5 Responses to “Kicked out of a joint session?”

1. Colm Brannigan | May 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
   

   Good post Chris.

   But why “Never again”? Isn’t it the parties process? If they ask us to leave the room doesn’t the principle of client self determination demand that we do so?

   If the parties choose to take actions that cause the deal to fall apart is it our problem as a mediator in these, or indeed any, circumstances?

   Colm

2. Christopher Annunziata | May 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
   

   Of course it is the parties’ process, which is why I left. People presumably seek mediation because they have reached the limits of what they can do themselves. They ostensibly want our assistance in reaching a deal and to me, not allowing a deal to fall apart is part of what they hire us to do.

   Our role is to assist the parties in making informed decisions and help them reach agreement, if at all possible. In this case, agreement was possible. Allowing them to undo the 3 hours of discussion, venting, reconciliation and negotiation was potentially dangerous.

   In retrospect, I should have insisted on remaining in the room but agreeing to allow the parties to negotiate amongst themselves. By removing myself from the process, I ran the risk of allowing tensions to escalate or the barriers to communications that had previously existed to reappear.

3. Colm Brannigan | May 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
   

   How can you “insist” and still say it is the parties’ process?

   “Suggest strongly,” sure, but “insist”?

   And what happens if despite your insistence they still want you out? What are your options?

   Terminate the mediation? Get in a “huff”?

   Colm

4. Christopher Annunziata | May 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
   

   That reminds me of the scene in A Few Good Men where
   Demi Moore’s objection to testimony is overruled and she replies to the judge with “I STRENUOUSLY object.”

   I think the difference between insisting and strongly suggesting is a matter of semantics, but your point is taken. To answer your question, if the parties wished me to leave despite my insistence/strong suggestion that I remain, I would feel that I had satisfied my obligation and would begrudgingly defer to them.

   On further thought, however, is it really the parties’ PROCESS? It is the parties’ decision whether to enter into a binding agreement and settle their dispute. But the parties retained mediators to guide them through a process to assist them in making an informed decision. If the parties could guide themselves through the negotiation process, they would presumably not need a mediator.

5. Paul Gale | May 16th, 2008 at 4:30 am
   

   Hi Chris

   I agree with your final thought. I have always maintained that the mediation process belongs to the mediator – we apply it to YOUR problem. This means that the mediator makes the vital process opinions that help parties to reach a settlement.

   That having been said, it is a flexible process. If the parties are saying that the only way they feel they can reach agreement is by talking privately to each other, I must take a view, as a mediator, as to what’s more important – my process or their deal.

   But why do they insist on a no-mediator meeting? What if I know or suspect that some underhand activity is going to take place (brown paper bags containing dollar bills)? Does that threaten the integrity of the process? Imagine the converstaion those guys might have with their colleagues, “Hey, go to mediation. You can do whatever you like, the mediator’s bound to confidentiality, and anyway you can throw him out of the room if you want!”

   No easy answers!

   Paul