ILNews

Mediators share ADR session 'horror' stories

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

As alternative dispute resolution continues to increase in use and attorneys and their clients more regularly look outside the courtroom for options other than litigation, tales of challenging – sometimes shocking – scenarios are being shared, along with tips that helped mediators survive and even succeed in the scariest sessions. With Halloween approaching, experienced Indiana mediators recently shared some “nightmare scenarios” that they’ve encountered that might provide a laugh or lesson for their colleagues.

Mediating with the dead

casey-james-mug.jpg Casey

Evansville mediator James Casey handled an estate-related ADR session, and the 40-something-year-old son of the man whose estate was being discussed appeared with a box that he held throughout most of the session. The mediating lawyer didn’t think anything of it since many parties bring in evidence or items they believe might help the mediators understand the value of an estate.

At one point, the man referred to his dad and then showed Casey that the box was full of his dad’s ashes. That didn’t become a problem until later when “dad started having strong opinions and disagreeing with counteroffers on the estate.” Eventually, Casey said he and the lawyers realized they had to mediate as if the father was in the room, so they started trying to direct comments to him and eventually “got dad to come around so that everyone seemed happy with the position reached.”

Pulling a resolution from a hat

Casey shared another story involving a mediation between two brothers who had a strong German heritage. The brothers were given property by their parents, but they couldn’t get along with each other and decide who retained ownership. A division of property was orchestrated, and Casey tried to mediate privately with each brother. However, even when they initially agreed on a preference, one of the brothers would change his mind and disagree. “Clearly, the only reason was that he wanted what his brother would have and to make his brother unhappy.”

Eventually, they labeled the property divisions A and B and drew them randomly out of a hat, with the brother having the earliest birth year able to pull from the hat first.

This isn’t trial

abeska-tim-mug.jpg Abeska

Tim Abeska of South Bend mediated a case in which opposing counsel for the plaintiff used the joint session as a venue to deliver what was essentially an opening statement at trial, complete with hyperbole and negative comments about the defendant. This tactic completely poisoned the “settlement atmosphere” and the mediation quickly ended as a failure.

Mediating with a 6-year old

Carmel mediator Elisabeth Edwards mediated for a divorcing couple three times and couldn’t get the parties to stop arguing. At one point, the session reached a moment when she literally had to hold her hands up and tell the two to stop talking to each other that way. Edwards said it’s like mediating with a 6-year-old, except she has more control over her own child of that age. At times, she had to block the door to stop participants from packing up and leaving the room so that she could keep the mediation moving.

edwards-elisabeth-mug.jpg Edwards

That’s the key overall to making these emotional impasses turn into resolutions, she said: keeping everyone in their chairs to calm down and continue discussing possible resolutions. “If you stop, everyone gets entrenched in their positions, and it’s more difficult to persuade them of what’s middle ground.”

Feuding neighbors

Janet Mitchell of Fort Wayne said two of the most ferocious mediation participants she’s ever worked with were a sheriff’s deputy and his elderly neighbor who were locked in a decades-old series of feuds. Their antics, which included surveillance and structural markers, affected their livelihood and health, not to mention reducing their neighbors’ property values. Mitchell co-mediated with them three times over a period of six months. At the first mediation session, she had them bring along support people, had them sign strict behavioral rules for mediation, had them leave weapons out of the mediation building, had them sit at tables that were two tables wide and provided both parties easy escape access with plenty of breaks to help calm high blood pressure concerns.

No weapons were brought to the second session, and no blood pressure breaks were requested. At the third session, however, the elderly neighbor stood up with fists raised and said: “Let’s settle this here and now!” The deputy stood up immediately with fists raised. Mitchell got them out of the “fight or flight” response by asking them to sit down, and she calmly reviewed the agreements they had made along with timelines and other details. Mitchell has found she can lead an emotional disputant back to civility by talking about dates, times, and the series of events.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT