Tips for Success in Mediation

Tip for Success in Mediation No. 4 – Using a “Decision Tree” to Calculate Your Monetary Goal in Mediation

Success in Mediation – Using a “Decision Tree” – Introduction

Where the parties’ relationship has ended, and they find themselves embroiled in litigation, negotiations regarding the settlement of their dispute tend to be “distributive” in character. That is, they usually revolve around the issue of how much money is to be paid by the defendant to secure a settlement and release of claims from the plaintiff. In this setting, the parties’ bargaining positions are ostensibly founded on their respective predictions regarding the outcome of the litigation – i.e., who is likely to win/lose, and how much money is likely to be recovered, if any. Stated differently, the parties purport to base their offers and counteroffers on their analysis of the risks and the potential benefits of proceeding to trial.
Of course, to achieve their settlement objectives, it is necessary for attorneys to engage in a good deal of posturing, puffing and bluffing in negotiations. The problem is that many attorneys get carried away by their own rhetoric, and succeed in convincing themselves that there are significant potential benefits, and few risks, associated with carrying forward with the litigation. The result is that they wind up unwilling to make meaningful concessions off what may be characterized as their “best possible day in court.”
It is one thing to undertake to mislead opposing counsel (and even the mediator) regarding one’s settlement objectives. Such efforts are part of the negotiation process in mediation. However, to achieve success in mediation, it is essential that an attorney discipline himself/herself to fairly weigh both the risks and potential benefits of proceeding with the litigation in establishing a settlement goal. One approach to imposing such discipline on oneself is through the use of a “decision tree.” There are three steps in this process.

Success in Mediation – Using a “Decision Tree” – Steps

First Step.

The first step involves gathering information regarding judgments entered in comparable cases in order to establish the probabilities of various outcomes at trial if the mediation does not succeed. The outcomes in question should be for a “loss,” “low recovery,” “mid-range recovery,” and “high recovery.” When added together, the probabilities at these ranges should total 100%.
Although imprecise, information from which to develop such probabilities may be drawn from such sources as the verdicts & settlements section of the local legal journal, interviews of other experienced attorneys, and/or various verdicts summaries. In comparing the instant case with other cases where the outcomes are known, the strength of the evidence of liability, credibility of the witnesses, nature and extent of the damages, and points made by the mediator and opposing counsel should also be considered.

Second Step.

After such outcomes and their probabilities have been established, the second step is to insert them into a “decision tree” graph for the purpose of establishing a preliminary settlement goal for the case that takes into account the risks, as well as the potential benefits, of proceeding to trial.
This is done by multiplying the amount of a particular outcome times its estimated probability to derive the discounted value of that outcome. The discounted values are then added together to calculate a settlement goal.

The plaintiff’s “decision tree.”

An example of a “decision tree” graph that might be developed by a plaintiff attorney seeking success in mediation would be as follows:

High                     $1,120,000       x 15%                    =    $168,000

Mid-Range              $440,000       x 30%                    =    $132,000

Low                         $200,000       x 20%                    =      $40,000

Loss                        -$45,000        x  35%                  =     -$15,750

Settlement Goal: $324,250

The outcomes listed by the plaintiff’s attorney should include the estimated verdict at each range plus the attorneys’ fees and costs that may be recovered, subject to an important caveat. The plaintiff’s attorney should reduce the amount of each outcome by the attorneys’ fees and costs that are projected to be incurred in the future. This is because the potential benefit that portion of the award represents will be offset by the need to invest a corresponding amount of money and attorney time. Moreover, one of the major reasons parties go to mediation is to avoid such litigation expenses.

The defendant’s “decision tree.”

A defense attorney can also use a “decision tree” graph to take into account the risks and potential benefits of proceeding through trial. The defense attorney’s projected outcomes and their associated probabilities are likely to be at variance from those developed by the plaintiff’s attorney for several reasons. First, the development of a “decision tree” graph is an inherently subjective process. Second, a major issue a defense attorney seeking success in mediation will have to address in preparing such a graph is whether he/she is willing to recognize the attorneys’ fees and costs his/her client is inevitably going to incur in defending the action through trial. If he/she is willing to do so, the projected amount of such attorneys’ fees and costs should be added to each of the outcomes. Finally, the defense attorney will have to decide whether he/she is willing to recognize attorneys’ fees that have not yet been incurred by plaintiff’s counsel as a risk in calculating potential outcomes.

Final Step.

The final step in the process is to adjust one’s settlement goal to take into consideration the intangible, non-monetary benefits that may be secured by settlement. These benefits may be the result of a creative problem solving approach that produces means of satisfying some of the interests or needs of the parties without the exchange of money. Even if such an approach is unavailable, bringing an early end to the litigation is a benefit in and of itself. It will usually bring a degree of closure to a negative episode for the plaintiff, and free the defendant to get on with his/her/its business without the burden of litigation and potential of greater liability. These are benefits for which the parties should be willing to make concessions to secure.

Success in Mediation – Using a “Decision Tree” – Conclusion

The use of a “decision tree” does not bring objectivity to the subjective process of formulating a reasonable settlement goal in mediation. The “garbage in/garbage out” principle manifestly applies. However, forcing yourself to go through the foregoing steps will promote success in mediation if you attempt to be honest in estimating the outcomes and probabilities for each range in the graph. At the very least, it should help you reach a conclusion regarding an appropriate settlement goal based on your assessment of the risks and potential benefits of proceeding with the litigation.
Because the process continues to be subjective, your settlement goal should remain flexible. You should be satisfied if you achieve an approximation of your goal. In addition, you should remain open to adjusting your analysis throughout the mediation based on new information and insights. Finally, to achieve success in mediation, you should keep in mind that settlement almost always brings intangible, non-monetary benefits.

Success in Mediation.

Tips for Success in Mediation

Tip for Success in Mediation No. 3 – Selecting the Best Time to Go to Mediation

Many mediators will tell you that it is always a good time to go to mediation.  While there is some truth to that advice, it is also true that some times are better than others if your goal is to achieve success in mediation for your client by maximizing the benefits he/she/it derives from the process.    This is because there are pros and cons associated with going to mediation that vary depending upon the stage of litigation in which you and your client find yourselves.

Success in Mediation – Identifying the pros and cons of mediation.

To say you should attempt to maximize your client’s success in mediation by balancing the pros and cons of mediation at a given point in time obviously begs the question, “Just what are the pros and cons of mediation?”  They are as follows:

Success in Mediation – The pros of mediation:

1. Mediation permits frank communications to transpire between counsel and the parties under the umbrella of confidentiality;
2. Mediation provides counsel an opportunity to informally discover opposing counsel’s arguments and evidence;
3. Mediation can give counsel an opportunity to speak directly to the opposing party without the opposing attorney acting as a filter (e.g., at a joint caucus session);
4. Mediation allows the use of creative, “win/win” approaches to resolve aspects of the parties’ dispute, in addition to the exchange of money, that are unavailable in formal litigation; and
5. If the mediation results in settlement, it can:

(a) bring compensation to plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s counsel;

(b) enable the parties to avoid additional attorneys’ fees and litigation costs;

(c) make it possible for the parties to avoid the burdens and uncertainties of further litigation;

(d) bring the plaintiff closure and an opportunity to get on with his/her life;

(e) allow the preservation of on-going relationships;

(f) avoid the adverse publicity associated with the lawsuit; and

(g) permit counsel to get on with his/her next case.

