The Devil in Mediator's Clothing

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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.