice our own.

I was also happy to present (for the 3rd year in a row) a presentation on "Ethics for Mediators" with Kim Taylor, JAMS COO John Sherrill, Seyfarth, Shaw and R. Wayne Thorpe, Chair of the Section, as well as honored to present a story which will be a Chapter in Eric Galton's upcoming book, "The Stories Mediator's Tell".

Solution Focused Conflict Management

2011-03-20T16:00:00.000-07:00

I'm reading such an interesting book, "Solution-Focused Conflict Management" by Fredrike Bannink. It occurs to me that there is an interesting dichotomy between the legal system, which is "problem focused" and the conflict resolution business which aims to be "solution-focused". Clients bring their problems to lawyers and they help them to address them by going back and seeking damages from those who have injured them. When they come to the mediator, we can either assist in that endeavor, or meet them where they are and assist in "getting out of the conflict" by changing their future--without any promise or hope of changing their past. Likewise, a client hires a lawyer to take action on their behalf in ways that they have been unable to do on their own. In solution based conflict resolution, the mediator gives the client back the responsibility and competence to make a decision which will affect change of their future. Bannink references a study which states that "a mediator can only mediate in the future tense." What an interesting challenge to mediate without regard to "how you got here" or "what is the problem?" to "how can you make small steps that will help you achieve your future goals?" It makes me see the world of hope and possibilities differently already.

The Power of Tactful Audacity in Mediation and in Life and Death

2011-03-13T08:51:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, we laid my brother-in-law to rest at sea. It was a day in which we awakened to warnings that our Southern California Harbor was unsafe to exit due to the erratic seas caused by the Tsunami in Japan. An hour later, we were advised it was now safe, went to sea, only to be informed that we could not return to the slip because the warnings were again alarming and unsafe. We did return to safe harbor and were gratified to greet Tim's closest of friends and family who gathered to pay him tribute in ways he may never have known. He was a quiet spirit with an audacious lust for life, who died much too soon, but not before he left his imprint upon so many people throughout his life. What does this have to do with mediation? In today's New York Times interview of Romil Bahl, President and Chief Executive of PRGX, a data mining firm in Atlanta, Ga. , he talks about "tactful audacity" as a means of passing along a difficult message, which helps clients and trusted partners to evaluate difficult situations. Through collaboration and "leading from the front of the room", the best idea invariably wins. The next time I make an audacious move, from safe harbor to sea to returning to the slip, from challenging difficult clients with audacious ideas, from pushing back, tactfully, instead of clinging to old entrenched ideas, I will think of that day when the Tsunami struck, but we were unbowed, and those beautiful words that came pouring out of the mouths of strangers about the strong, but quiet spirit of a man who left this shore much too soon.

Transcendental Mediation

2011-03-06T20:49:00.000-08:00

I had the privilege of listening to a lecture by Ashok Pannikar, from Banglore, India today at the Mediator's Beyond Borders Congress here in Los Angeles. The talk was called, "Why is Joe the Plumber Peeved? Mediating Minority Rights and Majority Fears". It was a kind of "call to action" for mediators and those engaged in large-scale, global dialogue to reexamine our own biases and outdated world views. He reminded us that we are no longer in the 60's, or even the 90's. In fact, we may not be able to change the world, despite our unfailing optimism. Changes in demographics, globalization, a prolonged recession and a generalized loss of identity and increasing alienation and isolation of people everywhere has created an infinite axis of evil where everyone becomes an enemy: outsiders, insiders (think Wall Street/Corporate America), minorities, majorities, rich, poor. All of this depressing analysis lead Pannikar to urge us to strive for transcendence, or the awe that is created where we connect with another in service of something greater than the individual needs or rights. Progress, he said, comes from the tension between what is and what can be. With creativity, competence and effort, we have the capacity to experience, and guide others towards the awe that will be required of us to move to the next level of collaboration. Difficult to distill down to the nitty gritty of litigation, but we can aspire to shift the paradigm. Loved the concepts, the presentation, and being among such inspired speakers and attendees.

The Devil in Mediator's Clothing

2011-02-27T12:47:00.001-08:00

I had a rough week. As a mediator, on occasion, instead of feeling like each side's ally, one or the other side chooses to demonize us. This week, it was a landlord and tenant dispute in which I questioned whether an attorney/tenant would be able to prove a renewal of his lease by virtue of an oral agreement, which did not include an assent as to the material terms, including rent and length of the lease extension. I also stuck my neck out and offered that I didn't believe that a jury would be sympathetic to a little girl who had been seeing a "life coach" for a year following an auto accident to help her transition into the first grade. Both lawyers raised their voices at me and treated me as the "She-Devil" incarnate! (I'm pleased to advise that one of these cases has since settled based upon the Devil's Mediation Proposal which followed).

It was so helpful for me to read the interview of Richard D. Fain, Chairman and C.E.O. of Royal Caribbean Cruises today in the New York Times business section for that reason. He talked about his mentor, Jay Pritzker (founder of Hyatt Hotels) who was often his No. 1 antagonist, arguing vociferously against whatever he was proposing. Pritzker, he said, questioned him in a "highly skeptical tone" and even called him crazy. His conclusion was "you learn more by arguing with someone than just agreeing with them I learn more about whether somebody really believes their point of view and has thought it through, and it also helps me clarify in my own mind the direction I'm going."

So the next time one of the attorneys is demonizing me for that kind of skeptical questioning and antagonism, I'll remind myself that I'm actually helping them to clarify whether they believe in their point of view, have thought it through and wish to follow the direction they've started down, or change the course as the result of these "tough questions".

Empowering Women at the Helm

2011-02-06T08:16:00.000-08:00

I write from Newport Beach for a weekend aboard "Time Out" where I spent the day yesterday at the Southern California Yachting Association's 22nd Annual Women's Sailing Convention. It was quite a learning experience. Over 150 women, ranging in age from their 20's to their late 70's gathered to teach one another, to empower one another, to encourage one another to take the helm and Captain their own ship. It was a rare opportunity to learn and observe from other women how to not only be competent crew, but to be the one relying upon our own judgment, giving orders to our own (all women) crew, and taking responsibility for our own mistakes. My morning instructor, who taught "docking" gave me some invaluable life advice: if you are going to take the helm, you must be willing to take responsibility for whatever damage you do. If you truly "own" the consequences of your errors, you will find the freedom to make your own mistakes. The lesson for mediation: it's not just about compromise, but sometimes about accepting the responsibility for your actions. In doing that, you may even find that you've been empowered to do great things and small (like reaching safe harbor and enjoying cocktails and the sunset). The other part of the lessons offered was about cruising--which is sailing off shore for extended periods of time. I was fascinated by the number of women who had taken off months or years to circumnavigate and leave the daily grind behind, in exchange for such basic efforts as navigating the wind, the waves and the weather. While it always seemed to me to be a sport reserved for the very wealthy and retired, it is in fact a lifestyle choice that young people and working people make as well. Some are single, some are married, some travel with children and some stop only to see the births of new grandchildren. And I'm brought back to the notion that we can take the helm as long as we are willing to accept the responsibilities of the consequences. Because I handle so many employment disputes, where the employees may not be returned to work until or unless the economy improves and they have been re-trained to return in a different capacity, this too felt empowering. The idea that one could live their life in adventure and beauty of the sea, was also exciting. In the end, it's a new perspective which I had not been realistically considering and which is now within my tool box as a challenge and opportunity. The lesson was not only how to get into the dock, but how to leave the dock behind and safely go with the currents even as they change moment to moment.

Balancing Optimism with Realism

2011-01-30T08:31:00.001-08:00

The New York Times article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, refers to President Obama as "The Cheerleader in Chief" in today's Business Section based upon last week's State of the Union address. As a mediator, I find myself required to do much the same. On the one hand, I am asked to convey an optimism that all conflict can be settled and that the parties can achieve their best possible results at an informal hearing in our offices on the very day set for a mediation hearing. On the other hand, I need to be that realistic "truth sayer" who reminds the parties that the potential exists that the case will not settle, causing a substantial risk to both parties, uncertainty in the outcome and an enormous expense. The article speaks of Obama's first two years being busy with a kind of "triage" of an array of emergencies ranging from an unpopular war to economic crisis. When I hear a mediation, so many times, the parties have been mired in their own discovery disputes, that they are unable to see the potential resolution or "way out". They arrive with a variance of the evaluation of damages and often divergent views of the facts, the law and whether certain evidence will ultimately be developed or admissible to prove their positions.

I particularly loved the example used by Ronald Reagan. He told the story of a boy who got a pile of manure for Christmas and declared, "There must be a pony in there somewhere!" In the end, the article suggests that this is a "trust but verify" moment. I suppose that the parties before me expect no less. A balance I strive to achieve and convey. Even when the parties bring nothing more than manure, an optimistic mediator will help to look for the pony underneath the pile!

It's Never "Just About the Money"

2011-01-24T07:53:00.000-08:00

I was inspired at this weekend's Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles' Gala and Installation of Officers. These are the trial lawyers who achieve the biggest verdicts for their clients and yet they spoke not of their financial marks but of their striving for "justice" for their clients. So I got to thinking about whether mediators can acheive justice, or if what we dish out is only money? There's a new show, "Fairly Legal" which depicts a sit-com/drama of a mediator who seems to stick her neck into all types of matters--civil, criminal and even social. Although it's plenty dramatized, it occurs to me that in a broad way (pun slightly intended, but with apologies), she is out for mediating justice--and so far without dealing with any monetary issues. I hope that our profession has not, and will not, ever be so commercialized that people only choose to mediate their disputes when it's "only about the money". We can offer a chance for face to face interaction, for control of the outcome by the clients (not a group of strangers or a "higher power" as a Judge), and compromise. Does justice in Court offer any of those features? I don't think so. It's a different version of justice, one where there is not a clear winner and loser, but nonetheless, not limited to money. I hope in the coming year that I can keep sight of that goal, just as the Trial Lawyer's did on Saturday night: It's never just about the money and we owe our clients that chance to achieve "justice" in our alternative forum as well as in Court when they choose.

New Reasons for Being a Mensch

2011-01-16T08:27:00.001-08:00

When we look for the ideal husband for ourselves or our daughters, many have long known that the primary goal is to find a man who is a "mensch". (Pictured are my husband and new son in law--both epitomize the term!). This week, the California Supreme Court reversed an Appellate court decision and upheld confidentiality in mediation, even where it may allow a lawyer to commit malpractice and then shield it from discovery in a subsequent lawsuit. Cassel v. Superior Court, 2011 DJDAR 658 (S178914 filed Jan. 13, 2011). In essence, this creates a heavier burden to "do the right thing", because lawyers and mediators (and their clients) must know that the deals we strike in mediation cannot be later attacked by evidence that the lawyer acted improperly during the proceedings.

This morning's New York Times includes a Book Review of "Practical Wisdom: The Right way to do the Right Thing" by Barry Schwartz and Kenneth Sharpe by Bryan Burrough. Burrough calls the review, "The Spirit of the Mensch" and applies the practical wisdom of the book authors to the practice of law, medicine and business. In today's troubled age, and the weekend celebrating the great peacemaker, Martin Luther King, Jr. as well as the day I am attending a wedding of two young people who strike me as among the most ethical, decent, menschy I know, I can only offer that it is my hope that the Cassel decision will not give a green light for misbehavior, but instead impose a quiet code of "menschleikeit"--encouraging and inspiring lawyers to be their best and highest selves even though they have the cloke of confidentiality at that most critical moment of advising their clients in mediation.

The Ten Plagues

2011-01-08T08:11:00.000-08:00

In the spirit of my New Year's Resolutions to broaden and deepen my own intellect, I attended a Torah Study yesterday by Rabbi Steve Leder of Wilshire Boulevard Temple in Los Angeles. We read from this week's Parscha (portion) the familiar story of The Ten Plagues which G-d caused in Egypt when the evil Pharoah stiffened his heart. The sixth Plague was darkness. The commentary about why "darkness" was considered a plague equal to blood, boil, locusts, hail was interesting. The Rabbi's concluded it was because "darkness" would not allow people to see one another's humanity. As I always do, I had to consider how this relates to my work and my role in other people's conflict. My conclusion is that mediator's are trained optimists. We look for the light in the dark canvas of other people's lives. Maybe we are born this way and it's what draws us into this field. Consider the "re-framing" technique: are we not attempting to find the light in an otherwise bleak situation. Particularly in my work in employment mediation, I find myself constantly looking for the opportunity that the lost job, and oftentimes the lump sum settlement creates: can they now put away money to put their children through college, take a long awaited vacation, return to their local community college to re-train and pursue something they have long wanted to learn how to do? Thank you, Rabbi Leder, for leading me to this journey of introspection and helping me make sense of Torah in the context of mediation!

Thinking Within the Box: Facilitated Dialogue without the need for Conflict

2010-12-26T20:37:00.001-08:00

My parents, 82 years young, are beginning to recognize that they want the input of their adult children in managing their lives: business investments, tax and estate planning, cooking, driving, traveling. This morning we took advantage of the holiday week to all gather together for breakfast and a business-type meeting. Before going, I gave some thought to structuring the discussion in a mediation like way, but without the conflict. It was tricky: my brother and my husband clearly anticipated that I would unwittingly create or highlight conflict when there wasn't any. Instead, it worked this way: We began with my Dad, the patriarch, expressing some of his concerns and interests. I took notes and then invited the others sitting round the table to chime in. In the end, I set an agenda with 14 items (and we addressed only 7) ranging from "ground rules" including privacy from the next generation to a framework for regular commuication (Semi-annual meetings with our generations only--which my brother will "convene" via email in May and beginning of December). Because there were no real interpersonal disputes, it was more a useful tool for setting up a basis for future communications and accountability. (Who will check in to make sure they are eating well and are protected from financial predators, for example?) Mom promised never to drive to a family event in an evening without first checking with my nearby daughter. Dad promised that if they travel home at night they will arrange for someone to pick them up at the airport and not wait for a cab who may not be willing to drive them since they only live a short distance from the airport. My husband agreed to discuss some real estate issues with their accountant before they decide how best to characterize a taxable event that occurred in the past year and affects some family property. I submit that for my mediator friends, this was a useful way to engage our skills and expertise outside the world of conflict--but in a way that I am proud to say was highly appreciated by my brother and sister and their spouses and my terrific parents. It started as a difficult conversation, but once we put it in a familiar (to me) framework, it worked smoothly and paved the way for whatever more difficult conversations will inevitably follow.

Civility or Benevolent Dictatorship?

2010-12-19T09:33:00.000-08:00

Today is my son, Zach's birthday. He is a man of many facets: a musician, a sharp business mind, a bon vivant, athletic, handsome, sweet, creative, tough, ambitious, and all around great guy. And so he brings me to consider my own multi-faceted business practices. I have been struggling this week with the objectives of both litigators and mediators in settling challenging commercial cases. On Monday, I lectured at a lawfirm on "Civility" and was struck by the ease with which litigators could rationalize less civil conduct than the State Bar's Civility Guidelines dictate could be ignored in the context of litigation. Then this morning's New York Times included an essay called "The Bipartisanship Racket" by Frank Rich Rich talked about the shortcomings of a new movement of "No Labels" and contrasts it with the much needed "leadership" virtues. At a holiday party last week for the Southern California Mediation Association (SCMA) my own trainer, Therese White asked me whether I employed an "Evaluative" style in mediation. I had to think for a few minutes. And then, in another article in the New York Times this morning, there was a profile of Bruce Flatt, of Brookfield Asset Management, who is known for his excellent skills in negotiation and has been called a "Benevolent dictator". My synthesis of this is that the two strains: civility and "heavy metal" evaluative mediation can be effectively combined. With civility as the overarching framework (ie: true benevolence) a form of dictatorship, although anathema to true mediation, may be the only way that challenging litigated cases can be effectively resolved. If the parties or the lawyers knew how to settle their claims without a benevolent third party dictator, they wouldn't need a private mediation! Something to consider...

The Power of Silence

2010-11-28T15:42:00.000-08:00

Now that the Company has gone and we've delivered borrowed dogs and leftovers where they belonged, I note just how quiet my home is. I'll confess that I even abhor the constant Christmas music now that it's played on radio from Halloween to New Year's. So I find myself immersed in a welcome "hush" this Sunday after Thanksgiving.

This morning, while tuning into the Sunday morning news broadcasts, I heard one of the commentators talking about an aphorism in journalism about silence. He said the old adage goes: "Let the silence suck out the truth." What a powerful message for mediators! Silence can be among the best tools and yet least appreciated or employed in a mediation. It's been a hard lesson for me to learn: the art of sitting on my hands with my mouth shut and allowing the disputants to discuss and debate and ultimately collaborate on a way to settle their own disputes. Yet I find that in those moments when true emotion heats up and boils the silence in the room can, indeed "suck out the truth" in the key to a difficult resolution. Welcome quiet and the truth shall set you free!

Is "Settling" a Dirty Word?

2010-11-21T11:13:00.001-08:00

I pride myself on settling cases. Most of the time, somewhere near the beginning of the mediation hearing, I explain to the parties that what we're after is a "compromise", not a win. Most of the time, they're satisfied with the outcome: it ends the lawsuit and usually resembles what is legally "right" or at least justifiable financially. And yet, when you "google" the word "settlements" you get a lot of images of uninvited housing developments in lands whose ownership is still under dispute. Does "settlement" also mean something like "staking out your claim"? Or consider the "settling" that takes place in so many homes in Southern California. That one causes cracks in our ceilings and walls after earthquakes have caused our foundation to tremble over so many years. Is that a good thing? What about "debt settlement"? That one gives relief to the debtor, so probably is analogous to the kind of settling I do for parties before me. And consider "settling down" as in making peace with your current situation. It appears to be subject to one's interpretation in ways that make my job that much more challenging. Do I dare to urge the parties to "settle" their lawsuit or is it useful to consider other terminology in light of the various meanings attached to the word?

A Week of Holding Conflict Together

2010-11-13T08:33:00.000-08:00

I had an unusually full week and resolved 4 conflicts. By Friday night (I got home after 9 PM), I was exhausted and really need a weekend to re-charge my batteries. Two of the hearings were achingly similar: both women in their early 60's who were discharged after 20+ years of employment from their public entity careers after experiencing very typical orthopedic-type medical disabilities. After spending the days with these two dynamic older ladies, my own bones ached in empathy! It must be very hard to face retirement--no matter the nest egg you've got from your years of working at the same employment. Both were settled, at VERY different results, but both employer and employee were satisfied with the results. One of the cases this week was for 6 illegal aliens, all facing deportment proceedings, against a "notario". It presented a glimpse into the fascinating dynamics of the underground industry of folks who portend to help this community, without any power over the immigration authority of the U.S. government. It called into play the moral/political morass of whether some help and an ability to stay in the U.S. (illegally) for years was better than immediately going back to Mexico when their truth was revealed about how difficult it is to gain citizenship here. Then yesterday was a complicated purchase and sale of a business. Two friendly businessmen in the same industry made a bad mistake and entered into the loosest of transactions without consulting appraisers, business brokers or lawyers. Now 6 months later, they needed to re-do their deal by spelling out all of the terms they needed to negotiate when they were on friendlier terms. Thirteen hours later, they have a transaction I hope they can live with! Meanwhile, this mediator had an interesting, but exhausting week.

The Wisdom of My Mentors

2010-11-07T09:24:00.000-08:00

I attended the SCMA Fall Conference yesterday for my 9th year. I'll confess that I was less than enthusiastic because for the first time in the past 5 or 6 years, I was neither presenting nor chairing the conference. But my expectations were so far exceeded. From the beginning of the day, with a moment of memory of Richard Millen, to the awe inspiring work of my friends, Laurel Kaufer and Doug Noll at "Prisons of Peace", the day was devoted not merely to developing "The Business of Mediation" as the theme suggested, but to getting to the business of mediating in every way we are called upon to do. This year's honorees, Woody Mosten and Lee Jay Berman have both been mentors and icons for me in developing my own practice and they didn't disappoint in their keynote addresses yesterday. Woody provided the constant (but often much needed) reminder than our approach to marketing needs to rely upon our approach to mediation: listen to our clients and referral sources, inquire about their needs, bring peace (not sales) into every conversation at every opportunity. Woody has privately counseled me on many occasions in this new venture: model the behavior that people want in a mediator and they will hire you if you are trustworthy, demonstrate genuine integrity and can bring peace into every room you enter.
Lee Jay did a dynamite presentation on "Closing" the Deal. Lee Jay is, I have found, a chameleon in that he presents himself as just so put together he could be called "slick", and yet is so very thoughtful, deep-thinking, insightful, that it's a consistently welcome surprise. He taught me a few new great tools for closing, and what's more, demonstrated his humanity, his humility and all of the reasons why so many in our community look up to him as mentor, teacher, friend.

I also learned a great deal of things to consider, as solid, reliable business habits, from my friends and colleagues, Ralph Williams, Nikki Tolt and Len Levy. They are those special people in my professional life who have taken me in as a fledgling "newbie" and given me the guideposts and reassurance that if I work at this, and want to succeed, and stay the course, I will become that successful mediator who can make this my life's work.

I am so grateful for those who have given me so much advice over these years. And so proud to reflect that I have followed their advice and am still a part of this mediation community after 9 years. With both enthusiasm and gratitude!

Kudos to SCMA, Phyllis Pollack President, Kendall Reed, Chair and to my friends, Laurel Kaufer, Ralph Williams, Nikki Tolt and Len Levy and my mentors, Woody Mosten and Lee Jay Berman for an inspirational conference. It will not soon be forgotten!

The Unsung Mediators of Nashville

2010-10-24T16:47:00.000-07:00

I just returned from Nashville, Tennessee for the International Academy of Mediator's Conference. What a fabulous experience! We heard music everywhere with the most compelling, engaging lyrics anywhere. We saw amazing artwork in the botanical gardens by the Glass Artist, Chihuly and an Impressionist Exhibit at The Frist Museum. And we heard original music performed at The Bluebird Cafe, the Honky Tonks and by Alex Harvey, writer of "Delta Dawn" and Sammi Moore (beautiful young artist with a soul that belies her tender years). We heard from W. J. Michael Cody, the Attorney hired to represent Martin Luther King in Memphis the day before his assassination and heard his famous "I have a Dream" speech about growing up White and Southern and the beginnings of the civil rights movement there. He introduced us to one of our own members, George Brown, who was the First African-American in history to be appointed to the Tennessee Supreme Court and who partnered with Cody to bring pro bono legal services to the African-American community in Memphis as a young lawyer. From beginning to end, this was a conference, an experience, a memory to last a lifetime and I am so grateful and humbled to have participated.

Wedding Planning: The Ultimate Exercise in Mediation

2010-10-17T18:00:00.000-07:00

After a 14 month engagement, our little girl got married last weekend to a wonderful young man. During that time, we both came to learn about ourselves and one another in ways that no other exercise in parenting has served to do. For instance, I learned that I am a natural-born skeptic. I need to interview several vendors before I decide that even the first one was the best. She, on the other hand, is self-reliant and determined. If she liked the photographer, she didn't need to interview any others. I second guessed every detail--wanting to make sure it was the best, most attractive, best deal. She knew the look she wanted for the wedding and went for it. About the only thing we didn't disagree about was the groom: he is great and both of us knew it. So I wanted to share a bit of triumph. It all went perfectly. And a survival story of overcoming an unnecessary, but long term underlying conflict in undertaking planning of a perfect day, together with my now adult daughter. After that, my "work" seems like, excuse the pun, a "cake walk".

Being a California Lawyer

2010-09-26T13:47:00.000-07:00

I was invited to present at this year's Annual California State Bar Conference on the topic of "Winning your Case without going to Trial" with my colleague, Hon. Joe Hilberman. We had a great audience who were respectful, engaged and even, I dare say, introspective about the direction of access to justice and their own markers for professional success. The conference took place in sunny, beautiful Monterey, California and was, in almost every way, a breath of fresh air. I hadn't appreciated that I am so routinely surrounded by lawyers zealously advocating their client's positions, embroiled in conflict, adversarial that I had nearly forgotten how congenial, friendly, even intellectually engaged a group of lawyers can be when there are no client's around! The attendees were enormously diverse in age, geographic origin and perhaps even worldview (although not very diverse ethnically). Yet they came with a common purpose which probably began with securing their continuing education credit but ended with their broadening their education in areas of ethics, the psychology of bias, techniques and future-thinking in new areas of the law. In the end, new friendships and old were forged and we experienced that although advocates in the courtroom, we share more in common than differences. Great conference.

Steering from the Back of the Boat

2010-09-05T13:41:00.000-07:00

Today's New York Times Business Section had an interesting interview of Anne Berkowitch, co-founder and Chief Executive of "SelectMinds", a social networking company in Manhattan. She talked about the keys to effective leadership and listed the most important as "being able to listen to people." She analogized to "steering from the back of the boat" as opposed to being the military general in front of the troops and the first one rushing into battle. As many of my readers know, my husband and I are avid sailors, so the metaphor really struck me as to the reason mediation can be so effective. The mediator is trained to do exactly as Berkowitch advocates. We bring together a group of people, get the best of them and get them wanting to work as a unit toward some goal post (settlement/resolution of their conflict). We listen to them, trying to understand what really motivates them (or is driving the conflict) and then get them to push themselves beyond their comfort zones. As I go off to relax on the boat this holiday weekend, I will be so happy to carry the metaphor into my week as the key to successful settlements of dispute. I wish you fair winds and smooth sailing!

Precious Life: Just Hold On

2010-08-08T20:08:00.000-07:00

Since my last post, I have attended two funerals and a memorial service. The first was a 19 year old relative. His family had no indication that he was desperately, emotionally distraught until it was too late. There was absolutely no signs at the memorial that the family of this young man was anything other than "solid". And yet, they were tragically unable to hold onto their eldest son in his time of trouble.
Last week, I attended a funeral of a 94 year old man. He was, by all accounts, loved. His gift to his family? His love. A long life, well lived. And then this weekend, when I arrived at Temple for regular Shabbat services, the community of the Jewish rehab center in my town was reeling over the death of a 23 year old resident. Everybody was doing the right thing in his case: his parents had gotten him into rehab and his counselors and Rabbi were working hard towards saving his soul. And yet...
The Rehab has a saying, "Just Hold On", but I would submit that it's not enough. We are not alone, and each of us has a responsibility to "hold on" to one another, too. I had a challenging mediation last week when I was asked to mediate a Conservatorship of an elderly lady, whose two living children could not agree upon the appropriate care for her and could not bear to be in the same room together--leading to an awkward visitation schedule. As a consequence, neither son was "holding on" and both feared she would die alone.
I'm not sure, once again, that I've got the answers here, but I do hope that my readers will reach out and "hold on" to somebody, knowing that it is not enough to "Just Hold On". Perhaps this mantra could open the path towards all kinds of peaceful resolutions. Three deaths in a month can certainly put things into perspective.

Being Present in the Moment

2010-07-10T16:31:00.000-07:00

Mediators talk about "being present" as an effective tool towards helping people we hardly know resolve very personal conflicts. It is a term borrowed from spiritual practices where meditators (not all mediators) tune into themselves in order to be more available and accessible to the rest of the world. So it was with some amusement that I found myself forced to be fully present during the last two weeks on my vacation. For the first time, I traveled overseas without a book or even a pad and pen and project. On the first day of the cruise, a fellow passenger knocked down my Kindle, causing the screen to become unreadable. All of my planned reading went dark. I chose not to bring a computer or to register for the Internet on the ship. So I was forced, to my delight, to really tune in to my family. The first week was an Aegean Sea cruise with 28 family members celebrating my parent's 65th wedding anniversary. We had both deep and light conversations and we played games. We sang and danced and dined and hiked and laughed and experienced so much together. It really made me aware of how distracting our modern technology has become--and how the key to being "fully present" may be the simple, but oh, so difficult act, of giving up the gadgets and tuning in to one another with intentionality. The second week was a visit with my sister and her family in Bern, Switzerland and then three heavenly days in Paris. We had all been to both locations before, so we had no absolute agenda. We were spontaneous and carefree. In all ways, we were practicing "being in the moment"--which is really a great chance to renew and refresh in order to lean in to every mediation with the same intentionality. Fully present. No distractions. Time to think and listen more than speak. Now that's a vacation!

The Hazards of A Life as Mediator

2010-06-22T21:11:00.000-07:00

This is my tenth year as a mediator. I mediate all kinds of tough business negotiations and painful litigated cases. I spend my days with people in conflict. There, I summon my humbler self to strive towards empathy, creativity and compromise. So it was rough this week when my youngest son (a College Senior) got hit by a man who appeared to be plenty affluent and at least my age in a parking lot. Instead of exiting the vehicle and apologizing, or inquiring if we were okay, the man refused to provide his insurance information and asked us to handle it directly through him. He argued with me about what damage may have been caused and pleaded with me to minimize the claim, since he was having a bad time. After the initial estimate was communicated to him, he again got me involved, explaining that he's grieving the death of his mother, a religious man who couldn't speak too near the Sabbath, and ultimately that his business in real estate was abysmal. My natural inclination was to empathize, encourage my son to go for a second estimate and then accept whatever he offered. Ultimately, today, after a week of negotiation, my son made the claim through our insurance, and they will make the effort to collect from the other driver. I couldn't get past this man's sad story to get to the "rights" which my young son was able to articulate. And yet...it's clear to all of us that had the man accepted responsibility at the outset, we would likely have accepted his real interest, which was to avoid going through insurance. So beware the mediator! Sometimes our hyper-empathetic habits cloud the ability to exert our rights. Good thing I'm off on vacation for a couple of weeks. I'll be taking a cruise in celebration of my parent's 65th anniversary with 20 family members. Now that will undoubtedly bring opportunities for mediation! No vacation when you're a mediator. Just unpaid leave...

Trust

2010-06-06T10:26:00.001-07:00

Unless we're raised in an oppressive or abusive family or society, we generally grow up with a certain confident sense of trust. Some of us are better able to preserve the optimism than others. But it is this sense of trust which, in my view, allows a third party neutral to help settle disputes in matters that cannot be settled directly between the two parties. Indeed, in most cases that need a mediator it is precisely because the trust between the two disputants has broken down (or never developed). But without that trust (in somebody--either the adversary or the neutral), the dispute is so much harder to resolve!

A few examples: last week I mediated a business dispute in which the defense lawyer did not trust me (as the mediator) with his trial strategies, his evidence or the basis for his evaluation of the case. I figured this out early, when he negotiated my contract, because he didn't trust that I would not bill him for time beyond that for which I had been retained. Later, he sent sensitive documents to me via email, but wouldn't send them to my assistant, fearing that he would not maintain their confidentiality. The result was that I was as powerless as he and his client to settle that dispute. I spent the better part of 5 hours trying to gain that trust. It was evident to me that the lawyer or his client or both had been burned in previous mediations--and were not about to make themselves vulnerable in ways that needed to happen if the other side was to make major compromises in their position.

But it wasn't until today when I read the New York Times and Washington Post's story of the Israeli attack of the ship heading for Gaza that I understood why. We are now bombarded with so much dis-information, that we've all become a bit wary of trusting the sources we believed in as children. We are all left to "do the research" and make up our own minds what is truth and what is slanted by public opinion. We are all biased by the "side" we've taken in the past--striving to make it consistent with current conduct--rather than accepting that it may be a discordance or bad behavior. One account makes it clear that the Israeli's were set up by Hamas terrorists to act badly and look bad to the worldwide press. The other account (an essay by Michael Chabon in the NY Times, suggests that the Jews aren't, as we as children are told, smarter or more ethical than the rest of the world's population. Essentially, Chabon suggests that the particular Israeli's who performed this particular mission were acting on impulse without regard to higher ethics or intelligence.

Finally, on the personal side, I have been informally mediating a family matter between two close relatives. The trust one placed in the other has been called into question--and two men have had to question a lifetime of innocent trust in one another--about the loyalty of family and friendship as against opportunity and money lost and money gained.

Forgive my rambling, but I have to conclude that the common denominator is trust. Is it smart or expedient to begin with trust or should we all distrust until trust is earned? And can we conduct inter-personal relations, international relations or business relations this way? Is it good for us or bad? In my narrow world of mediation, I would at least posit that if you choose a mediator, you should lead with trusting her to maintain your confidences and work hard to help both sides gain the perspective needed to resolve the conflict between them...which, in my humble view, is always in everyone's best interest. Without some innocent trust, we may all fall down. But children are made of rubber and will bounce back. All of this distrust as adults could have much more dire consequences.

A Tribute to the Penultimate Mediator: My Mom

2010-05-09T08:38:00.001-07:00

My mom is the ultimate optimist. She loves life no matter what it brings. She has always worked hard to make each of her three children, and each of our spouses, feel that they are her favorite and that our own three children are superstars. Each of her 9 grandchildren and each of her 5 great grandchildren adore her for her special attentiveness to them. She travels hours to see their hockey matches, and ballet recitals and babysits two four year old little girls most every week!...and don't even ask about my Dad! She has spent 65 years adoring him and making him feel King of their castle. Never mind that currently they are cruising the Arabian Sea, where she's engaged in bridge lessons while my Dad (now 83) is on deck watching for pirates (alongside the armed guards on the Fly Bridge who are legitimately hired for this purpose these unfortunate days).

So on this Mother's Day, I want to say "thanks" to my loving, wonderful, joyful mom. The lessons of optimism, re-framing every situation to find the good and positive, the attentiveness to each person's perspective, the perseverance in keeping a family as diverse as ours (in most every way) together, year after year, week after week, the balance, and re-balance of perspectives and needs, the open ears and eager open arms, the broad shoulders, the empathic listening, the quiet reassurance (even when it's hard to believe) that "everything's gonna be alright", the light sense of humor and sage advice (as in "you should invest in Kleenex, you're going to be buying a lot of them" when our daughter became critically ill many years ago), all go into the package that is my mom.

Happy Mother's Day: and Thanks for all of these valuable lessons. Hopefully, they have made me not only a better mediator, but a better mom as well.

Condoleeza Rice and Renewed Faith in the Future of America

2010-05-01T14:22:00.000-07:00

Last night I attended the Southern California Chapter's Association of Corporate Counsel Association's Annual Event. I'll be honest, I did not expect to be "wowed" by the keynote speaker, Condoleeza Rice after hearing Bill Clinton speak at last year's event. But wowed I was. Rice is articulate, insightful, charming, honest and, in ways I never appreciated as she worked under President Bush, a brilliant thinker. She restored my faith in America, which my readers know was a bit shaken after last week's visit to Alberta. She reminded us that America was founded upon the "myth of the log cabin" and that she was proof that "it doesn't matter where you come from, it matters where you're going". She gave a few good lessons in leadership, my favorite of which was: "I'd rather be naive than cynical, because cynical people can't lead." She reminded us that this country was built by and enhanced by holding promise that the best and the brightest from all over the world could rise to their full potential here. She sees the wisdom and value in education for our children that includes a central place for the arts and despairs that the new global economic leader, if the historic American capitalism loses it's edge, will be replaced by the worst of America if we don't begin to address critical issues including immigration (which she seems to support in accord with the old plan developed by McCain and Kennedy under Bush), education and poverty. She set the audience on edge with respect to the threat by nations that are politically unstable, such as Iran and now Mexico, where the titular authority is unable to control a militant minority and where the government itself is subject to mis-dealings in ways that enhance rather than protect against the instability. As a former student of International Relations, I found her talk fascinating. I haven't yet found the thread which binds this to the work of a mediator--but I'm pretty sure it's there--perhaps sewn into the lining or between those logs, holding us all together.

Reflections from the Alberta Arbitration and Mediation Society

2010-04-25T13:21:00.000-07:00

I was honored to be invited to present two talks at the Alberta Arbitration and Mediation Society's Annual Conference in Edmonton last week. The President, Pat Withers, had heard about my presentation at the ABA Dispute Resolution Section's Conference in 2009 on Ethics and Mediation and was excited to have me do a reprise. In fact, since the time of the initial invitation, I had given the updated version of the talk at this year's ABA Dispute Resolution Section in San Francisco just two weeks before. It was met by a lively, engaged, largely American audience who had much to say about their own ethical dilemmas dealing with American lawyers and their clients in cases ranging from personal injury (that was sometimes exaggerated) to workplace discrimination (that was sometimes dependent upon nuanced evidence that was hard to secure). So it was with somewhat troubling to me to find that the audience of about 50 Albertan mediators could simply not relate to the stories I told of deceitfulness, exaggeration and secrets which lawyers and their clients reveal to mediators on occasion, and we are duty-bound to maintain those as confidential. In short, many members of the audience confided in me afterwards, "this would simply not happen" in Canada. Some of it is institutionalized. For example, there is no such thing, apparently, as civil fraud. Fraud is criminalized and would give rise to terminating the mediation and reporting to a Judge in the event of such behavior. One can imagine, then, how the threat of criminal prosecution may deter the employment of such "tactics" which are so commonly seen in civil disputes in the U.S. Second, citizens have access to good health care at no cost, so there is no incentive to sue a third party (and in fact in cases of "minor injuries" a law against it) in order to afford costly and necessary medical care following an accident. On and on, the examples I gave of ethical dilemmas, some personally experienced and many arising out of published California cases that have tested the duties of confidentiality as against the professional ethics of attorneys appearing in mediations of civil disputes, were, simply stated, unfathomable to my Canadian audience.

As usual, I learned more from my "students" than what I taught. But it particularly heightened my own consciousness about the cultural differences between American attorneys and mediators and our very nearby neighbors. The second workshop I presented was on Breaking Impasse. It dealt with sophisticated models or tools that mediators in the U.S. commonly use to get high stakes cases resolved (including brackets, decision tree analysis and risk analysis as well as mediator's proposals). Once again, these were very "foreign" concepts to the Alberta mediators who were unaccustomed to negotiating over money without committing to a robust opportunity for the parties to collaborate, and resolve through interest-based negotiations with the monetary issues then falling into place without mediator intervention. It's a purist model of mediation in which I was also trained, but admitting to this audience that I rarely use it without the necessity to also get into "the money" through shuttle diplomacy made me feel "unpure".

So it is that this photo--depicting the reflection of Canadian Rockies in the pure, clear Lakes, made me think hard about the value of self reflection, the open vistas just beyond our borders and the American way. More questions than answers, but what a fascinating experience for me and a deep and sincere appreciation to my Albertan friends and colleagues for giving me a chance to do this self-reflection and for listening with open ears and arms to the ethical issues we face here as though they are universal.

Indecision-Making: Science Helps Explain the Basis for Voluntary Consent

2010-04-18T09:15:00.000-07:00

There's an interesting Book Review in this morning's New York Times on "The Art of Choosing" by Sherrna Iyengar. The study is based upon a famous "jam experiment" where shoppers were offered either six different jams to sample or thirty. Surprisingly, although more shoppers stopped by the table with more samples, ten times more sales were made at the table with the limited choices! The new study takes it a step further to look at the role of culture and religion in choice. Her findings reveal that Anglo college students respond most favorably when they have maximal choice, whereas Asian children performed better in response to a cue that they were instructed to do a particular task by their mothers! Significantly (for mediators, I thought), both groups resisted commands that were made by a stranger, third party. Ms. Iyengar's findings also demonstrated that members of more fundamentalist faiths demonstrated more optimism than those without strict belief systems in a higher power. She discounts this finding by reminding readers that the study was conducted in the U.S., where members of a particular faith remain in that system by choice. A provocative study which informs some difficult mediations for me. Too many choices can lead to obstacles instead of opportunities. And finding those options which the parties themselves offer can be much more effective than the mediator's proposal. Liberating and informative!

Jazz, Synchronicity and Mediation

2010-04-11T16:23:00.000-07:00

I attended an outstanding ABA Dispute Resolution Conference in San Francisco last week. There, I heard and saw a wonderful demonstration of a concept called "Synchronicity" by Margaret Aaron and Dwight Golann during a presentation they called "Clientology". They talked about concepts we mediators call "mirroring and modelling" to meet the clients where they are and gently guide them to a place where reasoned decisions can be made about emotional conflict. They talked about delivering bad news with appropriate gravitas, and using the level and tone in our voices, our hands and even our bodies' posture for more than speech.

Today, I enjoyed a terrific jazz concert featuring a high school friend of my son's, Shana Bush, and a trio of musicians (some still in College) performing updated versions of tunes from the 1920's to 1940's. It struck me that the synchronicity I learned is a metaphor for improvisational jazz. The musicians play off one another, hit highs and lows, have a conversation amongst them which, if you're lucky, also touches the audience deeply, movingly, personally. It has the potential of uplifting or evoking the lonely, dark places we try to guard against.

So it is that in my next mediation, I shall take with me the melodies of Shana's jazz with the lessons of clientology. And perhaps with "Angel Eyes" I will accomplish more for my clients than the lyric goes: "All or Nothing at All".

Insightful Closings

2010-03-14T09:16:00.001-07:00

Los Angeles lost a great friend and "Granddaddy of Mediation", Richard Millen, last week. I had the good privilege of knowing Richard well, as he had a seat on the Board of the Southern California Mediation Association "in perpetuity" during my term as President there and we sat together on the State Bar's ADR Committee. If I could capture his philosophy in a very few words, he was a defender of the process of mediation as an essentially human prospect. He was, although a lawyer himself, quite opposed to the legalistic (or commercial) approach to human conflict. So it was with great interest that I attended the International Academy of Mediator's Conference in Salt Lake City where four highly regarded commercial mediator's from London, England to Cleveland, Ohio to Northern and Southern California, revealed their most "insightful closings". All of them involved human conflict which took self-confident and highly competent lawyers taking a step back to allow their clients to truly express themselves in the heartbreak they'd suffered in order to resolve both the emotional and the financial issues that stood between them. I'll give Richard Millen's legacy the credit for shining a light on the "mediation" of the two strains of conflict within our own community: it's okay to "Show me the Money" if you can also meet the human needs by addressing the emotional factors in mediation. Thanks, Richard, and rest in peace. Your legacy will live on.

The Awesome Power of a Sincere Apology

2010-02-19T08:23:00.000-08:00

Tiger Woods played his hardest match today when he made a public apology to his fans, business partners and supporters. It was humble. It was sincere. And it was personal. The timing was his own, based not upon a public outcry or demand, but based upon his own personal journey towards accepting responsibility for his bad behavior. It worked for me. I'm not sure that it changes his past, but I am sure that a sincere apology has the potential to change future relationships for the better. It doesn't happen routinely in mediation. When there is a sincere and humble explanation for bad conduct, and a request for forgiveness, coupled with a pledge to change or correct it, it can simply diffuse a conflict in ways that no money can buy. People, even heroes and celebrities, sometimes fail and disappoint. A decent apology can go an enormous distance towards relieving the sting of disappointment that bad behavior creates. It's a powerful lesson for mediators and those who represent people in conflict.

Lessons for Mediators from Corporate Leadership

2010-02-07T09:36:00.001-08:00

I was always a bossy little girl. So it was with great interest that I read an interview in this morning's New York Times of Susan Doeherty, who leads the United States Sales, service and marketing of General Motors. Her natural demeanor was instructive for me as a mediator in these ways. First, she recognized that communication is essential. "It needs to be simple. It needs to be consistent. And even when you're tired of what the message is, you need to do it again and again, because everybody comes to the table with a different perspective and a different experience"..."On some very key things, people need to internalize it, and they need to own it." Second, she says, "The best way to counteract coming across as being bossy would be to ask others what they thought." Third, she sits in a different chair at each meeting, to keep her meetings "dynamic". If it's good enough for GM, it's good enough for me. These are, in fact, essential lessons for mediation. And by the way, does anyone remember a male CEO being criticized for being "bossy"?

New Employment Case Limits Right to Recover Attorneys Fees

2010-01-16T09:43:00.000-08:00

We might have known it was coming since I reported about being subpoenaed to testify that attorneys fees were unwarranted in a Federal employment case because the employer would have settled for the same amount as the ultimate verdict in a mediation that took place six months before trial...but now the California Supreme Court has decided that an employee may not be entitled to recover attorneys fees in a meritorious employment case where the amount in controversy (or the ultimate verdict) is too small to have warranted the fees incurred. The decision -- Chavez v. City of Los Angeles -- tilts the balance between employee and employer interests in employment cases a little towards the employer by allowing trial courts to deny attorney fee recoveries to plaintiffs who only recover a small amount.

In Chavez, the Plaintiff was awarded $11,500 for FEHA violations, but the Attorneys submitted a fee bill of $840,000. Prior to this decision, the Court didn't have the discretion to deny attorneys fees, although they could be taxed pursuant to motion. Now, if the Court thinks they're out of balance with the value of the case, it can deny the fees. Game changer!

I have often seen the threat of huge legal fees tip the evaluation towards settling a case that otherwise has relatively low damages in employment actions. Although the cases are not frivolous, they may have limited value without the additional threat of legal fees.

Plaintiff's attorneys will likely be scrutinizing the intake on these cases more thoroughly where the damages are low. Employees who have been wrongly terminated may have less access to quality attorneys to take their cases where damages are small. Indeed, I'm going to assume that more of these cases will be settled earlier and through mediation than assuming the risk and expense of trial in light of this decision.

Interesting development in light of the economic recession in our generally pro-employee liberal State.

The New Year: A Chance to Re-set

2010-01-03T09:30:00.000-08:00

I love New Years. Like so many of life's phenomena, I see it as a metaphor for the mediation process. It's a chance to change our paths, review and re-do bad decisions, look towards the future. It's a chance to take stock of what worked and didn't, and to make up our minds to make things better in the future. One of my favorite messages of the New Year came from my friend and colleague, Deborah Rothman, who advocated for abandoning "The Bucket List" (of dreams yet unfulfilled) for "The F**k It List" (giving up those hopes that are never to be realized). It's a gentle surrender, and yet one that is so liberating!
To that end, there was an interesting article this morning in the New York Times by Barbara Strauch about Adult Learning, called "How to Train the Aging Brain". There is good news: "The brain, as it traverses middle age, gets better at recognizing the central idea, the big picture. If kept in good shape, the brain can continue to build pathways that help it's owner recognize patterns, and as a consequence, see significance and even solutions much faster than a young person can." So there's my chance to "reset": a good consolation for another year of age: I begin to see the "big picture" faster--and even can glean a solution to the biggest challenges that lie ahead. Now if I could just figure out the technical re-set mechanism...

Does Staying Neutral Require Staying Up in the Air?

2009-12-20T17:29:00.000-08:00

I went to the movies last night and saw "Up in the Air". There were so many messages for a mediator, I'm still trying to process them. The story revolves around George Clooney's job flying around the Country to terminate people from their employment for Big Co. He does his best to re-frame the moment into an opportunity and indeed, seems to succeed at finding the one passion or interest in the person's past that was set aside for all the years of his/her employment that truly drives them. Through a brief, but ever so personal interaction, he attempts to give them hope that their future may be brighter than their past. It is a technique we mediator's call "re-framing" and most of the time, when it's done with thoughtfulness and sincerity, it works to help people accelerate acceptance of a less than optimal result.

Enter a very young Cornell alumna who seeks to revolutionize this business by terminating the employees via Skype. It sounds a little like internet based mediation to me. (I never understood that either). She uses the same approach (even the same lines), but this time is one step removed. NEUTRAL! She makes no personal connection and remains "Up in the Air". On the interpersonal level, both the Clooney character and the attractive young woman find they are unable to make or maintain genuine personal relationships. Their "up in the air" status precludes them from finding a center or home that is meaningful to either of them.

And so it brings me to wonder whether being neutral actually requires the proverbial being "up in the air" (as in not taking sides) or whether it's possible to be bi-lateral instead--meaning human and empathic towards both sides of a controversy.

I really enjoyed this movie and recommend that if you see it you consider these underlying issues...

Impasse is Something That Happens Pre-Mediation

2009-12-03T21:55:00.000-08:00

In preparing for a Class I teach at Cal. State Northridge tonight on "Breaking Impasse" something occurred to me for the first time. Virtually all cases come to mediation already at impasse or deadlock. If they were in a productive and on-going negotiation, they wouldn't seek out a mediator. They would be able to resolve the conflict on their own. By showing up for a mediation, the parties to the conflict are offering the mediator the keys to unlock the "deadlock" and begin the movement needed to get to a resolution. Because my students are primarily engaged in community-type mediation, working on conflicts which are not in litigation, I also offered them two statistics: 1) In Los Angeles County, 96% of cases that are filed in court are resolved without going to trial (outside of court); 2) Of the cases that are NOT filed as Lawsuits, 100% are somehow resolved. None of those go to trial and somehow, they all go away or transform into something the parties can tolerate. So in the sphere of all conflicts, it's really a tiny percentage that end in such a "deadlock" that they can only be resolved by a Judge, jury or arbitrator declaring someone is right and someone is wrong. Surprising? Yes, but it sure gives mediators a huge opportunity to serve!

The Stories We Tell

2009-11-26T07:11:00.001-08:00

I've just returned from travelling to Chicago for our daughter's engagement party and I'll admit it, I am one of those travellers who enjoys talking to strangers. I find that because of the temporary nature of their acquaintance, you can often learn more about their lives than they would share with their most intimate friends. On the way back to the airport, I was (affectionately at least) teasing my 82 year old mother, who, by that time, was getting on everybody's nerves. The woman seated across from us smiled and said, "that puts a good perspective on my weekend". She had, we soon learned, been in Chicago to bury her mother, who died suddenly. She learned of the death not from her estranged brother (who lived there), but from a cousin, who posted it on "Facebook". On the trip home, I sat beside a woman about my age who told me she'd have help making Thanksgiving dinner this year from her son, who was attending culinary school. I learned later that he had dropped out of High School after his parents spent $48,000. in rehab therapy, and that she was struggling with her husband to persuade him to allow him to stay in the family home after he turns 18 next month.

In the mediations over which I preside, I hear so many personal stories of strangers. They are grateful to have someone who will objectively hear them out. What did I do wrong to deserve to be fired from my job? Why didn't he appreciate the loyalty and energy I put into building his business over so many years? Why didn't they like me on the floor of the hospital where I worked? Why didn't they understand that I just needed some more time to heal? Why didn't they know how badly I was hurting? Why didn't they apologize?

The stories and small acts of kindness of strangers can make so much difference. Listening to the stories and reflecting on the little acts which make a life can be so important. On this Thanksgiving morning, I am so grateful to have these opportunities--large and small to provide perspective, levity, hope and friendship to strangers among us. Happy Thanksgiving to one and all.