Success in Mediation – The cons of mediation:

1. The need to “show one’s cards” in mediation.

The ability of a plaintiff attorney  to achieve success in mediation turns in large measure on his/her ability to persuade defense counsel that plaintiff is not only likely to prevail on the merits, but to recover significant damages if the case goes to trial.  Conversely, defense counsel’s ability to achieve success in mediation largely depends on his/her ability to demonstrate that his/her defenses are meritorious, or, at least, that the plaintiff’s recovery is likely to be small relative to the burden and expense of proceeding with litigation.  In both cases, the attorney is unlikely to realize success in mediation without disclosing his/her legal theories and the evidence that support them to the opposing side.

The problem is that attorneys sometimes use mediation, not as a means of resolving the dispute, but rather as a device to obtain discovery regarding how the opposing attorney intends to prove his/her case so as to formulate strategies to defeat that endeavor.  At the very least, going to mediation can result in the loss of the “surprise factor” that sometimes enables an attorney to secure an admission at a deposition (or even at trial).  Thus, attorneys frequently find themselves torn between the desire to achieve an early settlement in mediation and the objective of obtaining the evidence and testimony they need to prove their case.

2.  The problem of “speculating” regarding facts that have yet to be established in discovery.

Disagreements regarding the underlying facts and the testimony witnesses are likely to provide are far more common when a mediation is conducted prior to the taking of significant discovery.  These disagreements make success in mediation far more difficult because each side is applying the law, and analyzing the damages potentially recoverable, upon a different set of assumptions.  Moreover, if an early mediation fails because of such disagreements, it may turn the parties off to the mediation process.

3.  The problem of “dropping the ceiling” or “raising the floor” for future settlement discussions.

Once a party has made a settlement demand or offer, it is generally difficult to raise that demand or lower that offer absent significant developments in the case.  No matter how much time may have lapsed since the parties last engaged in settlement discussions, the opposing attorney will usually express dismay if one assumes a less generous bargaining position at a subsequent round of negotiations.   This means that one of the risks of going to mediation early is that if settlement is not achieved, one’s bargaining position may be compromised.

4.  The “CCP Section 998 trap.”

Sometimes, an attorney’s goal in going to mediation is not to settle the matter, but to discover the highest or lowest offer the opposing party will reject to set up a CCP Section 998 offer that cuts off the opposing side’s ability to recover litigation expenses and/or attorneys’ fees from that point forward in the litigation.  This tactic can be particularly problematic if one has not yet conducted sufficient discovery to be able reasonably evaluate the offer.

Success in Mediation – General propositions regarding when to go to mediation.

Having identified the pros and cons of mediation, the following general propositions may be made as to how they balance out through the life of litigation.

Success in Mediation – Going to mediation prior to litigation.

This is generally one of the better times to go to mediation.  Although all of the “cons” are operative, a huge savings in time, work, money and emotion may be secured if settlement is achieved at this stage.  In addition, plaintiff and defense counsel tend to have a more constructive working relationship prior to litigation which contributes to the prospect of success in mediation.  Finally, one of the major motivating reasons for the defendant to settle – i.e., the desire to avoid the adverse publicity and inconvenience that comes with litigation – remains in effect.

Success in Mediation – Going to mediation immediately after the filing of litigation.

This is not a bad time to go to mediation because of the great benefits that may be achieved by an early resolution of the dispute.  However, very few mediations tend to go forward at this stage because of the desire of counsel  to establish the facts they need to prevail in the litigation through discovery.  This usually entails a preliminary round of written discovery and the taking of the depositions of the most important witnesses.

Success in Mediation – Going to mediation after one’s client has been deposed, but before one has had the opportunity to engage in significant discovery.

This is usually the worst time to go to mediation because it places one at a disadvantage in negotiations.  While the opposing attorney is able to present discovery responses and deposition testimony in support of his/her positions, all one can do in response is speculate regarding the testimony and evidence one is likely to procure by future discovery.  In the process, one enables opposing counsel to make strategic moves to defeat one’s discovery efforts.

Success in Mediation – Going to mediation after both sides have done significant discovery, but before the inevitable summary judgment motion has been decided.

