Mediations: Thinking outside the Box

Recently, I conducted three mediations almost simultaneously. While I have conducted two mediations somewhat at the same time because the first one did not conclude before the second one was scheduled to start (and I do not like to keep people waiting!), this was a first for me.

No doubt, one’s initial reaction is that it is a crazy thing to undertake and how much true mediation could there be? In reality, it worked out well; and, believe it or not, there was some true mediation in it, and all three matters settled.

It seems that the same plaintiff attorney and same defendant manufacturer’s attorney had three “lemon law” cases that they wanted to mediate together and so arranged with each other and my office for a half day of time in which only the attorneys and I would be present. The actual plaintiffs and the manufacturer’s representative would be available by telephone.

I can hear other mediators mumbling under their respective (or collective?) breaths- that such a set up would never work. But, somehow it did.

In one sense, with only the attorneys and me present, it was not a true mediation but in another sense it really was. Because both attorneys were well seasoned and knew both each other and me, we skipped the “dancing” to a large degree. After about one round of proposal and counter proposal on each case, we cut to the chase. We depended heavily on the relationships we had with each other and the trust that we had built up with each other through previous mediations. We also had a lot of joint sessions in which I asked harder questions than I would have if the plaintiffs were present and got more candid responses as well. There was not much posturing as there was no one – either a plaintiff or a representative- for whom to put on a show. And, I was also on the telephone with each plaintiff discussing the various issues with them, at plaintiff’s counsel’s request.

There was more flexibility in that the defendant’s representative-fully aware that three matters were being decided at once, agreed to allocate and re-allocate cash offers among the three as was necessary. Thus, when plaintiffs in the first case demanded slightly more than defendant’s representative was willing to pay on that particular case, defense counsel came up with an “outside of the box” suggestion by requesting that we hold the settlement of that one in abeyance and go to the second because there was a possibility that the difference (i.e., the amount sought by plaintiffs in the first matter) could be made up in the second case. …And defense counsel was correct; the parties settled that second case for slightly more than originally thought allowing defense counsel to allocate (with the manufacturer’s representative’s knowledge and approval) a little of it towards the first matter, thereby settling both cases.

Having now settled two cases, defense counsel used this momentum (if not success rate) to convince the representative to meet plaintiff’s demand in the third case which was slightly more than originally authorized. By this time in the mediation process, we were meeting in joint sessions with candid discussions of the approximate ranges or amounts being sought and of the amounts being offered. Very little “dancing” was being done! Again, I spoke with plaintiffs directly by telephone with counsel present to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the case. We settled the third case, too. It was quite a productive day.

On reflection, I must say that I did not handle these mediations the way I was taught; it was rather unorthodox. But, it worked and I believe each plaintiff was content with the result. And… in the end… I guess that it all that counts.

…. Just something to think about.

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, , click on the “Subscribe” button immediately above the blog!

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services: http://www.shootthebreeze.net/blogalert/index.php or

http://blogtrottr.com/

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click “submit”.

-------------------------------------

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

Copyright 2018© Phyllis G. Pollack and www.pgpmediation.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Phyllis G. Pollack and www.pgpmediation.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

By |2017-05-13T07:31:47+00:00June 14th, 2013|Mediations|Comments Off on Mediations: Thinking outside the Box

About the Author:

Phyllis Pollack
Phyllis G. Pollack, Esq. the principal of PGP Mediation (www.pgpmediation.com), has been a mediator in Los Angeles, California since 2000. She has conducted over 1700 mediations. As an attorney with more than 35 years experience, she utilizes her diverse background to resolve business, commercial, international trade, real estate, employment and lemon law disputes at both the state and federal trial and state appellate court levels. Currently, she is the in­coming chair of State Bar of California’s ADR Committee. She has served on the board of the California Dispute Resolution Council (CDRC) (2012­2013), is a past president and past treasurer of the SCMA Education Foundation (2011­2013) and a past president (2010) of the Southern California Mediation Association (SCMA). Ms. Pollack received her BA degree in sociology in 1973 from Newcomb College of Tulane University and her JD degree from Tulane University School of Law in 1977. She is an active member of both the Louisiana and California bars. Pollack believes that it is never too late to mediate a dispute and recommends mediation over litigation as it allows the parties to decide their own solutions.