Hays/Raman: Do not treat mediation as routine and ordinary

Thomas C. Hays
May 3, 2017
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
hays-tom-mug Hays

By Thomas C. Hays and Barath Raman

Preparation is the key to success. As lawyers and advocates for our clients, this is not a foreign concept to any of us. However, when it comes to mediation, I (Tom) have found that attorneys sometimes forget this key advice.

When I first started practicing law, it was typical to try a case; we had less volume, worked without email and our clients had higher risk tolerances. However, I recently read that 95 percent of civil cases resolve prior to trial, and in my experience, most of those cases are resolved at mediation. Because mediation has become the most effective way to resolve a pending case in today’s practice of law, it has become imperative that we prepare for mediation just as we would have many years ago when we prepared for trial. Mediation has quickly become our one time as litigators to properly advocate our client’s position. It has allowed us to show our litigating skills in opening statements and our counseling skills in caucuses. Our clients get their “day in court” and feel zealously represented, while our opponents assess our performance and evaluate, if this case were tried, how we would present in front of a jury.

raman-barath-mug Raman

As a 40-year litigator and a 30-year mediator, I understand the stress of juggling multiple cases, managing numerous deadlines and attempting to satisfy clients’ expectations and financial needs. As a result, it is not uncommon to find attorneys prematurely scheduling mediation in the hope that a lawsuit will settle. I continue to tell young attorneys, however, that while mediation is effective, it is a mistake for them to treat mediation as routine and ordinary. Just like trial, attorneys should master the facts and the law pertaining to the dispute. I have found that an attorney who is better prepared with the facts and the law can better articulate his/her views and is undoubtedly likelier to achieve a result favorable to his/her client. Accordingly, parties that have completed discovery and provided expert or IME reports to opposing counsel prior to mediation have a better opportunity to settle. This additional information allows both parties to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their case, and their opponent’s as well.

Today, our clients are focused on metrics and trying to make the best business decision. It is one reason they have decided to limit their risks and settle these cases rather than trying them. If we do not properly prepare, we could spend additional money and time re-mediating a case. Prior to mediation, I suggest that litigators appropriately address the following: (1) assess the risk of exposure to your client if mediation fails; (2) strategize on potential settlement resolutions; (3) resolve outstanding indemnification and insurance coverage issues; (3) address lien holders and related reimbursement obligations; (4) explore and identify any independent witnesses who may provide support for your client’s position; and (5) assess whether an expert report is needed to help dismantle the opposing party’s theories. Then meet with your client and prepare him/her for mediation by reviewing the facts and law, and explaining what you believe to be the appropriate settlement value. Spell out everything. At the end of the day, you do not want your client, or even you, to be surprised at mediation.

Before you step into mediation, do not forget to provide a timely confidential submission to your mediator, even if he/she does not require one. This informal letter should summarize your client’s various litigation positions, including any rebuttal positions. The confidential submission provides us with an opportunity to address issues, concerns and questions to the mediator and pin-point where exactly the parties expect hiccups during this mediation. I have found as a mediator that a well-written submission will enable me to get a grasp of the type of case, the facts and the liability and damage issues. This preparation gets everyone off on the right foot and focuses the parties on the true dispute.

If you do not believe me, here is what other Indiana mediators have to say on the topic:

“Don’t fall into the trap of, ‘Let’s just see what happens at mediation.’ Treat mediation as you would any hearing where you have the burden of proving your case. Provide the other side with all materials and documentation they need to consider prior to the mediation, and at the mediation, demonstrate the proof that convinces the other side of your position.”

—Lee Christie, Cline Farrell Christie & Lee P.C., Indianapolis

“If the case is worth it, plaintiff’s counsel should have a doctor’s opinion on causation (written report or deposition) prior to mediation. On the other side, I feel bad for defense counsel when the insurance person who’s evaluating their case is located four states away from the mediation arena. I’m reminded of the adage, ‘Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem.’… At mediation, and in your practice, resolve not to be someone’s bad example.”

— Judge Richard McDevitt, McDevitt Mediation Center, Merrillville

“A more useful and successful mediation can be achieved if the parties have a realistic understanding of the potential strengths and weaknesses of their case should it be resolved in court, along with a realistic appreciation of the benefits offered in mediation — particularly control, risk avoidance and litigation cost savings. A mindset to consider a compromise also helps.”

— Erik Chickedantz, Burt Blee Dixon Sutton & Bloom LLP, Fort Wayne

“I am repeatedly seeing lawyers waive opening statement. In my view, that is a mistake. There is much to be learned in an opening statement, and the reactions of the parties and their counsel give the mediator a great starting point for discussing the case.”

— John C. Trimble, Lewis Wagner LLP, Indianapolis

“Prepare in a way that you make it as easy as possible for the other side to do what you want — no surprises.”

— Sam Ardery, Bunger & Robertson, Bloomington

“You really cannot overstate the importance of upstream work and preparation for mediation. It involves making sure the right people are involved and available (i.e. decision-makers and persons of highest or, at least, adequate authority). It means assuring that clients have been properly prepped and that demands and supporting documentation have been provided well in advance of the mediation such that they may be meaningfully considered at the mediation. New information and surprises can sink a mediation. Adequate preparation and prior communication and documentation floats the mediation boat.”

Neil Bemenderfer, The Mediation Group, Indianapolis•


Thomas C. Hays is a partner at Lewis Wagner LLP in Indianapolis and is an experienced litigator and mediator. Barath Raman is an associate at Lewis Wagner LLP practicing tort defense. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.


  • Mediation
    I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  2. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  3. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  4. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

  5. Unlike the federal judge who refused to protect me, the Virginia State Bar gave me a hearing. After the hearing, the Virginia State Bar refused to discipline me. VSB said that attacking me with the court ADA coordinator had, " all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting." One does wonder why the VSB was able to have a hearing and come to that conclusion, but the federal judge in Indiana slammed the door of the courthouse in my face.