Call Back Request

 
Close [X]

Are you serious about settlement? - 28/05/2018

If you are, then it’s important to demonstrate it in your mediation team’s conduct both before and during the mediation.

Actions speak louder than words, especially in the intense arena of mediation. Think carefully about how your team’s behaviour might be interpreted by others. Imagine yourself in your opponent’s shoes and how you might respond to the kind of signals you are sending. Here are a few suggestions to help build a positive, collaborative environment:

  • Don’t be unnecessarily difficult in agreeing a mediator or venue. Don’t reject the other side’s suggested mediator just because they suggested it (“biased mediator” is an oxymoron – by definition they don’t exist). Be accommodating if good reasons are given for wishing to hold the mediation in a particular location.
  • Use neutral, moderate language in your position statement. Avoid emotive words like dishonest, theft, fraudulent, incompetent, hopeless, useless, bully, disreputable, disingenuous, etc. If these are aimed at individuals attending the mediation then you have significantly decreased the probability of settlement before the day starts.
  • If you are hosting the mediation, don’t put the visitors in a windowless, cramped room. Give them the best room available. And be hospitable with hot drinks and lunch.
  • Watch your body language in plenary session. No raised eyebrows, tuts, groans, sighs, feigned disinterest, phone fiddling or head shaking. Give the speaker the respect of your full attention with good eye contact, even if you profoundly disagree. You will have your chance to respond.
  • And finally, please make sure that the people that the other side would reasonably expect to be present are present. This often means both the decision maker (with proper authority) and the main protagonist. Consider this: an architect’s negligence claim brought by a householder following months of disruption resulting from a failed extension project allegedly due to defective design. Neither the architect nor his professional indemnity insurer are present at mediation; the only attendee is the lawyer appointed by the insurer. This happens all too often and seems to be a growing trend. The insurer’s absence may be due to time pressures. The architect’s absence may be the result of a (mistaken) belief that they have no role because their financial stake is limited. Or the absence of both may be a deliberate strategy. Whatever the reasons, it sends the worst possible message to the claimant: the architect doesn’t care and the insurer has more important things to do.

Needless to say, the above suggestions apply equally to disputants and lawyers alike.

Feel free to leave a comment!

Alistair Pye

3 Comments

  • antony smith says:

    Thanks Alistair Hope you are well. I don’t disagree with any of this. What do you do when the other side behaves like this though? Once had a mediation where the other side were so rude that the mediator said he was going to tell them to behave but was worried that they would see him as biased if he did.
    DW I am still a believer!
    Antony

    • Alistair Pye says:

      Hi Antony, good to hear from you. When anyone behaves like this it’s the mediator’s job to stop it, or at least to spell out the consequences! If it’s handled effectively there’s no reason for a mediator to be concerned about appearing biased.
      Alistair

  • Gavin Hamilton says:

    Thanks Alistair for this. I had the experience recently of being told by the hosting firm “we’ve organised lunch for ourselves, but not for you”. It was remarkably insensitive.

    But in fact we were grateful as we had a reason to get outside for some fresh air and a change of scene.

Leave a Reply to antony smith Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© Copyright 2019 Pye Resolve Limited. Company No.07027371. All rights reserved.

Website By Created in Bath