Don’t Mediate that Case??

Sandra Upchurch of the Florida-based mediation practice group Upchurch Watson White & Max discusses an interesting article from Human Resources Leader magazine entitled, “Don’t rush to mediate that employee complaint …” The article makes some interesting points about cases for which a face-to-face negotiation could be detrimental.

How to Screw Up A Mediation.

Over at The Strategic Mediator, Florida Mediator Sandra C. Upchurch spells out the Top 10 Ways that a practitioner can “botch” a mediation (she’s more polite than I).   She echoes the complaints I repeatedly hear from fellow mediation practitioners and other bloggers.  Except for her last complaint, which is frankly quite unique.

Never underestimate the power of a meaningless gesture.

When I first read the story of Ria Ramkissoon, I was horrified that such a story could still happen in 2009 in a civilized, modern society.  In short, Ms. Ramkissoon is a member of a whack-job cult.  At some point in 2006, the leader of the cult,  “Queen Antoinette,” decided that Ramkissoon’s one year old son was a demon because he refused to say “amen” after meals.  The “Queen” ordered that the boy be refused food and water.  Sadly, he died.   When the authorities caught up with these charlatans and fools two years later, the mother and several cult leaders were charged with first-degree murder.

As sad as the story is, it turns out that there is actually a useful negotiation and dispute resolution lesson to be learned from the plea agreement that Ramkissoon’s lawyer’s struck with prosecutors.

When confronted with what she had wrought,  Ramkissoon apparently insisted that her son would be resurrected per the “teachings” of “Queen Antoinette.”   She would only agree to enter into a plea agreement and testify against the cult leaders on the condition that all charges against her would be dropped if her son resurrected from the dead.

Apparently, being on the “losing end” the first case of resurrection since Jesus Christ was a risk the prosecutors seemed willing to take.  Sometimes, making a meaningless gesture, such as the “resurrection clause”, can induce a party to enter into an agreement they otherwise would not.

[Ken from Popehat (who gets my hat-tip) takes a different tack, arguing that her insistance on these terms illustrates that she simply isn't competent.]

An uphill battle against the stigma of being “court-appointed.”

I recently received a call from an attorney scheduled for a court-referred mediation:

“Chris, this is Lawyer X.  We’d like to cancel the mediation.  Don’t take this personally, but we’ve decided on another mediator.”

Of course, I took it personally, expressed my disappointment and politely pressed the issue with the lawyer.

What I learned shouldn’t have surprised me.  This lawyer, a sophisticated end-user of mediation, had a bad experience with a court-appointed mediator and did not want to repeat that.   While the specifics of the occurrence were not shared, there was distinct frustration in the lawyer’s voice.

The sad truth is that I understood what this lawyer meant and what I had to do.  If I wanted a shot a keeping the mediation, I had to prove that even though I was  “court-appointed,” I was competent enough to handle the case.

There is an unfortunate perception among many practicing attorneys here in Atlanta that the mediators on the court-appointed lists are simply not up to snuff.   I do not fully share this opinion.  Like any other vocation, there are some very good “court-appointed” mediators and some not-so-good “private/professional” mediators.

I do not think that licensure is the answer.  I just need to be ready for an uphill fight and start marketing a little more heavily to ensure that when an attorney reads my name on a “court-appointed” notice, she recognizes that I am a professional, competent mediator she would like to use.

Am I THAT Out of Touch?

In the past few weeks, I’ve run into some head scratching cases in the small claims court.  Cases that make me wonder, “Have I completely overestimated what the average lay person understands about the law?”

I’m not talking about the Rule Against Perpetuities, ERISA, or arcane sections of the Tax Code.

I’m talking about one of the most basic aspects of our legal system. A foundation of what used to be our capitalist economy – the corporation.

The first head-scratcher case involved a young man who brought his car to a well known, franchised auto repair shop to have a part replaced.  The part was either incorrect or incorrectly installed and the engine blew. This really isn’t important to the story other than to illustrate that he had a legitimate claim.

Care to take a guess who this guy sued?

“The parent company of the well known, franchised auto repair chain?” Nope.

“The franchisee corporation that owns the local auto repair shop?“  Guess again.

“God?“ Nah.

He sued the Service Manager.  Personally. The hourly employee who stands at the front desk, greets customers, fills out orders and invoices, passes car keys to the grease monkeys and accepts payment.  The guy wasn’t even an owner. To make matters worse, when the case came to trial, the Service Manager was no longer the Service Manager.  He was unemployed.

I called impasse within 5 minutes of being handed the case because I was not going to even suggest that the ex-Service Manager make a settlement offer.  It seemed ridiculous.

I also tried to explain to the aggrieved customer (who looked like he had a case, since the part they installed was for the same make vehicle but apparently a different model) why the case would go back to the judge and what might happen there.  I asked him,. “If you went to Home Depot and bought a drill, and that drill caught fire when you plugged it in, would you sue the cashier?”  All I got in return was a blank stare.

Is the corporation really that difficult a concept for the average person to understand?

What about insurance?  Everyone is supposed to have it.  Shouldn’t everyone have a vague idea how it works?

Yesterday, I was handed another head-scratcher case.  We never even got to the mediation room.  As I walked from the Courtroom to the mediation room, I read the file.  Turns out that the plaintiff’s car was somehow damaged and the plaintiff filed an insurance claim.  The insurance company contracted with an independent adjuster/appraiser to assess the damage.  For whatever reason, the insurer then denied the claim.  That really isn’t relevant to the story.

Care to take a guess who this person sued?

“The person who caused the damage?” Nope.

“The insurance company?” Too easy.

“The U.S. Government, which is well on it’s way to nationalizing the banking and insurance sectors?“  Guess again.

The plaintiff sued the independent adjuster, because, as the plaintiff put it, “He refuses to fix my car.”  Ninety seconds with the adjuster confirmed that he wasn’t in any way responsible for the damage, wasn’t an employee or representative of the insurer and had no settlement authority.   I didn’t even bother trying to explain this to the plaintiff, who kept telling me, in subtle variations,  “That man won’t fix my car.”  I sent them right back to the Court.

Is insurance such a foreign concept?  Is the concept of “independent contractor” that complex?  Didn’t this person speak with an insurance agent or broker?

Am I that out of touch with what the “average” lay person knows and understands?

Fordham Law Symposium – “Against Settlement”: 25 Years Later.

One of the worst things about being 900 miles from my law school alma mater is that I typically cannot attend the excellent events they hold.   Case-in-point:  Against Settlement: Twenty-Five Years Later. The Fordham Law Review has assembled an impressive roster of well-known professionals from the ADR, complex litigation, and public interest communities to discuss the role of settlement and adjudication in civil litigation, including Owen Fiss, the author of the seminal article Against Settlement, Kenneth Feinberg, and Michael Moffit of ADR Prof Blog, as well as distinguished members of the Fordham faculty and family.

If Lawyers Dump the Billable Hour, Are Mediators Far Behind?

Evan R. Chesler, presiding partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York, recently called for firms to “get rid of the billable hour.”  There have been other similar calls , one notably by noted lawyer/Hollywood author Scott Turow, as well as other obituaries about the death of the billable hour.

If this catches on, can ADR practitioners be far behind?  Should we be looking for alternative billing arrangements? What would they look like?  Plaintiff lawyers have long assumes the risk of a case for a percentage of the outcome, but this would be unethical for a mediator.

Some insurance companies try to get their outside counsel to use flat fee, task based structures,  but is this really realistic for mediation?  A repeat user of mediation might not mind paying $1000 flat fee for a one-hour mediation one week and the same $1000 for a nine-hour case the next, but how would the one-time user feel?

I’d love to hear your ideas.  What would be a fair way to price mediation services other than hourly?

Mediation Naysayers Abound Despite Popularity

The Des Moines Register recently reported that “Iowans, like many Americans, have turned increasingly in the last decade to out-of-court solutions such as arbitration and mediation to resolve civil disputes with less cost and hassle.”

I guess I should be praising the people of Iowa for embracing ADR and mediation as a means to unclog their dockets and negotiate mediated solutions that satisfy their needs and interests, but a few naysayers still want to talk about the so-called negative aspects of ADR.  One expert cites ADR as the reason for the “vanishing trial”, which means fewer precedents to answer legal questions and fewer chances for young lawyers to hone trial skills.”

This type of ridiculous argument unfortunately only reinforces the animosity and distrust between ADR and the law that Diane Levin recently discussed.  Really? Does the court need another “who ran the red light?” soft tissue injury case to establish “precedent”?  Does this attorney really think that a party with a unique set of facts and an issue of first impression is not going to pursue the matter to its fullest?  And maybe things are different in Iowa, but here in Georgia, very few young lawyers without an ADA in front of their name try cases anyway.

I join Diane’s call to the legal community.  Mediation is not your enemy.  Mediation is not going to cause a dearth of legal precedent and the end of the adversarial system. Mediation is a way to flex your problem solving muscle, impress your clients, and simply get things done.

Let’s move past this pettiness and find the common ground.

Is it really “clear”?

The anonymous “NJmediator” writes today,

“Clearly, as a mediator, I cannot believe that legal confrontation will lead to the best outcome, for either party.”

Is it really that clear?  Does being a mediator permanently and mutually exclude you from believing that sometimes, a “legal confrontation” is both necessary and essential to reaching the “best outcome”?

As a mediator, I believe that many (and possibly, the vast majority of) cases could be better resolved by communication, cooperation, and compromise. But I also understand the need for the adversarial legal system. Sometimes a party must fight to protect their legal rights. Sometimes compromise does not satisfy a party’s needs.

I understand njmediator’s sentiment, and it would appear from perusing the site that this opinion stems from njmediator’s family law focus; but I am not certain that I can make that jump that all litigation is bad and all mediation is good.

New Blog – Mediating Certainty

It seems like there is an explosion of new ADR related blogs recently (Zebra Mediator and Enjoy Mediation come to mind).  Over the weekend, John DeGroote informed me about Mediating Certainty, a legal blog published by Keith A. Jones, an attorney and mediator from West Virginia.

I look forward to reading more from these three new blogs.