To Avoid a Claim for Malpractice, California Court says Keep Your Mediator Present at All Times

2009-11-15T06:39:00.000-08:00

Both the mediation and legal communities in California are abuzz about the Court of Appeals decision in Cassel v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 2 Dist. November 12, 2009)which held that attorney client communications are not protected from becoming evidence when they take place at mediation if the mediator isn't in the room at the time of the communication. Apparently, a well respected lawfirm, Wasserman, Camden and Comden, strongly urged it's client, Mr. Cassel, to accept a $1 million settlement during a private meeting at the mediation. Mr. Cassel agreed and the settlement was drawn up. Now Mr. Cassel is claiming his lawyers coerced him into the settlment and in doing so, breached their fiduciary duty to him. Not only does he seek to unravel the settlement, but seeks additional damages from his attorneys. The Court created a judicial exception to the confidentiality statue where the communication was solely between lawyer and client. Lesson? Lawyer beware. Never let the mediator out of your sight lest your advice, if accepted, maybe subject to later challenges. And your settlement may be unenforceable. Sounds like a good deal for mediators, and a raw deal for mediation confidentiality. Lots to think about on this one.

Mediator's Ethics: Does it Include a Just Outcome for the Disputants?

2009-11-08T08:35:00.001-08:00

Yesterday I attended the Southern California Mediation Association's 21st Annual Conference. The piece by Professor/Dean Peter Robinson of The Straus Institute of Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University really caused me to examine my practice. Although the talk was billed as "Ethics for Mediators", Professor Robinson provoked us to question whether mediator's have a heightened duty to make sure that whatever agreements we "broker" have legitimacy, integrity and meet legal standards. The legal standards would, of course, include only those agreements which were not entered under duress or coercion, were based upon informed consent and entered into by a person of sound mind and capacity. Robinson suggests that this is all the more important because if a party enters into an agreement in the context of mediation, he or she can never establish that the agreement was unfair and therefore set it aside later. Hmmm...This puts a burden upon the lawyer mediator that I'm not sure I'm willing to accept. I was pretty satisfied being staunchly "impartial" and allowing the parties to exercise their self determination. And yet....It's noteworthy to point out that there are Model Standards for Mediators, which are a little different from those adopted here in California, that require both self-determination and fairness. Occasionally, these contradict one another. I have frequently presided over mediations in which I believed that one side was getting an unfair "deal"--but did not intervene to re-balance the terms of a deal which both sides agreed to enter into. While I routinely "test" whether there is money left on the table, for example, I typically refrain from interfering in a negotiation which seems to me to be imbalanced. I assume that each party, always acting through their attorneys in my case, have their own reasons for doing what they are about to do--even if it doesn't make sense to me. There is something driving them to reach the deal that they strike--and I'm generally satisfied that I need not safeguard the "outcome", just the fairness of the process. Robinson's lecture suggests otherwise. I'm still examining...

Do Mediators Do Justice?

2009-10-25T16:43:00.001-07:00

I mediated a couple of tough sexual harassment and wage and hour cases this past week. At the end of one, the owner of the company asked me a probing question: "Is there no justice in this Country?" I had to step back and contemplate that one. Our California employment laws are particularly protective of employees. They have the right to rest and meal breaks, regular hours (or paid overtime subject to very specific pay rates) a workplace free of what used to be called "flirtation", particularly by their supervisors, and on it goes. And yet...the result can cost the employer much more than the employee would have earned, based upon penalties, attorneys fees and tort damages. So is it justice to settle a case for that kind of payment even in this tough economy? I maintain that what I do is it's own brand of justice: I help parties reach deals which roughly reflect a careful analysis of what a jury or judge would do, tempered by the ability to pay and the savings of avoiding a trial. Is it fair? Is there justice in this Country? These are hard questions. Sometimes I'm glad I'm not a Judge and don't have to bear the price of justice on my shoulders.

Duty to Clients or Country?

2009-10-17T12:37:00.000-07:00

It is about to happen to me. Next week, I anticipate receipt of a subpoena to testify in Federal Court about a mediation over which I presided 18 months ago. I have already received the Court order telling the parties to request my declaration (which I refused to do.) Here's the deal: U.S. District Court civil rights action. No offers made and the case did not settle before me. 18 months later, the case went to trial and the Plaintiff got a "modest" verdict. The parties are now fighting about attorneys fees. The court seems to be persuaded by the Defense's position that the case could have been settled for the amount of the verdict at the mediation. (But of course, it wasn't!) I discarded my notes a year ago, but have orally communicated with both lawyers that my recollection is that no offer was made. Certainly, the case didn't settle--so what difference does it make? It's a perilous position for the court or the attorney's to take: if you fail to accept a low-ball offer, you may not be able to recover your fees if you do better than that at trial unless it's huge. While up until now I considered the attorneys and their clients to be "my clients", I intend to refuse to testify under the confidentiality protections. I guess I feel a little differently about my "duty to country" in the face of a Subpoena to testify to a Federal Judge about matters I consider to be strictly confidential. I'm left feeling angry that the Court may determine this in ways that contravene the policies favoring mediation through confidential communication. I'm lefting feeling angry that I will have to go through the expense of refusing to comply with a Federal subpoena in order to safeguard this process.

Lessons from the International Academy of Mediators

2009-09-25T07:32:00.000-07:00

I attended an excellent Professional Conference this month in London, The International Academy of Mediators, "What Can we Learn from Each Other". During the conference, a full day's mock mediation was staged. It was the first I'd ever seen where professional actors were employed to demonstrate the raw emotionality that so often surfaces in civil mediation. So this week, I gave it a try. I facilitated two joint sessions in cases in which I would normally have kept the parties separate. In the first, the lawyer blew up and shouted in ways that were unexpected to me, her client and opposing counsel. Just as I had observed Avi Schneerson at the IAM do, I sat quietly and allowed that anger to boil over into the joint session. Within a very few minutes, there were huge concessions following that outburst and the case was settled within 30 minutes thereafter. In the other case, I spent over two hours preparing for the hearing by discussing the relative positions of the parties through their counsel. This one turned out to be more procedural than fact-based, but the lawyers weren't communicating with one another, rather they were busy advocating for their clients. So I took the chance to conduct that one with all lawyers together in a joint session for almost all of the negotiation. Lo and behold, they were much more civil to one another when sitting together in a room without their clients then I would have anticipated and the case was also settled in 4 hours. Thanks to my fellow IAM members, and a couple of paid actors, the theater of my mediation hearings proved to be a great laboratory for new lessons learned, including bravely allowing conflict and emotionality to be demonstrated publicly in order to truly allow the parties to get to a resolution.

Respect of a Man

2009-08-23T08:25:00.000-07:00

My youngest son will turn twenty one tomorrow. This is a hat tip to Jordan, aka "Mr. Schau" of Mr. Schau.com. He is my webmaster and also the host of a site known as "PureNeeds.com". He is most certainly a rising "bon vivant". He leaves today for Las Vegas and then after he drops his bags at Columbia in New York, where he will be Junior in the Engineering Program at SEAS, he will meet his sister in Nice, France for a quick vacation abroad on Tuesday.
But this entry is not about Jordan, but about the two mediations over which I presided this week. Without revealing any confidential information, the first was the wrongful termination of a young, Hispanic kitchen worker and the second was a contract issue by a well known celebrity. Both cases were resolved, with hugely different results monetarily, but with a single commonality. Each of these men brought their legal claims because they were disrespected in the workplace and the only means to attain the respect to which each knew instinctively they were entitled was to seek legal redress. The kitchen worker was not represented by counsel, but the celebrity could also not get his point across without legal representation. In the end, once I was able to acknowledge and confirm their positions and contributions to the Companies to which they had dedicated years of work, the money part was easily resolved. The Companies they sued were not able or willing to acknowledge or value those contributions without engaging a mediator who could evaluate them with a degree of neutrality. I would conclude it was also a degree of humanity--which often times a corporate culture doesn't bring to the table.
So here's to you, Jordan, and to all good men: may you always act with integrity, work with intelligence and humanity to others and earn the respect of others and to acknowledge the contribution of your friends and colleagues.

Mediating Civil Rights Issues

2009-08-14T07:50:00.000-07:00

I was struck by the latest bipartisan efforts at mediating civil rights. Yes, it's true, apparently Rev. Al Sharpton and Former Congressman Newt Gingrich are on a road trip promoting equal education in America! Bravo! I'm currently reading an excellent novel, "The Help" by Kathryn Stockett, which addresses civil rights in Mississippi. The shocking part of the story is not the tender discussion of disparities between the Southern White families and their African-American maids, but rather how recent this disparity existed! The story reads as though it's another century, but takes place in the 1960's. It's a story of a White woman writing the "stories" of a dozen maids about their experiences working for White families: they raise their children, nurse them when they are elderly and all the while attempt to maintain their own lives and families on limited income and unequal liberties and opportunities. Now, nearly 50 years later, the news in America is indicating the government is relying upon a partnership of Sharpton and Gingrich to bring this conversation forward once again with respect to education. It's shocking, and yet, so compelling. Partnerships, alliances, dialogue is the only way change can be meaningfully made. Bravo to Kathryn Shockett for taking on this raw conversation, and kudos to Sharpton and Gingrich for continuing the dialogue towards a better future for our kids--all of them!

The Beer Summit

2009-08-01T09:41:00.000-07:00

Here's to President Obama and his brave and wise staff who understood the power of mediation this week as he invited the Harvard Professor to confront and discuss his arrest with the Cambridge Police Chief at the White House. There were so many mediator techniques brewing that afternoon, that I wanted to take a moment to reflect on them. First, there was an invitation for dialogue. There were no guarantees that there would be a particular outcome, but in the heat of the conflict, somebody had the wisdom to bring the conflicting parties together for the purpose of discussing their different perspectives and exploring options for improving the relations between African Americans and Police in America in the future. Second, there was a "third sider" present: not necessarily Obama, who actually took sides when he called the Cambridge Police Officer's conduct "stupid", but Joe Biden--who had no dog in the fight. (You'll notice that Biden did not drink alcoholic beer. Interesting, but maybe not coincidental.) Third, there was a balance: two African-American Harvard trained participants would not have achieved the level of impartiality that a true mediation would require as against a single, Caucasian (probably not Harvard trained, Ivy league, elite?) Police Officer. Although a mediator need not be a separate race from the disputants, in this case, the commonality of Obama with one of the disputants would likely have raised eyebrows had he been alone to face the Police Officer after calling his conduct "stupid" in a press conference. Fourth, they offered confidentiality: although the Press was invited to take the initial irresistible photos, they were expressly excluded from the dialogue itself. The parties were then at liberty to express their interests and perspective without risking losing face or conceding anything concrete. Finally, informality: have you seen other photos of such an informal meeting with the President of the United States? Obama was in shirt sleeves, without jacket or tie, at a table on the lawn. The table was round (not a true "summit") and the dialogue was not recorded. All of this facilitated the true dialogue that perhaps will begin or advance the discussion of racism in America. Bravo for the mediators!

The Mediator's Perspective: Taking Time Out

2009-07-26T19:51:00.000-07:00

I had a tough week this week. I presided over two particularly challenging and emotional disputes: issues of betrayal, interpersonal trust and respect, dashed hopes, lost profits, desperate measures and counsel who were not always in control of the perspective they needed to help resolve the conflict.

As we do on most weekends during summer, yesterday, we took our sailboat, "Time Out" out to sea for several hours with old friends for several hours. Watching the extraordinary surf hit the beaches of Southern California was so much the medicine I needed, that we ended up staying the night in the Marina.

When I arrived home this morning, my sons told me of the news of Lily Burk's apparent murder on Skid Row at age 17. Our children attended the same School as Lily. Her mom is a lawyer and adjunct faculty at a local law school. The news was nothing less than shocking, deeply disturbing and all too close. Though we didn't know her or her family, at a memorial service for a classmate's Dad today, I spoke with one of the teachers from Oakwood, who expressed his profound grief and loss. Seeing Mickey Morgan that profoundly lost, I'm imagining that this event will forever change the Oakwood community: it will take a long time to restore that hope and optimism that gives the school that "anything is possible" attitude. Simply stated, it made my "tough week" seem trivial by contrast. Even mediator's need lessons in perspective taking, and I'm so sorry that it took this horrible tragedy to wake me up this week.

The Value of a Symbolic Commitment

2009-07-17T10:14:00.000-07:00

Our daughter became engaged to be married last night. Although the groom to be has been a steady boyfriend for over two years and we were all pretty certain he was "the one", the symbolic commitment that accompanied the diamond ring on her finger was/is HUGE! It occurred to me that when I mediate cases to a settlement, the signing ritual, the handshake, the acceptance of the "proposal" is more than a mere gesture. It also symbolizes a commitment to conform with the legal constraints that go beyond the casual promise or mutual assumptions. Until our daughter's boyfriend put a ring on her finger last night, his words of commitment could have been interpreted as temporal, happy for the moment, maybe even non-committal. Now, his intent is clear, he's invested in the process, and would have a much harder time reneging on his promise to marry next year than he would without the ring, ritual and public announcement. Next time you're tempted to leave a mediation based upon a handshake, think again. The symbols of commitment to a future agreement can mean a great deal in love and law!

Games People Play

2009-06-29T16:59:00.000-07:00

I mediated an interesting case today because the two opposing counsel played poker together with some regularity. What this meant is that they both had a friendly degree of distrust, as well as respect for the other's ability to bluff, on the one hand, and to win on the other. I often see and even describe the negotiation process in a mediation as a game (usually of chess, implying strategic moves in anticipation of reciprocal moves designed to bring the opposing party to where the other wants them to be), but rarely do I overtly reference the bluffing that takes place in poker. Yet it is so apt! Consider the risk taker, the card counter, the one who is too obviously risk-adverse, or fearful of losing it all. These are frequently prototypical personalities represented in a mediation. So it was with much amusement that these two gentleman deftly conveyed their positions to me and then to one another and back and forth until they were fully engaged in the process--leaving with plans for more when additional parties (presumably not represented by part of their poker group) return to the table! There is much to be learned from excellent poker players, but when two of them meet--it's probably best to grab a beer and let it unfold! Happy 4th of July!

Fate is for Juries

2009-06-14T08:59:00.000-07:00

I have been struggling with a few Mediator Proposals lately. At the point at which the parties invite me to propose the solution, typically the negotiations have threatened to break down, with a gap that would appear insurmountable. Often, it signals that the parties and their advocates are willing to leave their destiny to fate. Peter Adler, in his new book "Eye of the Storm Leadership", calls these breakdowns "not aberrations, but solutions in progress". A mediator's proposal is not supposed to reflect the likely jury result. That is a measure of fate, with a winner and a loser. It is high stakes, and high risk to both parties. The mediator's proposal, instead, is supposed to be a reflection of what will work to settle the conflict (the solution in progress): a measured consideration based upon a series of confidential communications reflecting the downsides on both sides of a conflict as well as the potential. I am no palm-reader, but when I arrive at a mediator's proposal that is accepted by both sides, I know that it is not reflective of a jury's deliberation, but of my own assessment of the likeliest solution to the conflict presented.

Women and Empathy: Is there a Difference?

2009-05-26T08:17:00.000-07:00

I was struck by President Obama's appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice this morning. In choosing her, he affirmed that he was looking for a woman as well as a person who held a "different sense of justice", by which I understood that he was seeking out someone who would listen to the legal issues of the day with a certain empathy that may be harder to attain in a man. I had dinner with a friend from law school over the weekend, who has been a Superior Court Judge for 12 years. She readily admitted that she believes women bring a heightened sense of empathy to negotiation, and when acting as a mediator. I personally attributed my empathetic leanings to being a mother. Isn't that part of the job description? And yet, Judge Sotomayor is apparently single and without children. So is there a true genetic difference? I have recently taken an advanced training by Dana Curtis (also a woman, and I don't know if she's a mom) on empathy. It was based upon very specific steps which will open both the listener and disputant to a sense of empathy at every level of the negotiation (including the money side after insulting offers and demands were exchanged). As usual, I don't have the answers to these questions, but I'm undertaking an updating of my old "gender and negotiations" talk to study the specific question of "Learning Empathy: Can Men Learn to Listen Like Women and Women Learn to Speak like Men?" Do they/we want to?

Clinton and Communitarianism

2009-05-02T08:33:00.000-07:00

I had the privilege of hearing former President Bill Clinton speak last night at the ACCAmerica Annual Gala (association of Corporate Counsel). I used to consider myself an intellectual, but his address really provoked my thinking. He spoke of "communitarianism", which I thought he'd made up until I did some research this morning. It turns out, that Communitarianism is a philosophy developed by deep thinkers in the 1980's (after I'd left those Ivy covered walls of College life) to reconcile the liberal and conservative thinkers, to unify the nationalists, and to recognize that if we are to move forward globally, we must accept certain basic moral principles (such as children should not have to starve because fate brings them into a nation with limited food and dirty water), and that we share common responsibility (such as addressing global climate changes).