At this point in the litigation, the concerns about showing one’s cards and/or setting up a CCP Section 998 offer are less severe.  However, the goal of the defense attorney to establish a ceiling on plaintiff’s settlement demands in the event the defendant fails to prevail on its summary judgment motion will be fully operative.  No matter how weak defense counsel’s threatened summary judgment motions may be, defense counsel will almost always be willing to pay less in settlement of plaintiff’s claims at this stage than after the summary judgment motion has been brought and lost.

Whether this is a good time for plaintiff to go to mediation substantially turns on the likelihood that some of plaintiff’s key causes of action may be knocked out by way of the summary judgment motion.  Other considerations that may motivate plaintiff to go to mediation at this stage include a desire to avoid the burden and expense of opposing the summary judgment motion, securing expert witnesses, and taking the necessary steps to prepare the case for trial.

Success in Mediation – Going to mediation after the summary judgment motion has been decided but before all the preparations for trial have been completed.

Assuming some of plaintiff’s best causes of action have survived the summary judgment motion, this is generally an ideal time for the plaintiff to go to mediation to maximize the settlement value of the case without exposing the plaintiff to the risks, burdens and expenses of trial.   The “cons” of mediation are of minimal significance, while the uncertainties, burdens and expenses of trial loom large for both sides.

The downside for the defendant in going to mediation at this stage is that the plaintiff may be “pumped” by having survived the summary judgment motion, which may mean nothing more than that the judge found that triable issues of fact exist.

Success in Mediation – Going to mediation after the commencement of trial.

The possibility of achieving success in mediation continues to exist following the commencement of trial, and counsel should be open to resolving the case through mediation at that stage.  However, it is generally much more difficult to resolve a case by mediation during the course of trial for a number of reasons.  First, having taken the case that far, the parties often desire to have their “day in court.”  Second, because of the demands of the trial process, the parties have little time to devote to mediation.  Finally, most of the burdens and expenses of the litigation have already been incurred.

Success in Mediation – Going to mediation during the pendency of post-trial motions and appeals.

This is another good time to resolve the case by mediation.  At this stage, the uncertainty of what the jury is likely to do has been eliminated.  However, the unanswered questions of how the judge is likely to resolve the post-trial motions, and how the appellate court is likely to decide the issues submitted to it on appeal, remain as substantial motivations for both sides to settle.

The foregoing are but general propositions regarding the best times to go to mediation.   The particular circumstances in which counsel finds himself/herself may alter them.  Thus, to achieve success in mediation, one should always do a careful analysis of how the pros and cons of mediation balance against each other at any given point in the litigation process.

When You are in Mediation, You are Negotiating

Mediation is a problem solving process that is confidential. Success depends on both parties being able to communicate openly. The parties cannot use information gained in mediation in later litigation, so the answer is “No. …

Publish Date: 08/30/2010 9:35

http://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/?p=3769

Solicitors Firm » Blog Archive » Dispute Resolution in the Middle East

In particular, international companies familiar with the additional costs and time incurred in proceeding to arbitration or other legal processes are moving towards mediation as a viable option. The success of mediation does, however, …

Publish Date: 08/31/2010 5:17

http://www.solicitorsfirm.com/dispute-resolution-in-the-middle-east/

Powell Tribune – Mediation efforts begin at NWC

Elements of success. For the mediation to be successful, Young said, “First and foremost, everyone needs to be at the table and to be honest about what’s on their minds — what’s really on their minds,” she said. …

Publish Date: 08/17/2010 2:52

http://powelltribune.com/index.php/content/view/3608/58/

Success in Mediation.

Tips for Success in Mediation

Tip for Success in Mediation No. 2 – Preparing Your Client to Speak to His/Her Emotional Distress

In cases involving allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, assault, battery, insurance bad faith, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), the emotional distress component of the damage claim is frequently far greater than the claim for economic damages.  Moreover, the amount that may be recovered for emotional distress often turns on how good a job the client does of explaining the nature, extent and causes of the emotional distress he/she has experienced.

