ILNews

Trimble: Avoiding and dealing with pessimism in mediation

April 23, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By John C. Trimble

trimble Trimble

All of us who attend or conduct mediation on a regular basis soon come to realize that pessimism is one aspect of mediation that occurs in every mediation session. We learn that if we let pessimism cause us to quit, we would never settle anything. However, pessimism on the part of the parties and their counsel (coupled with impatience) can prevent a very “settle-able” case from being settled. Conversely, strategic use of pessimism by a mediator or a party can be effective in achieving settlement.

The purpose of this article is to offer a few techniques for addressing pessimism and getting past it. It will also address the strategic use of pessimism.

Expectations: the first hurdle

My experience as a mediator has enabled me over time to observe that all parties come to mediation with an array of expectations. Plaintiffs, in particular, tend to come with high expectations unless they have been well counseled by their attorney. Most often, the parties’ expectations are uninformed and unrealistic.

The earliest signs of pessimism begin to develop when parties realize that their expectations are not going to be met. I have learned that most parties have fallback expectations and further fallback expectations, and so on. It is when the negotiation appears to be headed below the lowest expectation that true pessimism occurs. (This is true for the plaintiff or defendant.)

Identifying the parties’ hidden agendas

While parties come to mediation with expectations, their expectations are usually a matter of what they want out of settlement. Their “hidden agenda,” on the other hand, is what they need out of a settlement or what they fear from not settling.

I have personally been able to ignore pessimism because I have learned that parties almost always have hidden agendas that will prompt them to settle even when their expectations may not be satisfied. Once I learned this and embraced this concept, I became a better negotiator for my clients and a much better mediator.

To identify a party’s hidden agenda, one must step back and study the age, education, experience, occupation, sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, socio-economic, or other characteristic that may motivate them to settle or not settle a case. The same analysis is also necessary for corporations, governmental entities, and other institutional parties. With a little bit of study (and a modest amount of reasonable stereotyping) one can predict the wants, needs, fears and risk factors for most litigants. Once you understand the parties’ hidden agendas, most cases can be settled.

There are many examples of hidden agendas that mediators learn after a case has settled:

• The plaintiff who needed enough money net of attorney fees and liens to buy a new bass boat;

• The middle-aged couple with a child starting college in a year;

• The aging couple needing income for retirement;

• The business that needed to settle litigation so that it could obtain financing to break ground on a new headquarters;

• The business that needed to settle in order to avoid publicity;

• The employee who wanted an apology;

• A plaintiff lawyer who needed to make payroll;

• A defendant who couldn’t afford the litigation.

Many times, settlement that appears hopeless can still occur if the mediator can get the parties talking about their own hidden agendas or can get the parties working on their opponent’s hidden agenda. I have found that there is no harm in me, as the mediator, asking a party what they fear about not settling or what they need out of a settlement. I will often ask the mediator to ask the same question when I am representing a party.

Studying the causes of pessimism

At the most pessimistic stage of the mediation, I frequently ask the parties to put their emotion aside and to engage in a critical analysis of where we are. Usually, we can isolate factors that are causing the parties to see the case so differently. Once I do that, I then try to shift the discussion to the risk that each party may be right or wrong in their respective views and the risk that they may do worse at trial. We then chip away at each conflicting issue, pessimism melts and people begin to more objectively assess their positions.

This is also the stage where I frequently will ask one party or the other to make a breakthrough move that will put the other party at risk. If I cannot obtain a breakthrough move, then I will suggest that the parties make conditional bracketed moves to narrow the gap enough so that a range of settlement can be visualized.

Visualization

One of the reasons for pessimism is that neither party can “visualize” where the negotiation may end. Bracketed conditional moves, whether they are suggested by a party or the mediator, are probably the most effective tool for dissolving pessimism. The second most effective technique is to engage in “what if” conversations. The mediator says to one party, “What if I can persuade the defendant to come to X. Could I get you to move to Y?” If the pessimism is so deep that the parties will not engage in a bracketed move or a “what if” conversation, then I will sometimes ask each party to give me their “take it or leave it” number with the understanding that I will not reveal it to the other party. Before taking this approach, I will ask each party to agree that if their “take it or leave it numbers” are within a certain range, they will agree to reveal their numbers and consider negotiating from there.

Strategic use of pessimism

When we are faced with a pessimistic situation, we cannot ignore the possibility that one or both parties may be using pessimism as a strategic tool. Good negotiators will sometimes hold their ground in a particular range in the hope of bringing the other party closer to that range. They will patiently test the waters until some pessimism arises, and once they are convinced that the range is not going to work, they may move forward. Really good negotiators are aware of the need to dissolve their opponent’s expectations, and exceptional negotiators craft their negotiating strategies to play to their opponent’s hidden agendas. They understand that injecting pessimism may ignite their opponent’s fears, and at a minimum they may lower their opponent’s expectations.

As a mediator, I will sometimes use pessimism strategically to test a party’s resolve. I may indicate I am growing pessimistic and that I am about to end the mediation. Many times, the appearance of quitting the process will spur parties into concessions to keep the process alive.

Conclusion

Because pessimism is such a likely occurrence in mediation, getting the subject on the table, exploring the basis for the pessimism, and dissecting it can make it melt away and cease to be a barrier to settlement. When parties are cautioned at the beginning to expect pessimism, they become significantly more patient and creative later.•

__________

John C. Trimble is managing partner of Lewis Wagner LLP, where he defends coverage and bad-faith disputes, catastrophic injury claims, complex litigation, and business litigation. He has been a mediator since 1989. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT