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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT