ILNews

IBA: Making Choices in Mediation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By John C. Trimble, Lewis Wagner, LLP

One of the true ironies associated with the popularity of mediation is that many parties are refusing to negotiate outside of mediation. This is unfortunate and wasteful. Smart lawyers realize that they can still settle a case without mediation, and they are reserving mediation for the tougher situations.

The most basic rule of choosing a case for mediation is that about any case can be mediated. About the only thing that will make a case unsuitable for mediation is if it is too small to justify the attorneys fees and mediator fees associated with the process. Even so, some small cases end up in mediation because the costs of going forward to trial are even greater than the cost of mediation.

trimble Trimble

One thing to remember in choosing cases for mediation is that there are no hard and fast guidelines as to what makes a case attractive for mediation. For example, some may take the position that a case cannot be mediated when there is a dispositive issue that is awaiting ruling by a trial judge. Even in such a case, the parties may be in a position to assess the possibility of the ruling going for or against them, and they may be willing to compromise based upon their assessment of the risk. Another example may be the case in which a party is afraid to settle because of the precedent that could be set by paying a claimant even one dollar. Such a case may be susceptible to settlement if a confidentiality agreement can be obtained. A third example may be the case in which the person prosecuting the claim is motivated by principle. The case may be settleable if the person’s needs can be met even if principle cannot necessarily be fully addressed.

The bottom line is that every situation that is going to cost a client money to try should be submitted to mediation if it cannot be settled beforehand.

Once the decision to seek mediation has been made attention turns to selecting a mediator. Deciding who to choose is an imprecise science. However, it is a step in the mediation process that must be taken very carefully. You must begin by weighing the temperament, knowledge, age, experience, and personality of your client, the opposing attorney, and the other party. It also helps to have some idea as to which of the parties or attorneys in the case will need the most persuasion in order for the case to settle. Depending upon the mix of these factors, there are some cases in which you need a mediator who has knowledge in the area of law that is the subject of the case. In other caes, you may need an older mediator; you may need an aggressive mediator; or, you may need a patient mediator.

If you choose a mediator from among a group of mediators who are known to be highly experienced, then you are probably not likely to need someone who has a great deal of specific experience in particular field of law. On the other hand, if you are handling a case in which your opposing counsel and opposing party do not know a great deal about a particular area of law, it sometimes helps to have a mediator who has some credibility in that area.

In choosing a mediator, it is advisable to call other attorneys who have used that mediator to find out his or her strengths and weaknesses. If other lawyers have had a good experience with the mediator, then you probably will too. The question is sometimes asked whether is its detrimental to a defendant to have a plaintiff’s attorney serve as a mediator or detrimental to a plaintiff to have a defense attorney serve as a mediator. The answer to that question boils down to who needs to be persuaded. For example, a plaintiff’s attorney serving as mediator may be more persuasive in getting a plaintiff attorney and plaintiff to compromise than a defense attorney would (and vice versa).

What you definitely don’t wish to do is to simply strike a name from a court-approved list without knowing something about the person you are choosing.•

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. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  2. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  3. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  4. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

  5. Mr. Foltz: Your comment that the ACLU is "one of the most wicked and evil organizations in existence today" clearly shows you have no real understanding of what the ACLU does for Americans. The fact that the state is paying out so much in legal fees to the ACLU is clear evidence the ACLU is doing something right, defending all of us from laws that are unconstitutional. The ACLU is the single largest advocacy group for the US Constitution. Every single citizen of the United States owes some level of debt to the ACLU for defending our rights.

ADVERTISEMENT