As always, this theoretical construct had major implications in the mediation movement from my perspective. Based in part upon the Asian concepts of harmony, it seeks a balance between extreme positions, for the benefit of all. It is not to say that the philosophy favors proselytizing or converting believers, but rather a gentle, general acceptance that not all conflict must be resolved for coexistence in a world of limited resources and basic, shared, humanitarian values.

My limited research into communitarianism fascinated me and I wanted to share it with you and encourage my community of readers to look into it as a guidepost for the next century.

Taking Our Part in Public Dialogue

2009-04-26T08:23:00.000-07:00

I had the privilege of watching a screening of "The Soloist" at Sony Pictures in celebration of one of the co-Producers' birthday this weekend. (We've been friends of Russ Krasnoff's for over a decade.) The movie captures the story of a Los Angeles Times' reporter, Steve Lopez, friendship with a schizophrenic, homeless, but nevertheless brilliant musician, Nathaniel Ayers. At the end of the movie, the producers urge their viewers to get involved with homeless causes, public housing and the mentally ill. It's a call I've heard before personally, but had not really put together with mediation until this week.

I'm also reading Bernard Mayer's new book: "Staying with Conflict", which urges conflict professionals to think of their role as going beyond conflict resolution. After all, not all conflict can be resolved. Instead, he invites us to consider facilitating the dialogue that is central to competing values, including limited resources, to manage conflict without a view towards solving it, but living with it in our communities, and internationally. This was/is a bit revolutionary to me, as my practice revolves around litigated cases: all of the conflict which I presume to resolve will come to an end in court if I'm unable to resolve it before then.

Finally, I was inducted into the International Academy of Mediators last week. One of my fellow inductees (not an American) spoke eloquently of taking our stance among other international leaders in committing to engage in the dialogue on the global climate crisis.

More and more, I see our profession as a social science not unlike psychologists, historians, and yes, even filmmakers with a message. I congratulate Russ Krasnoff for having the courage to make this excellent film and deliver this crucial message. I will report on the Mayer book once I've completed it. In the meanwhile, I welcome your comments on the role that mediators can or must play in moving beyond living as "Soloist" towards a better, more sustainable and ultimately more fulfilling duet or even orchestra.

Thumbs Up at the G20

2009-04-03T08:02:00.001-07:00

Yesterday I had a difficult mediation which I sensed was heading towards an impasse. I suggested, after 4 tough hours of negotiation, that one of the attorneys (a smart, attractive woman) take a walk outside with opposing counsel--who had remained staunchly committed to his position all day. I won't say it fully resolved the case, but it definitely served to break the impasse and get both parties returning to the negotiation with "thumbs up". So it was with great amusement that I read today's L.A. Times article, "Obama makes a point with 1 word" and was shocked to find that the photo on page 24 appears to have Obama's thumb up, but my google image above appears to be Berlusconi's thumb up!

This, of course, only strengthens my point in this entry: diplomacy comes from small measures of partnership, not grand gestures of dictatorship. In the G20 yesterday, apparently the world's leaders were "stuck" over whether to "recognize" a list of tax havens being published by the Organization of Eceonomic Co-operation and Development. Obama tapped Sarkozy on the shoulder, huddled in a corner, and suggested they "note" the list, without "recognizing" it. Sarkozy concurred, and later so did Hu, resulting in a simple agreement and handshake.

Obama said: "We exercise leadership best when we are listening, when we recognize that the world is a complicated place and that we are going to have to act in partnership with other countries, when we lead by example, when we show some element of humility and recognize that we may not always have the best answer, but we can always encourage the best answer and support the best answer."

In this case, as in my mediation, the best answer was a small gesture of partnership and a large dose of humility, leading to "two thumbs up".

The Town Hall: Messages from The President

2009-03-21T17:06:00.001-07:00

Saint Patrick's Day brought us the Luck of the Irish as we won 2 lotteried tickets to see President Obama in his Town Hall here in Los Angeles this week. My husband and I stood in line downtown for over two hours on a sunny, warm Thursday morning for one of the thrills of our lifetime! What makes Obama so compelling? Here are my observations: He is great looking: an athlete's body, long, outstretched jaw and huge, expressive hands. He has perfect posture and commands the room (in this case a school gym) in as comfortable a way as any University Professor. He walks from side to side, giving thoughtful, earnest responses. He nods with the questions as if to show he understands each question perfectly. He listens as well as he speaks. He uses humor, even self-deprecating at times. He speaks like a preacher more than a politician. His words were more prose than policy, and his cadence from quiet to blaring, as he communicated his own emotionality on certain subjects. There was never a moment when I sensed some self-importance as we did with so many former Presidents. Although he came into the room with some taped music playing "Hail to the Chief", he left without any canned sermon about "G-d Bless America" or any conclusionary remarks. He took a final question from a 4th grader named Ethan Lopez and then exited the stage.

There is a lot to be learned from this new President and I only hope that his policy makers and advisors know what they are doing and what advice to give him as well as he communicates his own agenda and hopeful solutions. I was ready with a question about restoring America to its former preeminence: in the economy, education, health care, civil rights, the freedoms of association and yes, pursuits of happiness. He didn't call on me to ask: but having seen him, I heard his call to volunteer and commit to making the difference America so sorely needs.

The Ethics of A New Generation of Business Leaders

2009-03-16T09:46:00.000-07:00

I had the pleasure of spending the day with four young business students yesterday. I was struck by two articles I'd read in the Sunday New York Times, "Is it Time to Retrain B-Schools?" by Kelley Holland and "Can you Pass a C.E.O. Test?" by Greg Brenneman. Both addressed the competing effects of business acumen (as we used to define "success") and business ethics. I was intrigued to learn that at UCLA's Anderson School of Business, there is no requirement to take a Business Ethics class as a prerequisite to earning an M.B.A. Why not? There is no Code of Business Ethics, no "Professional Code of Conduct" and no licensure or certification to conduct business. Indeed, as Brenneman notes, many a C.E.O. is clueless on how to push the levers to raise earnings beyond filibustering over buzzwords that are nonsensical. The take-away lesson from Brenneman, who Chairs CCMP Capital, a turnaround expert, was this: "In any interaction, you either gain share or lose share. So treat every interaction as kind of a precious moment in time." Isn't that a good guideline for an ethical code of conduct?

My son reported that every business-related major at the undergraduate level at the University of Wisconsin is required to take an Ethics course. Why? My hope is that just as this generation of students learns to appreciate and value diversity, cultural sensitivity, environmental and global concerns, if they are also trained in ethical conduct, they will not succumb to the greed and sharp practices of our generation, and our business climate will be better for it.

Lessons on Mediation from Benjamin Franklin

2009-02-02T10:25:00.000-08:00

Newsweek published a series of articles on Leadership and I particularly enjoyed Walter Isaacson's, "Benjamin Franklin and the Art of Humility" where he said, "But most important in those tumultuous years, Franklin was sage enough to bring passionate people together, to lead them by listening to them, and to unify them by displaying the humility, or at least the pretense of humility, that is so lacking during eras of hyperpartisanship but remains the essence of liberty and democracy."

I feel as though that is what I do daily in mediating litigated cases: I bring passionate people together, lead them by listening, unify them by displaying humility (in my case rarely a pretense as I always have far less knowledge of the dispute than they do!) and essentially allow them the liberty to resolve the dispute in whichever way is feasible in the service of living and working together in the same community going forward. The outcome is not limited by what the court or jury would do. It is not even limited to the ultimate "truth" or "justice", but merely, in this age of hyperpartisanship, is a free choice among the parties to settle their conflict in whichever way they choose. Brilliant? I think not. Sage? Well, if Benjamin Franklin thought so....

The Right Approach to Conflict

2009-01-20T18:48:00.000-08:00

No matter what your politics, I imagine that you had to be inspired by today's inauguration. The piece that I heard from our new President that's resonating with me as mediator was this: "To our enemies: We will extend a hand, if you will unclench a fist." The idea of beginning a Presidential term (or any negotiation) with an outstretched hand, and by encouraging the opposing parties to do the same, struck me as rather brilliant. How difficult is it to begin a mediation with a handshake instead of a wagging finger, or a vigorous shake of the head? We're undoubtedly off to a great start and this is good advice that extends beyond grand diplomatic efforts to everyday litigated disputes. There is much to be learned from President Obama. A man of mixed heritage (Kenyan and Kansan) has instincts that allow him to adapt to inherent conflict and feel comfortable--through a simple outstretched hand, and an adaptable nature. Like a chameleon, his personal heritage allows him to glimpse varying perspectives and appeal to 88% of Americans! I, for one, have high hopes that the rhetoric will be an inspiration towards more handshakes, true diplomacy and more peaceful times ahead.

Journalism and Mediation

2009-01-03T12:11:00.001-08:00

I have long been considering the skills of a highly trained journalist to mediation. Last evening, I saw the excellent film, "Frost/Nixon" and it crystallized the analogy for me. Like a journalist, the mediator must be deliberate and well prepared to ask the appropriate questions. A good mediator will also know when to follow up and dig further, and when to remain quiet and still and allow the underlying issues to surface. A good mediator will never gloat when the truth comes out, but rather calmly offer a hand and allow the perspective to be taken by the parties in conflict on their own following the emotional pitch point. A mediator, like a television interviewer, will know when to "lean in" to the conflict, and when the boxing match has turned the score against her, with the upper hand going to the disputants. And above all, a good mediator will know when to wear the Italian loafers to the hearing and when it's necessary to go with lace-ups. I highly recommend you to see the film.

On Reflection

2008-12-31T13:58:00.000-08:00

I always make a point to do some self reflection at the New Year. This year, I noted in a Journal I've been keeping for my children since 1993 that American's have seen the best of times and the worst of times. I believe that the election of Barack Obama will be an indelible memory for my children and for me forever. Being Jewish, and the Aunt of seven children of mixed races (in two different generations), I am thrilled that our nation has progressed to a point of electing a leader who seems most fit for the job, irrespective of his ethnicity. Being a lawyer who fancies herself somewhat intellectual, I am equally thrilled to have elected a man who is articulate, thoughtful and believes in diplomacy and dialogue, too.

And then it was the worst of times: we watched the value of life savings plummet with the Dow Jones, and watched respected and even elected leaders fall to disgrace and corruption. We braced ourselves for another and deeper recession or depression and wondered how we'd keep the kids in college.

And yet, when I look in the mirror, I feel success and triumph, hope and courage. As I said in the journal, we've got love, we've got our health and we've got hope for the future.

It occurs to me that what I do in mediation is much the same: I help the parties evaluate the facts, apply the law when necessary, and then do a little self-reflection/perspective taking to look towards a better future. I ask them to look to that future with hope and courage. It's surprising what an optimistic outlook can do.

And so I invite you to join me in that glance--inward and then forward. Auld Lang Syne aside, I try not to look back...but to march looking skyward towards a brighter tomorrow.

Sounds a bit trite, but it works. Happy New Year to all and may this be a good year, filled with health and happiness, prosperity and hope.

Personal Conscience Meets Mediator's Ethics

2008-12-12T07:55:00.000-08:00

I delivered a Continuing Education Lecture this week on "The Ethics of Negotiation". As always, I learned a lot from my audience, an impressive group of lawyers with an age range from mid-20's to late 50's. I struggled with the message to deliver because my research allows for a considerable amount of deceit in negotiations, which I've come to expect and accept. But this week, I was on alert for these deceptive strategies when I negotiated a transaction which I felt slightly morally reprehensible, or maybe just unfair. Without revealing any of the facts, the case involved an elderly woman who was evidently wealthy enough and sufficiently uncomfortable about the lawsuit against her to offer more money than a Plaintiff would have normally expected based upon the particular set of facts and legal obstacles involved. I brokered a deal where all were satisfied, or even delighted, but it had a certain thud in my own instinctive gut after it was over.

Does the mediator's personal conscience matter? My conclusion was it does not. If I can't step back and allow the parties to craft a deal in which all parties are comfortable, than my only move should be to withdraw or recuse in advance. I have done that on only one occasion when the factual scenario struck me as not only unfair, but echoed a personal experience with a lawsuit on similar grounds. Otherwise, I'm left to conclude that the mediator's personal conscience has to be checked at the conference door. That's why each party is represented by a lawyer, and I'm delighted to give them the responsibility of both evaluation and conscience over the results of their actions.

Time for Family and Thanks

2008-11-30T10:08:00.001-08:00

Towards the end of this luxuriously long holiday weekend, I am mindful of the power of time for reflection and the strength of family ties. In year's past, it has not always been so. Sometimes the crush of a desire for the perfect Thanksgiving feast, the conflict of spending the holiday with one or the other family members, the rush to hit the sales on the day after Thanksgiving have effectively destroyed the opportunity for quiet reflection. This year, none of that got it my way. Perhaps the economic situation, or the massacre in Mumbai colored the long weekend and put our world into perspective. And so, with gratitude for the many blessings I have enjoyed, I offer a moment's reflection and hope that our world, given time, family and an opportunities for thoughtful reflection will improve. For me, I am thankful that we will have a new President in the White House who believes in dialogue and diplomacy, respects family and community and takes time for thoughtful reflection in all matters.

Four Important Qualities for a Mediator

2008-11-15T15:40:00.000-08:00

Aaron David Miller's Op-Ed piece in today's Los Angeles Times caught my eye. He calls it "State of Mind" and recounts four important qualities for President-elect Obama to consider in choosing a Secretary of State. Miller worked for six secretaries of state over twenty years and is the author of the book pictured. In brief, he says to succeed a Secretary of State needs the right persona, the President's confidence, a negotiator's mind-set and some balance of deviousness and toughness. I see these qualities as equally vital to the success of a mediator.

Miller says the top diplomat "needs to be an actor, a teacher, a tactician, an intimidator and a confidant." Sound familiar? He describes the negotiator's mind-set this way: "Teenagers talk on the phone, beavers build dams, and secretaries of state manage crises and solve problems. This means having a smart and tough view of the world, seeing how America's ends and means can fit together, and then knowing how to make them do so." He calls the particular mind-set "the intuitive capacity to see where the deal is, and to put oneself in the middle of the mix to bring it about". This is a perfect description of what a mediator does.

And here's the part I've never seen printed, but that also weighs in heavily in the artful mediation: "Deception is sometimes required and they maneuver constantly, trying to figure out what's necessary to succeed and how to use incentives, pressure, arm twisting and, when necessary, untruthfulness (either by omission or commission) to manage a crisis or close a deal."

So thank you, Aaron Miller, for articulating the true qualities of an artful mediator or Secretary of State. I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on solving that pesky Middle-East issue next and looking forward to learning of Obama's choice for the role!

A Rare Transformative Experience

2008-10-05T20:04:00.000-07:00

Mediation isn't always measured by how much or how little money is exchanged. Last week, I had a wage and hour claim against an employer who was going to be unable to pay even a small percentage of the Plaintiff's demand. Nevertheless, this young woman was a part of the extended family of the former "employer". She had lived with the family for several years when she first came to this country and genuinely endeared herself to the "host" family until they had an apparent falling out--when she disappeared without saying goodbye and without explanation. It became obvious early in the session, that this matter was not going to be settled for anything close to the "value" and that neither side was adequately capitalized to try the case, given the slim prospect of collecting upon any eventual judgment. So I took a chance. I orchestrated a meeting with some of the family members (two sisters) and the Plaintiff. There were no attorneys present (except me) and the session was conducted in a foreign language (which I understood, but in which I did not contribute). There were tears (including mine!) and hugs and an offer to settle which was within a few hundred dollars of the ultimate resolution. Although nobody felt satisfied that the case had to be resolved in this way, it at least offered an opportunity for soothing old hurts, answering unasked questions and most importantly, given people a chance to make a gesture towards restoring relationships which may prove to be mutually beneficial in the future. If you can't get money, it's gratifying to see you can sometimes get hugs, laughter and even tears! This was a rather unique experience in my litigation-driven practice, but ever so rewarding to me and the other participants!

Ballroom Dancing for Lawyers

2008-09-20T15:37:00.000-07:00

I mediated a couple of cases this week which unfortunately came to me after settlement conversations had begun. In each instance, one side refused to move off their pre-mediation demand by even a dollar. This lead me to the conclusion that lawyers may need legitimate ballroom dancing lessons. During my summer cruise, I actually took ballroom dancing lessons with my 21 year old son, and here are a few tips:
1) It is not good enough to get dressed and show up for the dance. You must get into position by the time the music starts.
2) It is not good enough to get into position and then stand in the same place. You must move your feet.
3) It is not good enough to merely kick or stomp your feet, you must attend to the rhythm of the music and the posture, mood and responses of your dancing partner.
4) It is not good enough to move always in the same direction: ballroom dancing is a give and take, back and forth, sometimes even circular motion--but motion (movement) is critical.
5) It is not your prerogative to dictate the song list: this is done by consensus, or by the band or your host. You've been invited to the dance and accepted the invitation, so be gracious and "go with the flow".
6) Starting the dance but then refusing to finish it if you don't like the tune is unfair. Both your partner and your host will be disappointed and may not invite you to dance again.
7) Ballroom dancing can be a complicated, even unfamiliar and intimidating event, but if you start with a simple box step, you'll be able to work on more complicated steps as the evening wears on. It takes practice, so don't expect mastery in the first lesson!