Thus, it is surprising how little thought many plaintiff attorneys interested in achieving success in mediation give to preparing their client to speak to the issue of emotional distress.  Indeed, many plaintiff attorneys will simply invite their client to explain the negative emotions he/she suffered in his/her “own words” with no prior preparation whatsoever.  This is not how to achieve success in mediation!  A plaintiff attorney should rather counsel his/her client to observe the following points in addressing the issue of emotional distress.

Success in Mediation – First Point – Avoid reciting all the underlying facts.

Left to his/her own devices, when asked to explain his/her emotional distress, the typical plaintiff will launch into a recitation of all the underlying facts in the case with the belief that anyone hearing those facts will be appalled and conclude that the plaintiff must have experienced overwhelming and debilitating emotional distress.  In actual practice, what the plaintiff usually succeeds in doing with such a presentation is putting the listener to sleep. Having just heard his/her attorney explain those very same facts, the listener will usually find the plaintiff’s repetitious presentation of those facts to be boring and a waste of time.

A plaintiff attorney seeking success in mediation should, accordingly, counsel his/her client to limit any discussion of the underlying facts to that necessary to explain causation and/or place the client’s emotional reactions in context.

Success in Mediation – Second Point – Focus on the symptoms of emotional distress actually experienced.

Upon being told to limit his/her discussion of the operative facts, the plaintiff may express bewilderment as to how to go about explaining his/her emotional distress.  To achieve success in mediation, the plaintiff attorney should advise his/her client that the way to proceed is by focusing instead on key words that correlate with the symptoms of emotional distress the plaintiff actually experienced.  A mnemonic device the plaintiff attorney may wish to use in reviewing the possible symptoms the plaintiff experienced is “SCREW SELF.”  The letters in this device represent the emotions, feelings and symptoms psychologists frequently look for in diagnosing mental disorders.  The letters stand for the following:

S – Sadness

C – Concentration (loss of)

R – Restlessness

E – Eating (loss or gain of more than 10% of body weight)

W – Worthlessness

+

S – Sleep (the inability to get to sleep or stay asleep, or the use of sleep as a refuge)

E – Ending life (suicidal ideation)

L – Loss of interest in activities that formerly brought joy

F – Fatigue

Other descriptive words that the plaintiff attorney may also wish to review with his/her client include: fear, panic, anxiety, humiliation, betrayal, loss (e.g., of identity, status, security, friendships, etc.), confusion and abandonment.

The reason it is important to focus on these key words is that they encapsulate an emotion or symptom and provide the plaintiff a jumping off point for use in explaining his/her emotional distress.  They also tend to draw out of the plaintiff the very emotions they describe so that those listening to the presentation can witness the emotions being experienced first hand.

It should be emphasized to the plaintiff, however, that he/she should only use those key words that accurately describe the emotions and symptoms he/she actually experienced, and that to falsify or embellish his/her symptoms will undermine his/her credibility and success in mediation.  This is because people are very good at detecting malingering from a person’s body language and speech patterns, and react very negatively if they perceive it.

Success in Mediation – Third Point – Refrain from speaking to unattractive emotions.

The emotions of anger, hatred and contempt may also have been engendered by the alleged conduct of the defendant.   The problem is that these emotions present the plaintiff in a less than flattering light.  Stated differently, a jury is far more likely to make a large award of emotional distress damages to a plaintiff it perceives as a victim than one it views as a crusader for vengeance.  Moreover, in a mediation context, expressions of such emotions by the plaintiff can be dysfunctional because they can render the defendant resistant to settlement. As such, a plaintiff attorney should counsel his/her client that success in mediation is more likely to be achieved if the client refrains from speaking to these unattractive emotions.

