Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen!

I just finished conducting a mediation (lemon law) which did not settle. And I think the prime reason was that there were too many different attorneys handling the matter. Although in the same firm, they apparently were not communicating with each other or the representative of the client handling the mediation.

Plaintiff purchased a vehicle which turned out to have certain issues. So, after hiring an attorney, suit was filed in court. The court ordered the parties to mediation and so, there I was, mediating their case.

During  my first separate session with Plaintiff and her counsel, they told me that they took the deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) of the defendant manufacturer and that during the deposition, the PMK admitted that the issues with the vehicle could be deemed “non-conformities” or defects that “substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle.” (These are the magic words or the essence of California’s lemon law.)  So, I asked plaintiff’s counsel whether defense counsel was aware of this testimony because I knew that the defense counsel was not the one handling this case: she was just appearing at the mediation. Plaintiff’s counsel did not know so I suggested a conference among the attorneys and me if this was indeed the case.

It turned out that defense counsel was unaware of the deposition testimony, so we had the conference in which Plaintiff’s counsel explained the PMK’s testimony.

I was hoping that this made a difference. My hope was ill-founded.

Knowing that Plaintiff was demanding a repurchase of the vehicle, I asked defense counsel what offer its client was willing to make. At first, she stated that the manufacturer was going to make the same offer it previously made in its offer to compromise. I suggested that this might be bad faith on its part. (Why come to mediation if the offer is the same as before?)  So, she agreed to offer a bit more.

But, it turns out, that the defense counsel did not know the details of the offer to compromise because what she offered (even after adding to the initial offer) was still less than the offer to compromise.

In response to my presenting this “new” offer to plaintiff’s counsel, the latter pulled up a copy of the offer to compromise on her computer and sent it to me, so I could print it and show it to defense counsel.

Only after I showed the offer to compromise to defense counsel, did she offer more money. But… nowhere near what Plaintiff was demanding.

While subsequent offers and demands were traded, the parties never reached the zone of possible agreement; they never got on the same page.

And I think the reasons were twofold: the lack of coordination among defense counsel which, in turn, led to the particular representative of the client (who was handling this mediation) not being   fully aware of everything either.  She, too, did not know about the deposition testimony and was not fully aware of the contents of the offer to compromise. As a result, the amounts she was authorizing were less than previously offered.

This matter should have settled. It did not for one reason: lack of preparation. In my many blogs over the years, I have discussed the importance of preparation: know your case and everything about it before you walk in.  Attending a mediation should not be the time to learn your case or constitute the learning curve. If it is, as in this matter, you lose a valuable opportunity to settle a case given that all the parties and all counsel are in the same place at the same time focusing on the same matter. To try to settle a case outside of mediation is often like herding cats; possible but quite difficult to do.

Furthermore, it is simply impossible for anyone to learn information for the first time at a mediation and make decisions then and there based on that new information.  It is human nature to want to mull it over, investigate further, and conduct due diligence on newly acquired information. We simply will not make snap decisions based on something told us two seconds ago!

So… prepare, prepare, prepare and if more than one attorney is involved, keep everyone very well informed on everything that occurs!

… Just something to think about!

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

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 |2018-09-24T11:04:25+00:00October 5th, 2018|Actual Mediations|0 Comments

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.