Okay--you get my point, I hope. Please consider these tips before you get to your next mediation. At the very least, I hope it will cause you to crack a smile when we begin "the dance"!

Good luck!

Settlement is Better than Trial

2008-08-11T20:39:00.000-07:00

I read a fascinating article in last week's New York Times about the benefits of settlement over trial in litigated cases. I've re-published the whole thing here for you to read--but basically it suggests that after studying 600 cases where settlement was discussed, but the attorneys or their clients decided to "go for it" in most instances the results were not as good as they would have gotten at the settlements offered. Interestingly, there was a huge disparity between Plaintiff's "getting it wrong" and Defendants. On average, Plaintiff's would have done better by $43,000 per case had they taken the settlement offered, whereas Defendants would have saved $1.1 million on average! It certainly gives both sides a hearty incentive to give serious consideration to letting a good mediator take a crack at settling every case: or at least giving the realtiy test to your clients before proceeding to trial.

P.S.: I'm pleased to inform readers that the author of the study, Randall Kiser will be in Los Angeles at the upcoming Southern California Mediation Association's Annual Conference on The Brain and how Neuroscience affects Conflict Resolution. The conference will be on November 5, 2008 at Pepperdine's Straus Institute's Malibu Campus. If you'd like more information, send me an e-mail and I'll make sure you get an invitation.

By JONATHAN D. GLATER
Published: August 7, 2008/The New York Times
Note to victims of accidents, medical malpractice, broken contracts and the like: When you sue, make a deal. Avoid a trial, Randall Kiser advises.

That is the clear lesson of a soon-to-be-released study of civil lawsuits that has found that most of the plaintiffs who decided to pass up a settlement offer and went to trial ended up getting less money than if they had taken that offer.

“The lesson for plaintiffs is, in the vast majority of cases, they are perceiving the defendant’s offer to be half a loaf when in fact it is an entire loaf or more,” said Randall L. Kiser, a co-author of the study and principal analyst at DecisionSet, a consulting firm that advises clients on litigation decisions.

Defendants made the wrong decision by proceeding to trial far less often, in 24 percent of cases, according to the study; plaintiffs were wrong in 61 percent of cases. In just 15 percent of cases, both sides were right to go to trial — meaning that the defendant paid less than the plaintiff had wanted but the plaintiff got more than the defendant had offered.

The vast majority of cases do settle — from 80 to 92 percent by some estimates, Mr. Kiser said — and there is no way to know whether either side in those cases could have done better at trial. But the findings, based on a study of 2,054 cases that went to trial from 2002 to 2005, raise provocative questions about how lawyers and clients make decisions, the quality of legal advice and lawyers’ motives.

Critics of the profession have long argued that lawyers have an incentive to try to collect fees that are contingent on winning in court or simply to bill for all the hours required to prepare and go to trial.

“What I would want them to look at was whether or not the lawyers had a strong financial incentive to go to trial,” said Cristina C. Arguedas, a criminal defense lawyer in Berkeley, Calif., when told of the study. “I’m not suggesting the answer, because I don’t know, but that would be my question.”

The study, which is to be published in the September issue of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, does not directly answer Ms. Arguedas, but it does find that the mistakes were made more often in cases in which lawyers are typically paid a share of whatever is won at trial.

On average, getting it wrong cost plaintiffs at about $43,000; the total could be more because information on legal costs was not available in every case. For defendants, who were less often wrong about going to trial, the cost was much greater: $1.1 million.

“Most of the time, one of the parties has made some kind of miscalculation or mistake,” said Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, a law professor at Cornell who has studied how lawyers and clients decide to go to trial and who is co-editor of the journal. “The interesting thing about it is the errors the defendants make are much more costly.”

The study’s authors have analyzed some data from New York and, after a review of 554 state court trials in 2005, have found parties to lawsuits making the wrong decision at comparable rates.

The findings suggest that lawyers may not be explaining the odds to their clients — or that clients are not listening to their lawyers.

“It’s entirely possible that the attorneys are not giving adequate advice,” said Mr. Kiser, who is also a lawyer but is not practicing. “An attorney could advise a client that they have a strong defense to enforcement of a contract, but that is not the same thing as forecasting what the likely outcome at trial would be.”

As part of the study, which is the biggest of its kind to date, the authors surveyed trial outcomes over 40 years until 2004. They found that over time, poor decisions to go to trial have actually become more frequent.

“It’s peculiar if any field is not improving its performance over a 40-year period,” Mr. Kiser said. “That’s a troubling finding.”

Law schools do not teach how to handicap trials, nor do they help develop the important skill of telling a client that a case is not a winner. Clients do not like to hear such news.

“Most clients think they are completely right,” Michael Shepard, a lawyer at Heller Ehrman in San Francisco. A good lawyer has to be able to tell clients that a judge or jury might see them differently, he continued. “Part of it is judgment and part of it is diplomacy.”

Several lawyers were dismissive of the study, noting that the statistics mean nothing when contemplating a particular case, with its specific facts and legal issues, before a specific judge. They stressed the importance of a lawyer’s experience.

But the study tried to account for that possibility and found that factors like the years of experience, rank of a lawyer’s law school and the size of a law firm were less helpful in predicting the decision to go to trial. More significant was the type of case.

For example, poor decisions by plaintiffs to go to trial “are associated with cases in which contingency fee arrangements are common,” according to the report. “On the defense side, high error rates are noted in cases where insurance coverage is generally unavailable.”

The findings are consistent with research on human behavior and responses to risk, said Martin A. Asher, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania and a co-author. For example, psychologists have found that people are more averse to taking a risk when they are expecting to gain something, and more willing to take a risk when they have something to lose.

“If you approach a class of students and say, I’ll either write you a check for $200, or we can flip a coin and I will pay you nothing or $500,” most students will take the $200 rather than risk getting nothing, Mr. Asher said.

But reverse the situation, so that students have to write the check, and they will choose to flip the coin, risking a bigger loss because they hope to pay nothing at all, he continued. “They’ll take the gamble.”

The third co-author of the study was Blakeley B. McShane, a graduate student at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Aggressive Diplomacy in Mediation

2008-07-09T17:41:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama used a phrase which I thought curious this morning in response to a journalist's inquiry about nuclear capabilities by Iran. The phrase was: "Aggressive Diplomacy". When I was an undergraduate studying International Relations, such a term would have been considered an oymoron. Good diplomats were never "aggressive". Diplomats were clever, cautious, prudent, facilitative, skilled, smooth, adept--but not "aggressive". To the contrary, they were the folks called in to "mediate" when world leaders became or threatened to become aggressive!

My mediation style has followed that early training. I have always seen myself more of a good diplomat than an aggressive purveyor of peace or conflict resolution. Now that I consider it carefully, I might also reach the conclusion that my early training in "diplomacy" at Pomona College got in the way of being a fully aggressive litigator for the couple of decades I tried that approach.

Just for a challenge, I thought I'd exercise Obama's approach and aggressively pursue diplomatic efforts. Today, I mediated a dispute between a brother and sister who had not had much interaction since their mother died 13 years ago and they inherited the family home jointly. There were many moments when the parties, both unrepresented, nearly gave up. In this instance, I had to be "aggressive" in my pursuit of diplomatic relations to reach a detente between them and help them move on. I found myself consciously taking a proactive role in the way Obama outlined in the Middle East.

Coincidentally, I had the pleasure of running into my first "boss" at the office today (participating in another mediation). A colleague introduced me and said jokingly, "She couldn't have been trained by you, she's too nice." His response was "She was mean when she was litigating with me!". So here's the challenge: for thirty days, I'm going to make an effort to "aggressively" mediate every case. I will be more than a dipolomat. I will do whatever I can to settle every case, even those that are lingering on my credenza. I will consciously observe the effect on the litigants and whether they accept my taking on that role. Who knows? This could portend the new world order!

Independence and Interdependence: The Good Side of Court-ordered Mediations

2008-06-29T07:54:00.000-07:00

This week marks the largest settlement I've ever "brokered" and the longest mediation over which I've presided thus far. A month ago, a compelling wrongful death and bad faith case came before me at the strong urgency of the Court. The case had a trial date of June 30, 2008. It was mediated back in 2005 (unsuccessfully and by a different mediator) and then had proceeded to a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted in favor of the defendant and later reversed on appeal. While the mediation in May got a lot closer, the parties were still millions of dollars apart. Then came the daily phone calls, the true "negotiation", and the framing, re-framing, evaluating, re-evaluating for a full month. After one such conversation, the Defense lawyer advised me that he was instructed to put out his top dollar offer in a statutory offer. The negotiation continued. Last week, on the morning of the Final Status Conference, the Plaintiffs accepted the Statutory Offer which had been submitted 4 days before. While I take some credit for working with both parties to get to a number that would ultimately settle the case, I'm quite clear that the timing created by the Court (through both a trial date and a Statutory Offer) allowed the parties to finally end the negotiation and settle the case.

In another case, I was the presiding Arbitrator. The parties had spent hours and hours disputing and debating the claims, the damages and the discovery in advance. Finally, when they came before me last week, my preliminary ruling was to overrule the Plaintiff's objection to the Statutory Offer being used in an arbitration. Then I simply queried: "Would the parties like to take a few minutes to discuss possible settlement in light of that ruling?" Within 2 hours, that case also settled. It was only the urgency created by the actual "trial" (there were about 6 witnesses and an interpreter in the Office prepared to testify that day), that facilitated that settlement. The Court's process (allowing a Statutory Offer to create the threat that the Defendants may have been able to recover their costs if the Arbitration favored their side) facilitated a serious negotiation which ultimately settled the case without the full evidentiary hearing.

My conclusion is that in both cases, the Court process had the paradoxical effect of urging the "independence" of settling these two cases outside the Courthouse. I thought it fitting, on this week of Independence Day, to draw these analogies. Independence is a prize to be cherished, but our partnership with the institutions and organizations that protect and demand accountability sure help to foster true independence!

Now back to last week's comments. Many of you were confused by the "apology"--so let me explain. After commenting upon the "debate" which was reported by the Daily Journal before the L.A. County Bar Association, I heard privately from Charles Parselle, who demanded a correction and apology. Since I had not correctly or completely reported the event, I simply offered the apology that Charles had asked me to insert. I agree that it should not be a debate, and I had no intention of entering into the debate, but rather commenting upon the sad fact that the matter had to be debated in that way.

I wish you all a Happy Independence Day--but one that is mindful that independence cannot be celebrated without interdependence in its shadows.

Court Ordered Mediations: Is it Time to Be Honest about their Efficacy?

2008-06-22T11:10:00.000-07:00

There is an on-going controversy in Los Angeles County about "court ordered" free mediations. On the one hand, the ADR Committee has steadfastly maintained that Los Angeles is under a specific State requirement to make pro bono mediation available in all cases. On the other hand, mediators have experienced frustration in both the challenge of settling these "ordered" cases and the challenge of building a private practice when all cases are afforded an opportunity to mediate in L.A. County for free. This all came to a head this week at a meeting of the Los Angeles County Bar Association.

According to the Los Angeles Daily Journal article which covered the debate: "Though the debate was civil, Bendix lashed out at the two mediators in a hallway after the meeting. She told Parselle she thought he had been "disingenuous" in the debate when he said low-income litigants would still be able to get free mediation through the court's fee-waiver process if the resolution passed. Bendix told him that his position reflected a "profound misunderstanding" of the fee-waiver process. "I don't want to participate in these discussions with you if you're going to be dishonest," Bendix said sharply. "This is so wrong."

*Let me take this opportunity to apologize to Charles Parselle for suggesting or implying that he made any accusatory or
untoward remarks. On the contrary, the Daily Journal article made it very clear that he was quite puzzled by what had just happened. I have had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Parselle, and he confirms the accuracy of the Journal report and add that in response to the judge's remarks to him, he did not make any response other than to express his puzzlement and repeat that the legislative amendment contemplates that free mediation should remain available to indigent litigants who have obtained a fee-waiver from the court."

Although the Southern California Mediation Association officially took no position on the pending legislative changes when President Nikki Tolt was asked by the reporter for the Daily Journal, the position articulated by Mr. Parselle at this meeting was generally supported by the SCMA last year, when I was the organization's President. I was not present for the LACBA presentation, but I am very familiar with this longstanding dispute and agree personally (and as Past President of SCMA) that change is needed and many cases are "ordered" to mediation and offered free services when the litigants could well afford to pay a mediator for her work. What's more, it is my personal opinion that this would result in higher settlement rates and actually be of greater service to both the court and the litigants!

This week I had the opportunity to co-mediate a case with a colleague who has not accepted a "court-ordered/free" case for five years. He began the day with the following reassurance to each side: "I think this is going to be the day we get this done. It really needs to happen today"...(and to one side: "Amazing things happen between 5 and 6 P.M."). Indeed, the case settled, although it was nearly 7:30 P.M. At its conclusion, he felt triumphant, relieved and tired. I felt something different, after the Plaintiff, who had gotten an excellent settlement, would barely shake my hand. I was left wondering whether we had done justice in achieving the litigators' goal of settling the case that day, but left the plaintiff himself extremely unsatisfied. On the following day, my colleague reminded me cheerfully: "Jan, that's why they hire us. They want us to settle every case, and in the main, I do. It's in at 10:00 A.M. and out with a settlement by 6:00 P.M."

It's taken me several days to process this, but I offer this observation. In court-ordered cases, the parties have no expectation that the mediation date is the day they will settle the case. Indeed, I often begin those hearings by inquiring: "Why are you here?" I do this so that both sides "buy in" to the notion that one possible outcome is settlement, but typically, we all know that there are many other possible outcomes--further discovery, further negotiation or a future settlement date. So it is no surprise that the statistics show that private cases are settled at an 80-90% rate, whereas court-ordered ones are barely more than 50/50.

I'm not so sure it's about who pays for the mediation, but if the parties (and their attorneys) are given free choice and mediation is truly voluntary, chances are greatly improved that the date they choose will be the date each party is ready to resolve the case.

Wouldn't that be a better use of resources for all concerned?

Business and Life Lessons from My Father

2008-06-15T13:47:00.001-07:00

The tributes to Tim Russert on today's morning television were so moving, I thought I'd take a shot at compiling a short list of my own favorite bits of advice imparted by my Dad. "Little Art", as he was known for many years to distinguish him from his cousin, Art Mac ("Big Art") was an enormously successful business man. He built an empire of discount stores and retired by the age of 60. He's now a healthy, tennis playing, travelling, driving 81 year old with a big heart and love of life. But bigger still is his love and support for his family, his friends, his synagogue and community. A broad-chested baritone, he sang as the Cantor for our local Temple while I was growing up; the same Temple where he served as Building Chairman, Brotherhood Chair and President. I imagine that my older sister and brother got a lot more business advice from my Dad than I did, as my sister was the eldest and my brother went into business with my Dad for many years. Still, it was always clear to all of us that we needed to challenge ourselves to do better than others. (All of us have both College and Graduate Degrees.) It was equally clear that family was critical: so each of us have three children and long marriages--ours for 29 years and my sister and brother each for 39 years and counting. My own parents will celebrate their 63rd this year. A lot of my Father's Advice, I think, not only serves me well, but informs the outcome in my mediation practice in so many ways. So here's my list (with my own interpretations):
1. Forget About it. (There's no point in holding a grudge.)
2. Your Handshake should be better than any written contract. (All of your business dealings should be built on trust and fairness.)
3. Once you're in a position where you need to hire lawyers, you're already in trouble. (Negotiation is always the preferred solution in business disputes.)
4. It's a small world, and people have long memories. (Don't do anything you'd be ashamed of later.)
5. Count your blessings. (Don't let the day to day stuff get you down.)
6. Never count anybody else's money. (Jealousy will get you nowhere.)
7. What difference does it make? (Don't be petty.)
8. You can be successful by being decent, honest and kind. (You don't need fancy degrees and a legacy of power or money to succeed in business.)
9. It pays to treat "your people" as you would family. (Everybody deserves to be treated with respect and dignity.)
10. Humor goes a long way. (When all else fails, crack a smile, or even a bottle of gin if you need to thaw cool relationships.)
11. Hard work pays off. (You can do what you set out to if you believe in yourself and work at it every day.)
12. Don't count on luck to get you out of a jam. (Luck is something you can only look at from hindsight. The rest is fortitude, and perhaps prayer (when it comes to health).)
13. Just show up and be there. (In the end, that is the most pure sign of loyalty and caring).

Happy Father's Day to all of my readers, and to my No. 1 subscriber, my Dad!

