“Less is More” -

Since my last newsletter, I mediated a complex wrongful death aviation case. I was impressed with counsel who all agreed the issues involved coverage, hull damage claims, property damage claims, subrogation claims and the like. All counsel were very sensitive to the emotional needs of the widows of several passengers who were killed in the plane crash. All agreed there was no reason to have the plaintiffs relive this traumatic experience by sitting through a full day of mediation. They were instructed not to attend, but stand by for phone calls if they were necessary. The cooperation, empathy and strategic move agreed on by all counsel in advance, led to multiple issues being resolved amicably and efficiently throughout the day.

On the “QT” -

Consider letting the other side have the final say in selecting the mediator, keeping in mind that mediation should be a speedy and conciliatory process. If you are considering, for example, three mediators and they all appear to be equally qualified, why not go along with the one your opposing party prefers. Of course,if there is an actual conflict, you would not select the recommended mediator, but if the other side is comfortable with their option and believes their mediator to be skilled enough to get the case resolved, think about it before rejecting their recommendation. It might actually be to your advantage. Such a mediator will have more credibility with your opponent than someone who is viewed as being in your favor. As long as you remember that a mediator is not a decision maker, he cannot force you to accept a settlement you do not find worthwhile. So there is little risk in accepting a mediator proposed by the other side, and possibly a good bit to be gained.