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.•


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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?