This is not to say that the emotions of anger or outrage are of no importance to the value of a plaintiff’s emotional distress claim.  If a jury can be made to experience those emotions toward the defendant, they are of tremendous importance.  However, it is the role of counsel, not the plaintiff, to speak to those emotions.  In mediation, the plaintiff attorney should not go on the attack, but rather politely explain how he/she intends to elicit such emotions from the jury.

Success in Mediation – Fourth Point – Do not over-rehearse the presentation.

Emotion tends to be a spontaneous phenomenon.  The more one practices or rehearses a presentation, the more emotion tends to be lost.  Accordingly, the best way for a plaintiff attorney to prepare his/her client for success in mediation is to work with the client to select the five or six key words that best describe the client’s condition and to be prepared to give examples of where, when and how those emotions were experienced.  The client should also be advised to simply focus on communicating his/her emotions and to refrain from acting.  If the client does so, the emotions he/she experienced are far more likely to flow.

Success in Mediation – Final Point – Keep the presentation short.

Many plaintiffs become preoccupied with the notion of “completeness” in explaining their emotional distress, and will drone on for an extended period in pursuit of that goal.  The plaintiff attorney should make clear to his/her client that the objective is to make a compelling presentation, not to cover every single instance where the plaintiff experienced a negative feeling.  The plaintiff should also be told that the attention span of his/her audience will be limited, and that it will be difficult for him/her to maintain an intense emotional state for more than a matter of minutes.  This means that to achieve success in mediation, the plaintiff should be told to limit any presentation regarding his/her emotions to approximately ten minutes.

The foregoing points are important not only to the plaintiff’s success in mediation, but to his/her success at his/her deposition, forensic mental examinations, and at trial.  If the plaintiff proves unable or unwilling to observe them, the plaintiff attorney should give due consideration to how that fact impacts the settlement value of the case.

Daily scoreboard « Don Surber

… to produce a framework for a permanent peace deal and to hold a second round of direct talks this month, modest achievements reached under U.S. mediation amid deep skepticism about success at their first such session in two years.” …

Publish Date: 09/02/2010 14:00

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/20408

North West Mediation Solutions: Fresh start for Kevin Pietersen???!!!

… dispute resolution (ADR) procedures work well in most forms of litigation, and our experience is that more than 80% of cases settle at mediation, and there is no reason why defamation proceedings should not reflect that success. …

Publish Date: 09/02/2010 4:32

http://www.nwmediationsolutions.co.uk/2010/09/fresh-start-for-kevin-pietersen/

By HCMediation at 09/02/2010 11:48

Success in Mediation.

Tips for Success in Mediation

Tip for Success in Mediation No. 1 – Key Questions from the Mediator You Should Anticipate

To achieve success in mediation, you should anticipate needing to respond in caucus sessions to some variation of the following five questions from the mediator, which are designed to focus your, and your client’s, attention on the issues crucial to the settlement of the case:

Success in Mediation- First Question – What are the strengths of your case?

This is a great question with which to start off a caucus session because it goes to the heart of what the attorney interested in achieving success in mediation wants to communicate to the mediator.

A good mediator will listen attentively to what is being said in response to this question in order to be able to use of the information in his/her meetings with the opposing side.

Some attorneys make it a practice to hold back information during the initial caucus sessions so as to be able to dole it out during the course of the mediation. This practice undermines the prospect of success in mediation, as it is best to have the mediator armed with the information he/she needs, when he/she needs it, in the caucuses with the opposing party and its counsel.

Success in Mediation – Second Question – What are the weaknesses of your case?

It is amazing how few attorneys come to a mediation prepared to answer this question, and when it is asked, it is as though they had been hit by a bolt of lightning. They have usually come prepared to do battle with the mediator as he/she points out the weaknesses of their positions, not volunteer unfavorable information. There is rarely a case without some weaknesses, and the mediator probably already has a good idea of where they lie in one’s case.