Good Advice From the Next Generation

2008-06-08T14:07:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine sent me a Commencement address given by Journalist, Samantha Power, this year in Claremont , Ca. (I'm an alumna of Pomona College, although this one was at our sister College, Pitzer). I found it particularly compelling. I attach the website here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samantha-power/message-to-graduates-be-a_b_103886.html

What does this have to do with Mediation? The part I loved was about taking time for silence. It is so true that this generation is more interconnected than any before. They have the capability and technology to be in constant communication with one another. And yet, is anyone giving them the advice of the value of taking a few minutes alone? Do any of them listen to their inner voice? Has the Ipod, the Blackberry, Face Book and text messaging supplanted the need for interaction and introspection?

I attended a funeral today where the Rabbi spoke of a concert where Itzhak Perlman broke a string on his violin. Apparently, rather than struggling with the leg braces and crutches he had just removed in order to walk off stage and replace the string, he performed the entire concert on just 3 strings. When asked how he'd accomplished this, and why, his answer was simple: "I'm a musician", he said, "We make music where nothing was there before". My synthesis of these two stories leads me to the conclusion that both participants and mediators can greatly benefit from taking a few key moments during the course of a difficult hearing to themselves. Some quiet, self reflection can unlock the inner yearnings both driving the conflict and blocking it from being resolved.

Next time you feel stuck, try taking a time out by yourself and see!

Publicity and the Limits of Mediation

2008-05-25T09:33:00.001-07:00

I had two interesting cases this week that hit me in the forehead with an "Aha" about the limits of mediation. The first was an employment case in which the employee had somehow become the recipient of a copy of the evaluation letter of the employer's attorney. When confronted with this apparent impropriety, she immediately returned the letter, but of course, could not "un-ring" that bell. In the second, the facts had already been highly publicized and the Plaintiff was not bringing the action for the award of damages, but rather the satisfaction of teaching a lesson to the errant defendants on how not to run their company. It occured to me only later that in that case a mediation was bound to be unsatisfying, because I couldn't offer the kind of publicity that the case demanded. To the contrary, because I am bound to strict confidentiality, I cannot offer the satisfaction that a trial can in instances like these.

In this mornings New York Times, there was an interesting article about a blogger in New York--who relishes the opportunity to privately "publicize" facts and impressions via her blog. I was struck by the contrast between my ability to "publicize" and my hard-earned lesson that the blogosphere cannot expect to be kept confidential. Thus, you will get no further disclosure from me on the case I failed to settle this week until the media properly reports it. Some cases need to go through that process in order to be fully "settled". Cases that are mediated are subject to strict confidentiality. Cases that need the traditional media to ultimately satisfy the litigants, will not likely be settled through mediation. That's the limit of mediation: and the promise of this mediator. Maybe I should have gone into journalism as a second career after all...

The Disclosure Movement in Medical Accident Cases

2008-05-18T09:25:00.000-07:00

There was an interesting article in today's New York Times entitled, "Doctors are Beginning to Say 'I'm sorry' long before 'I'll see you in Court' which I've copied below. Although I'd heard of this "movement" on several occasions, I was struck by two pieces in the article: the first, was that the Sunday New York Times chose to feature it on the first page, as though it was news; and the second was that Presidential rivals, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill which would have legislated that such apologies are inadmissible in court back in 2005.

One of the key principles which mediators emphasize in any hearing which includes an apology is the assurance of confidentiality. Apologizing will not become an admission of culpability if it's done in the context of a mediation. What researchers have found is that in most instances, an apology and explanation of the circumstance of the medical accidents reported resulted in the patient or his/her family deciding not to pursue the matter in litigation. I loved that they've given a name to the practice, which is a departure from the old "defend and deny": "the disclosure movement". Contrary to popular press, what the study reveals is that most patients are earnestly concerned about hospital practices that may cause injury in subsequent procedures, and in the explanation, more than the huge damage claim. What's more, they want it soon after the incident, and an offer to fix or repair, rather than subject both sides to protracted litigation aimed at concealing the facts and minimizing the ultimate expense. Interesting stuff, this disclosure movement.

Here's the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/18apology.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us
"

Brain Studies Prove That A Fair Deal is A Happy Deal

2008-05-12T11:36:00.000-07:00

Most Mediators are taught to ensure fairness in process above all. After many years, and hundreds or thousands of negotiations, it can sometimes feel tedious and unnecessary to do so. However, at this past weekend's Employment Mediation Conference sponsored by the Southern California Mediation Association, some of the attorneys expressed shockingly disappointing results where the mediator failed to take the time to explain the process and ensure it's fairness. The outcome of the negotiation, it appears, is not determinative of the parties' ultimate satisfaction.

This morning, our local newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, included an article in the "Health" section, which explains that brain science backs up this effect. It's a good reminder for all of us: and those of you who are tempted to skip that process, in service of making the deal! I've copied the article here, but basically, it concludes that the brain actually responds differently when the studies made a "fair deal" v. merely "a deal" that ends the negotiation. I thought it interesting and informative and have copied it in it's entirety for you below.

Fairness is emotionally rewarding, a study finds
A fair deal activates parts of the brain also stimulated by earning money, looking at attractive faces or eating chocolate, UCLA researchers find.
By Elena Conis, Special to The Times
May 12, 2008
What's new: The sinking feeling that creeps in after you've paid too much for a house, car or new pair of shoes may actually be a hard-wired, neurological response to being treated unfairly.

On the flip side, getting a fair deal on that same car or pair of shoes stimulates parts of the brain associated with reward and happiness.

The finding: Researchers at UCLA's Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior recently reported in the journal Psychological Science that getting a fair deal activated the same parts of the brain -- the ventral striatum, the amygdala and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, together known as the reward circuit -- that are stimulated by earning money, looking at attractive faces or eating chocolate (in those who like the stuff).

Lead study author Golnaz Tabibnia, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, said the findings suggest people care about fairness itself not just because unfairness is unpleasant, but because fairness generates positive emotions. Fairness, in and of itself, she said, is emotionally rewarding -- regardless of how much money may come (or go) in the deal.

How the study was done: The researchers conducted two separate experiments. In both, the study subjects, all UCLA students, played a so-called ultimatum game in which a person called a "proposer" offered to split with them a certain amount of money, say $10. Sometimes the proposer would offer to split the money in half (a fair deal), at other times he or she would offer less than half. If the student accepted, proposer and student kept the money. If the student rejected the offer, proposer and student walked away with nothing.

In the first experiment, the 29 students who played the game were asked to report how happy or upset they were about each offer. In the second experiment, 12 students played the game while their brain activity was monitored using functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI. The fMRI measures changes in blood flow to different regions of the brain, indicating which parts of the brain are more or less active.

When students were offered $5 out of $10, they'd typically accept the offer -- and their reward circuitry would light up. When offered, say, $2, roughly half the students rejected the money, and their brain region associated with disgust would light up. In the half that accepted the meager offer, their disgust region wasn't activated, but neither was their reward circuitry -- instead, the part of the brain that came into play was the region involved in self-control. "It's the neural pattern of what swallowing your pride looks like," Tabibnia said.

Why it matters: Essentially, the results bolster the maxim that money doesn't buy happiness. No matter how much money people make, or lose, in a deal, what determines how they feel at the end of the day, the study suggests, is how fairly they think they've been treated. "Certainly money is rewarding," Tabibnia said. "But more and more research is suggesting that our social relations with other people can also be rewarding, and can be very strong determinants of our happiness and satisfaction."

What we still don't know: Scientists think -- but aren't sure -- that emotional responses to fair or unfair treatment could differ based on gender, cultural background or socioeconomic status. Being poor, for example, conceivably could build tolerance to unfair treatment -- but the idea is pure conjecture.

The Luxury of Time to Resolve Conflict

2008-04-27T16:06:00.000-07:00

This past week I conducted a rare (for me) mediation in an outside office. For the past seven years, I have conducted my hearings in my own offices, or those of ADR Services. In each location, I have access to an office where I can obtain e-mail, voice mail, real mail or more during breaks and before and after the sessions. This one lasted eleven hours, during which I had no access to computer, voice mail or telephone messages. Although all of the participants were drained by the end, it occurred to me what a modern luxury is the gift of a full day "un-wired". Wouldn't we all appreciate having the undivided attention of a professional to spend the day listening to our problems and helping us achieve a satisfactory solution? Wouldn't we love if our spouse or children or parents, our partners or associates would similarly indulge us a full, uninterrupted day to think about how to make us feel better about past issues or relationships? I dare say that even a full day alone--without interruption from PDA's and phones, would go a long way towards helping any of us solve our problems. And so it occurred to me that one of the best features mediation has to offer is the eyes and ears of a professional who dedicates the day to helping the participants to solve their conflict. A full day's commitment to being unwired, unhurried, giving undivided attention to the participants is a wonderful luxury!

Leaving the Narrows

2008-04-20T16:01:00.000-07:00

Last night we celebrated the beginning of Passover. During the Seder, we recall the story of Exodus--as the Jews fled Egypt, (where they were slaves) and travelled for 40 years, carrying journey bread, or Matzoh on their backs, until they reached what is now "Israel"--the land of milk and honey. The Hebrew word for Egypt is "Mizrayim" which is also the word for narrow places (loosely translated, I think). And so I considered all of the ways in which parties in conflict are in their own "narrows"--with walls to the left and to the right and only a glimmer of light between them. The challenge for the mediator is to guide the parties out of their personal narrow places and into a new state. It is the guidance from slavery or tyranny or debt to sweetness and hopefulness and freedom. With freedom, of course, comes a heavy responsibility. It is our challenge to inspire parties caught between only two choices (as in slave holders or slaves) to freedom fighters who, by their own might and imagination dare to visualize a different future and take that chance to achieve it. There are so many profound messages in the Passover story, but for now I wish to merely challenge my readers to dare to imagine a different choice than the obvious. Only then can we hope to transcend our own narrow places!

Empathy Deficit Disorder in the USA?

2008-04-05T15:33:00.001-07:00

I recently borrowed Barack Obama's Book, "The Audacity of Hope" from my 80 year old father. I am intrigued by this articulate and engaging candidate--even though I meet every criteria to be a Hillary Clinton supporter (middle aged, professional, Caucasian woman). In the Chapter he calls "Values", he talks about his mother's simple principle--"How would that make you feel?" as a guidepost for his politics. Then he says, "It's not a question we ask ourselves enough, I think; as a country, we seem to be suffering from an empathy deficit." My own work as a mediator compels me to concur.

Lately, I have been mediating business disputes where employees urge fair treatment from their former employers, or a business deal gone sour demands recompense to make things right. On the other side, I see struggling business people and professionals who cannot afford the inflated demands made of them--even though they may have agreed to those terms (before the costs of litigation were added) in more economically favorable times. And I, standing "in the middle" can simply urge empathy. Obama says, "No one is exempt from the call to find common ground". I am grateful that I listened to the call and act daily in an effort to bring mutual understanding and then action by those in conflict. It's my own contribution towards addressing the Empathy Deficit Disorder from which our country may be suffering.

The Art of The Spin: Another Benefit of Using Mediation

2008-03-29T10:18:00.000-07:00

This week I attended a professional conference where I heard two compelling presentations. The first was on "The Ethics of Negotiation". First, was a thought provoking discussion presented by my colleague, Michael Young, an attorney and mediator here in Los Angeles and former Federal District Judge John Wagner, also now a mediator. The central thesis was that lawyers and negotiators need to use caution and discretion lest their puffery and strategic communication be relied upon as false facts. In California and the U.S., there's broad leeway in using exaggeration or puffery and also manipulating the timing and "bottom line" claims in the context of the litigated case. The only bright line offered seems to be the conduct which would otherwise be actionable as a material misrepresentation of fact.

The following day, the keynote address was delivered by Tony Snow, former Press Secretary to George W. Bush. He spoke of the invasion in Iraq, the surge in troops against popular tide of approval and, in an unabashed claim, his deft management of creating an appearance of the wisdom of staying in the Middle East even in the face of unprecedented negative ratings.

So it occured to me, that in the case of a difficult negotiation, the mediators role in so many instances is to create the spin that will sell the other side on reasons to accept a deal they were unwilling to accept before they engaged the mediator. What's more, the mediator will not likely present facts which will be relied upon (or rejected as untrue), but will merely "reframe" those details which she believes the parties need to highlight in order to make an informed decision about the best outcome they can achieve in the particular negotiation. What's more, the mediator's communication to the parties is confidential, and therefore not actionable. Mediators have ethics, too and won't lie for either party or knowingly present facts which are false. But they certainly will withold facts which they are asked to maintain as confidential!

During the course of this week, for example, I negotiated a re-finance of a home, a claim for attorneys fees rebated, a personal guaranty on a business debt and the proceeds of a fire insurance policy. Each of these negotiations were already attempted before filing a lawsuit and after...but it was only with the benefit of the mediator's "spin" that, like a Press Secretary, the parties were able to see the wisdom in an unpopular war based upon carefully chosen words and artful intervention. Like a figure skater, parties to a negotiation are well advised to bend as far as possible without causing a crack in the ice or skater!

Leap! What Will We Do with the Rest of Our Lives?

2008-03-23T16:17:00.000-07:00

I've just finished reading Sara Davidson's "Leap!" and I wanted to share it with my own readers as a kind of broad and deep guidepost for travelling through "the narrows" and onward and upward. She concludes with a reminder that those of us who enjoy writing, should continue to write. In fact, she reminds us that a moral review--as in the narrative I blogged about earlier, is a healthy exercise and that a weekly review of those moral issues and resolutions is also an excellent, self-reflective tool. The work that we do as mediators, the kind of active peacemaking is an invaluable service which has this kind of far-reaching potential as teachers and guides for the good. I'm still processing the book, but I highly recommend it for those still searching for answers to the question of "what is the next decade or two going to look like for me?" Consider it a template of options for aging baby boomers who have had a half century or more of thoughtful engagement with our country, our communities and one another.

So here's my week past: two friends lost their parents (both in their 80's), one friend had a Bat Mitzvah for her 13 year old daughter, one friend is flying back East with her husband of almost 30 years for experimental and aggressive cancer treatment.

Taking a breath, reviewing and restocking and taking time for internal reflection is, indeed not only imperative to each of us--but a useful exercise for those in conflict that come before us for advice, empathy and resolution.

Read the book!

Be Careful What you Wish for: Have the High Costs of Arbitration Succeeded in Diminishing That as a true Alternative?

2008-03-08T11:11:00.000-08:00

I attended an excellent Law & Employment Symposium put on by the L.A. County Bar Association this week. My colleague and friend, Lisa Klerman, a full-time mediator specializing in Employment Law chaired the conference. It's now been over a decade (I think) since safeguards were thrust into place to protect employees from the high cost of "mandatory" arbitration in employment matters. Employers eagerly insisted upon every case they could therefore compel to go into Arbitration, a forum in which they believed they'd get a lower verdict, based upon an arbitrator being less likely to be carried off onto an emotional or irrational tangent when reaching a verdict on the intangibles, such as emotional distress and punitive damages. Employee's and their lawyers resisted this, demanded the employer pay 100% of the costs, and built in other protections to ostensibly level the playing field. What the employer's lawyers have discovered, however, is that arbitration can be much more expensive than litigation (because the employer assumes the costs of the arbitration from both sides) and no faster. Last evening, I had dinner with a friend who is revising an old family LLC agreement and inquired whether he'd be better off including a binding or non-binding arbitration clause. I had to think for a few minutes (before I finished my margarita!) and honestly respond that I thought he should include a mediation clause, in a family agreement, and omit the arbitration provision. This lead me to do some introspection on whether we've taken this too far in terms of "fairness" and "accessibility". My last case as a litigator was taken out of the court system (over my protest) and sent to a binding arbitration. My client couldn't afford the costs, so I advanced them. We lost the arbitration after 5 days and several thousand dollars in costs alone. We had no right of appeal and no explanation. I still think the retired Judge got it wrong. Has Arbitration outlived its usefulness as a true alternative to Court?

The Value of A Professional Study Group

2008-02-09T15:12:00.000-08:00

Over the past couple of weeks, I've attended a couple of different study groups that have really enhanced my practice in small and large ways. The first, hosted by my colleague, Wendy Kramer through the Southern California Mediation Association, was a group of about a dozen mediators. We considered a difficult personality and a bind that one of our members had experienced in a mediation that had not yet been completed. The very next day, I found myself in a quandary about an issue of finalizing a settlement. I called Wendy and suggested the topic for our next monthly meeting. It was a great relief to be able to take that matter off my shoulders, anticipating wisdom, validation or consolation within a matter of weeks from some of my esteemed contemporaries. This past week, I attended an informal gathering of about 17 mediators and a few other professionals, at the home of my friend, Laurel Kaufer. There, we were guided in the art of the story by Stacie Chaiken, about whom I have previously posted (see the Blog about storytelling). I think Stacie has a certain dynamic genius, but more than that, it was again a rich opportunity to take our thinking and practice to a higher level, and our friendships to a deeper one. We all spend plenty of time attending events where clients or potential clients are, but often ignore our inner needs to enrich and unload our own triumphs and challenges amongst a group of professionals who understand them. It may not be a coincidence that the only images I could find on Google to depict study groups were Church groups. So my conclusion is that these groups have the potential, perhaps even promise, of restoring a mediator's soul. The redemption offered by your colleagues' validation or simple understanding is unrivaled. I am grateful to have become a part of each of these groups and urge you to begin one in your town or join in on an existing one. For your sake!

