Insightful Closings

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.