Like many mediators, I am often asked how many of my cases result in a settlement, as opposed to impasse. The question implies that a successful mediation results in a full settlement of all issues, and that anything less is an impasse, or failure. However, I have found that my clients can get more out of mediation than a settlement or an impasse, if they understand what mediation really is.
A recent blog post defined mediation as “a negotiation process facilitated by a trusted neutral person having no power of decision.” The key word is “negotiation.” Many times, the parties to a mediation tell me they have already negotiated to no avail, meaning they have not reached a settlement. My question to them, then, is two-fold: First, why not? Why were they not able to agree? And then the finger pointing begins. Each side thinks it is going to prevail at trial, or at least do better than what the other side was offering. And that’s where their negotiations ended. My second question is what did you learn during your negotiations? Frequently, the only thing they learned was what the other party was willing to offer. They were focusing on positions and bottom lines. Of course, neither of them told the other what their bottom line really was, for fear of looking weak or giving away the store. Therein lies the benefit of mediation.
Participants in mediation can tell the mediator what their bottom lines are confidentially, without fear of disclosing their weaknesses to the other side. Thus, a mediator can see whether their is an overlap, or exactly how far apart the parties really are. More importantly, the mediator can focus the parties’ attention on issues rather positions. Who should pay how much to whom is certainly one issue, but there are always others. For example:
- court costs and attorney fees
- confidentiality agreements
- in employment cases — future references, non-compete agreements, or eligibility for unemployment compensation
- in franchise and dealership cases — the territory definition, accounting requirements, minimum sales or purchase requirements
The list goes on and is limited only by the parties’ lack of perspective and creativity. This is what the mediator must bring to the negotiation process. By opening up the discussion (and making it just that — a discussion, not merely a back and forth volleying of offers and counteroffers), the mediator can focus on all of the issues that might have to be resolved at trial (or even after trial) if the parties cannot agree on a settlement. Then, at a minimum, the parties might at least narrow the list of issues that might have to be resolved by a court.
I measure success in mediation by what the parties get out of it. Sometimes it is a settlement of all of the issues, and sometimes it is merely a better understanding of the dispute — not just the other side’s position, but the strengths and weaknesses of your own case. Like anything else, you get out of it what you put into it. If you go in looking only to find out what the other side is willing offer, that may be all you get out of it. But if you are looking for a better understanding of the issues and interests involved in the dispute, I have found that you can usually do exactly that. And that is what I call success. If that results in an immediate settlement of all of the issues, so much the better. If not, it will certainly lead to a more informed and satisfactory settlement down the road, or a better prepared presentation of the issues at trial.