Mediator Ethics

2008-02-02T16:17:00.000-08:00

It's an interesting thing, mediator ethics. I know that many mediators, particularly those that had a stint as Judges in prior lives, advise the parties before them that they will beat up on each side until they get a settlement. I, on the other hand, tend to prefer to cast the whole event in a more positive light, by letting the parties know I'm there to partner with them to get the best deal--while telling the same to the other side. In the end, we achieve the same result: a settlement that both parties can live with. But what I hope to achieve is a settlement in which both parties are satisfied, whereas those that take the "beating up" approach tend to go after the settlement where both parties are equally unhappy. Is that a violation of my mediators ethics? I attended a training this week with the LA Superior Court in which the Judge very plainly cautioned that we must never allow a litigant to have reason to believe we are biased towards (or against) them. Yet I know it is common practice in our community for mediators to treat clients to meals, sporting events and concerts. Even a bottle of wine or cigar at the conclusion of a settlement is not unheard of! So are our ethical constraints different than a Judges? And if so, is it time for us to revisit them? I'm still considering this one...with no answers this week, only questions.

Cinema as Philosopher

2008-01-27T15:57:00.000-08:00

This week's insight comes from last night's movie. We saw the Coen Brother's Excellent new film, "No Country for Old Men". In it, Javier Bardem does a phenomenal job of playing an intense, recalcitrant, violent, mad man out for drugs and money. Tommy Lee Jones, whose role is introspective, thoughtful and restrained, having spent his career seeking law, order, calm and peace, at one point makes the keen observation: "Sometimes you just can't solve every dispute. In those cases, the best you can do is put a tourniquet on the wound and let it go."

I won't spoil the movie for you, because I do highly recommend it...but there was certainly a metaphoric lesson for mediators there. It particularly struck me because a case I tried to mediate was "settled" this week by the court granting a Motion for Summary Judgment. Whereas I had an offer of a "tourniquet" (far below the actual medical specials, but at least a gesture of good faith by a defendant who earnestly believed it had no legal exposure), the parties chose instead to try to solve the dispute by taking their best shot before a Judge. Amongst "old men" perhaps, there are enough ups and downs that this particular case didn't strike as hard as it did for the minor Plaintiff and his family...but for me, the two were inextricably related and ultimately made me appreciate the philosophy of the cinema in order to put things into perspective.

THE POWER OF STORY IN MEDIATION

2008-01-21T17:44:00.001-08:00

A couple of weeks ago, I had an interesting meeting with an actor who is interested in Storytelling as a tool for mediators. Last weekend, I accepted her challenge to write out a two page "story" of my own history. It was a self-reflection in which I rarely indulge.

Over the past two decades, I have succeeded in maintaining a home and marriage, and, together with my high school boyfriend, and husband of almost thirty years, raised three extremely competent, wonderful human offspring. So it was not so easy for me to look inwards at my own professional accomplishments for this purpose and to put them into a publishable perspective. My surprise, however, was not from the story, but from how powerfully the exercise itself has affected me. Somehow, putting the "story" into writing has given it a loud voice in my head and on my computer. I've yet to share it with anyone, but still can't put it away. I can only imagine how powerful such a tool could be in a difficult, personal and emotion-laden mediation!

In the meanwhile, I read an interesting account of a gentleman who is engaged in just such a process with prison inmates. By giving them the tools and space to write their own accounts, he can set them free to atone, to revise and edit, to grow and to earn peace within and outside the prison walls. It is an awesome tool and if she'll allow me to do so, I shall gladly reveal the individual who has inspired me after a more formal gathering we have planned in early February. In the meanwhile, I encourage you to give storytelling a try. Begin with your own story and see if it has the same effect on you that I have shared here. I'd love to get your feedback!

What's Behind the Conflict?

2008-01-13T09:11:00.001-08:00

I had an opportunity to deliver a lecture on "Looking at Substance Abuse through a Different Lens: The impact of Drug and Alcohol Use on Legal Practice" this week. In preparation, I did considerable research on the subject. What I found, to my surprise, was that alcohol and drug abuse seemed to be a recurring, but always unstated theme as the driver of conflict and the impediment to resolution in many of the cases I've heard. Living and working in a large, metropolitan, expensive and competitive place like Los Angeles, I've seen evidence of substance abuse in business, real estate construction, employment and personal injury cases. It's no surprise, since the statistics suggest that abusers are generally both more aggressive and less likely to accept blame or responsibility for their own actions. Those that have access to attorneys to fight their battles consequently become regular clients in litigation. Whether the conduct is driven by substance abuse, or the litigation is confounded by it, mediator's and lawyers would be well advised to routinely investigate whether substance abuse plays into the conflict they're asked to resolve. The next time you have an inexplicable or intractable conflict, think about it through the lens of a drug abuser or alcoholic and see if that doesn't help you to understand why, for example, the story keeps changing, the recollection of facts has so faded, or the client refuses a reasonable settlement offer which will mean the end of their legal fight, representation and medical treatment on liens.

Watch Your Language!

2008-01-05T12:16:00.001-08:00

Sometimes the informality of a mediation can be counter-productive. Recently, I had one that lasted late into an evening. At a certain point we were reaching an impasse that would have included an agreement to postpone certain discovery. I invited the attorneys to speak about this directly to one another, and instead of making that agreement, in frustration, one of them expressed his anticipation that the partner in charge of the case would respond with an "@*&% YOU". I believed that his comment was meant to be an incentive to keep the negotiation going, but it in fact had the opposite effect. I didn't know it at the time, (and thankfully the case got settled the following day), but that one choice reference to an "expletive" (which really was deleted!) completely undermined the negotiation that had been going on all day up until that moment. The Corporate clients, two very savvy business women (one general counsel of a huge conglomerate) took such offense to this that by the time I returned to the other room, they had packed up and were on their way out the door! Rudeness, crudeness, and crassness has no place in a mediation--even in the most informal moments. Next time you fear the worst language being tossed in for flavor or emphasis, take your mother's words into account and "Watch Your Language"!

Families in Conflict: A Holiday Super-Challenge!

2007-12-25T11:48:00.000-08:00

The holidays present an extra special time of family conflict for so many of us. Children don't grow up expecting this as adults, but as I age I learn that our family is not alone in this dynamic. It's a time when expectations run high and memories deep. Last weekend, I took on an informal mediation between my husband and his mother to see if I could orchestrate a truce or at least change the dynamic between them so that next year may bring a less stressful holiday season. What I am discovering, as I go through the process, is that it takes a super skilled mediator to "self-mediate". While I profess not to take sides in this conflict, and indeed, objectively see both sides of the issues, the very nature of creating the environment (we've decided on neutral territory--neither one's home) and the timing (we've decided on dinner on New Year's Day--instead of Christmas) is a challenge. I'm curious whether any of my readers have attempted self-mediation within the family, or whether I am the only one who belongs to a family who doesn't live life in perfect harmony. Your thoughts and insights are welcome this time. This Christmas, Schau's Mediation Insights need you to contribute! May you be blessed with abiding peace, challenges and triumphs and above all gratitude!

P.S.: For those of you who have noticed, I took a few months "sabbatical" from blogging--having disclosed a few too many details about a mediation which I found challenging...but I'm back! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.

Lessons from the China Law Society

2007-08-04T08:07:00.000-07:00

I had the privilege of meeting with 19 Delegates from the China Law Society this week. Judges, Lawyers and Business People came together to learn about Mediation principles from my colleague, Nikki Tolt and I. We met at the Southern California Mediation Association's office, which was a bonus because we could then make introductions to Judge Dorothy Nelson, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge and Najeeba Sayeed-Miller, Director of the Western Justice Center Foundation. It tuns out that Judge Nelson has visited China many times and is even a member of the China Law Society! She provided an extensive (and intimate) tour of the Federal Court of Appeals in Pasadena, and then entertained questions and made a brief presentation in her chambers--complete with fruit juice and chocolate biscuits! Then the delegation was treated to a brief tour and introduction to the Western Justice Foundation. As usual, I learned more from my "students" than they did from me. What I learned was that the Chinese value balance, harmony, perspective, respect, over law, rules, analysis, and business. The principles of mediation are tautologic to them. It is the principles of law that are new and challenging! Ancient Eastern principles seem so novel and creative to our Western culture. Even by the flash of cameras and the response to the presentation of mediation v. the Court house, it was obvious that the Chinese are way ahead of us in the world of mediation!

A Peacemaker's Picnic

2007-07-29T21:19:00.001-07:00

Today I attended (alright, I planned...) the Southern California Mediation Association's First Annual Peacemaker's Picnic! It was a great chance to see one another as people in relation to other people who are not necessarily mediators: mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, husbands and wives, even dogs and masters gathered together to enjoy a hot dog, some pretty hiking trails, a great lawn for throwing a frisbee and some fresh, outside air. It was a great chance to see men unshaven, women in T-shirts and shorts, dirty feet and happy children...Often I think we take on so much responsibility to be sober truth-sayers, speakers of other people's truths, bearers of other people's conflict...that we don't take the time to see one another as participants in the human joys of life...like hot dogs and brownies and admiring other people's babies and ill-behaved dogs. Again, it's a matter of living life deliberately: including hard work and relaxation. A fine way to end a weekend!

Taking Time Out to Gain Perspective

2007-07-23T17:48:00.000-07:00

I'm writing this from the cockpit of our new sailboat, "Time Out" on Catalina Island. I can't help but reflect on how taking some "time out" to do some perspective taking is such a healthy exercise. It is really why I ask every party mediating before me to come to my office--away from their usual trappings and try for a few hours to gain some perspective on the conflict their enmeshed in. I also had the pleasure of substitute teaching for a class at the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution this week. Seeing mediation through the eyes of students was another perspective I had not taken the time to experience in quite awhile. Many of the students were also law students and my observation was stunning to me: being in the world of "law" and training to figure out who's right and who's going to win at trial is a real impediment to mediating!

So this week I'm thankful--that I have a chance to gain some perspective now and then...and that I have the blessing of inviting people in conflict to take a much needed "time out" to do the same.

Private Dialogues on Public Issues

2007-07-14T09:25:00.000-07:00

While on vacation last week, I saw the Michael Moore's brilliant new documentary, "SIcko". We've all been there: in the place where we've hesitated about getting needed health care until we can figure out what's covered by insurance. So why isn't America discussing this issue? I've decided it's time for mediators to take a crack at it. I've invited an elite corps of commercial and community mediators together in the Fall to begin to promote public dialogue on the health care system in America. I intend to invite elected officials, insurance and hospital owners or at least managers and free clinic directors with a hope that this will begin a respectful process of discussing the issues, better understanding the various perspectives and lending our skill set to the fray with a goal towards initiating needed change. Why do movie producers get to have all of the fun? On another note, over my holiday I read my favorite book of all time, "A Thousand Splended Suns", by Khaled Hosseini. As agitated as I was after watching "SIcko", Hosseini's book made me feel darn lucky to have been born in America, raised my children in a land that valued personal freedom, and generally followed a code of law with which I could abide. If you have a summer vacation planned, I highly recommend you read it. It's haunting, but ultimately gratifying and beautifully written. The story takes place in more or less modern day Afghanistan, beginning in the 1970's. It is the story of two women's lives, how they intertwine and are affected by the political events over the past thirty years. It is written by the author of "The KiteRunner", which was also a fabulous read. Hosseini was born in Kabul, but has been in the United States since 1980. Bravo for bringing these stories to life and bringing these hard topics to American readers!

Interest Based Negotiation Applied Effectively

2007-07-01T07:54:00.000-07:00

Last week I had the privilege of studying with Randolph Lowry, the President of Lipscomb University and one of the founders of both the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and the Southern California Mediation Association, an organization of which I am the current President (18 years later!). Lowry co-taught a course on Advanced Mediation Skills with Judge Jack Etheridge, another founder of SIDR, retired Judge from Atlanta, Georgia. To be honest, the course seemed a bit elementary to me at the time. But this week, I had a mediation in which I applied my new-found "interest based negotiation" skills. I have learned from this blog experience, that I need to carefully disguise my facts to protect the confidentiality of the parties. So here's a quick synopsis of my fictional experience.

A mid-50's firefighter is out for his morning jog, when he is struck by a car and badly injured. As a result, he is unable to re-gain use of his right ankle, and accordingly has to accept an early retirement and is completely dependent upon his wife, a pre-school teacher, for basic, daily care. Their future is completely changed. Unfortunately, the driver has an insurance policy that is limited to $15/$30K, leaving them without a remedy that will provide enough funds for both the attorney and medical liens. Here was an instance where mediation was clearly more about the process than the outcome. I faced this bravely and strategically, preparing both sides for what I anticipated would be an emotional joint session. What I discovered, when I probed deeper, was that here was a couple whose life was out of their own control, beginning on the day of the accident. The victim of the accident was accustomed to "taking charge": he would be able to respond to an emergency and literally "put out fires". His wife, for her part, was used to imposing simple, human rules: show up, sit in your seat, wait your turn and speak up when called upon. The absence of the adverse driver from the proceeding infuriated them.

The resolution involved a promise by the insurance carrier to accompany the victim's lawyer to the home of the insured driver. They needed an explanation and proof that he was truly unable to do anything to compensate the victim or his family. This was more about "doing the right thing"--for both the insurance company and the victim and his wife, than about the monetary damages they had the potential to receive. The money was the easy part, but was clearly insufficient to satisfy them. What I learned from Lowry and Etheredge, however, was that the "law" only gives money as a remedy in civil actions. And this couple wanted something different.

This negotiation lasted all day, but resulted in a satisfying process and outcome for the participants and the mediator. Thank you, to Randy Lowry and Jack Etheridge, for giving this mediator the courage to explore the parties interests, even while knowing the positions and ultimate outcome.

California Court of Appeals Affirms Mediation Confidentiality

2007-06-24T21:26:00.001-07:00

The Court of Appeals (Second Circuit) issued it's opinion on the Wimsatt v. Kausch writ of mandate and upheld the mediation confidentiality statutes under California Evidence Code Sec. 1119. This was a proud moment for me, because I supported an amicus curiae brief (as President of the Southern California Mediation Association) and was present for the oral argument. In brief, the Plaintiff's were alleging that their own lawyer had committed malpractice by telling the defense counsel in an underlying airplane crash case that the case that he told his own clients was worth $3.5 million had a value closer to $1.5 million. The case was settled at a second mediation for about $1 million. Now, the Plaintiff's wanted to compel the production of the defense counsel's mediation brief and some e-mail communications between the two lawyers that took place the day before the second session of the mediation. The trial court denied the motion for protective order, out of concern that the protection requested might very well shield the plaintiff's former lawyer from claims for perjury as well as breach of fiduciary duty. The Court of Appeal disagreed. They really understood that the policy favoring settlement through frank conversation in a mediation trumped the possible abuses offered to counsel where evidence was prepared for, or in the course of a mediation. The Court did note that this may be unwise or impracticable, leaving the door open for the Supreme Court to act more critically in the case now before them in Simmons v. Ghaderi. Tough decisions, but certainly nice to read in black and white that the Court of Appeals honors the legislative scheme, even against their most solid judgment, to foster mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that is meaningful and appreciated.

Lessons from Recovery to Mediation

2007-06-17T17:13:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting evening this Shabbat at the home of a Prison Rabbi. There, he described the process of "reaching" (with a view towards helping to "uncover" the good self within) of the prison inmates. It occurred to me that in so many instances, a courageous mediator is doing the same "uncovering" process: digging down deep to find the reasons for the behavior that lead to the initial conflict in order to "recover" the relationship or the basis for moving forward in harmony. In looking for an image to depict this thought process, I took a chance and googled "Uncovery"--a term I thought I invented! What I found was a bit of marketing research by Abraham Maslow. I share those here for you: How to Fill Your Customer's Needs

Ever hear of Maslow�s Hierarchy of Needs? If you are trying to uncover the critical information that will motivate potential customers to do business with you, if you are searching for the �meat� in your messaging, you really want to think about what Maslow had to say.

Abraham Maslow didn�t spin out his theories for marketers � he was conceiving an alternative to the more depressing, deterministic psychologies of the day. Maslow presented an optimistic view of human kind: folks are fundamentally focused on growth and love. Violence and other evils appear when basic human needs are not filled. So, for instance, denied a sense of safety, people might engage in violence to defend themselves, but they are not inherently violent.

This seems to me to be germane to both recovery, prison inmates, religion and mediation. In any case, it helps me to consider the pyramid ranging from physiologic needs to self-actualization. From "uncovery" to "recovery".