As such, to achieve success in mediation, it is best to identify the weaknesses in your case to the mediator in order to enhance your credibility and authority. In doing so, you may wish to provide an explanation as to how you intend to confront and overcome these weaknesses in the litigation. The prior concession regarding the weakness serves to strengthen the power of this presentation.

Success in Mediation – Third Question – What do you think the opposing side is willing to do at the end of the day?

This question causes one to begin considering what is really achievable by way of the mediation process (i.e., what you should regard as “success in mediation”).

If you perceive the objectives of the opposing side as totally beyond the range of what is possible, the question arises as to why you bothered to participate in the mediation. The question also serves to place the reasonableness of your demands and offers in context.

Does it really make sense, for instance, for a plaintiffs’ attorney to make a seven figure demand if he/she believes the defendant is unlikely to settle for an amount in excess of the low five figures at the end of the day?

Conversely, what is the point of a defense attorney making a four figure offer if he/she believes the plaintiff is unlikely to settle anywhere in the six figures?

Success in Mediation – Fourth Question – What will happen if we fail to reach an agreement?

This question goes to the concept that mediators sometimes refer to by the acronym “BATNA,” which stands for the “best alternative to negotiated agreement.” The point of the inquiry is to draw the attention of the attorney and his/her client to the downside risks of non-agreement. The emphasis is more on what is to be lost if a settlement is not achieved, than on what is to be gained by reaching an agreement. In a litigated dispute, what is to be lost often pertains to the burden, expense and hardship associated with having to carry forward with the litigation. In any case, when considered in this light, the concept of “success in mediation” substantially becomes the avoidance of the adverse consequences of non-agreement.

Success in Mediation – Fifth Question – What do you regard as a fair settlement?

The best mediators actually tend to avoid directly asking this question because they know that once the attorney articulates a settlement goal, it will be harder to get him/her off that number.

Moreover, the predictability of the distributive bargaining process is such that it is usually relatively easy for an experienced mediator to calculate the range in which a party’s settlement goal falls.

Nonetheless, the attorney striving for success in mediation should expect the mediator to engage him/her in a significant amount of discourse around the edges of this question. In responding to inquiries in this area, it is best to give signals to the mediator that your goals are slightly more aggressive than is actually the case, while still leaving him/her guessing. Then, when the mediator and opposing party pull you down to your approximate goal, you can smile to yourself knowing you truly did achieve success in mediation.

How Long Will My Case Take? – jeremywire's blog

08/28/2010 … The chief factor determining the success of settlement negotiations is the amount the injured party will accept in compensation, and the amount the defendant will pay. No settlement occurs unless and until those two figures converge. … In most jurisdictions, even routine auto accident claims require a minimum of six to nine months in order to complete the required discovery process and get the case to a mediation conference. The vast majority of lawsuits …

Publish Date: 08/27/2010 23:52

http://susanboyy.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/how-long-will-my-case-take.html

LAWSUIT MEDIATION, THE REAL STORY | Katy's Exposure

Your lawyer tells you that you need to go over a few things before mediation. You know, sit up straight, don’t talk too much, be respectful, then…you get it, the first tidbit of trite: You will be told that if mediation is successful …. Photos of Mold in Apartment · Idiots in Louisiana Auctioning (Livingston-based Henderson Auctions) 400 FEMA Trailers bought from the U.S. General Services Administration & The Advocate – WBRZ News 2 is there & mentions absolutely nothing …

Publish Date: 08/19/2010 14:27

http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/lawsuit-mediation-the-real-story/

'Mediation Fails – The Fight is Off' – What can mediation deliver …

What I like about this story is that it calls into question our notion of success and failure in mediation. There are many views on what constitutes a successful or a failed mediation. Some musings on the subject follow. …

Publish Date: 02/08/2010 2:15

http://cmpresolutions.co.uk/2010/02/%E2%80%98mediation-fails-%E2%80%93-the-fight-is-off%E2%80%99-%E2%80%93-what-can-mediation-deliver/

By radixextreme at 08/28/2010 9:03