|
|
|
|
Preparation
Emphasizes What Clients Don't Want To Hear Introduction What are
the toughest issues attorneys face in the relationship with their
clients in the negotiation and mediation environment? The preliminary
question: to mediate or not? Preparing the client for mediation;
Preparing the client to withstand the perils of the joint session;
and, How preparing the client for the tough issues benefits both
the attorney and client. This is
the second in a series of articles. It is largely the product
of interviews with more than two dozen attorneys who have candidly
shared their experiences and collective enormous expertise in
successfully resolving their clients’ disputes in mediation.
The attorneys interviewed range from sole practitioners to those
in national firms; representing individuals to Fortune 500 companies,
government agencies and insurance carriers. The article is usually
a paraphrase of the attorneys’ comments, with the desire to capture
the intensity and level of conviction in their approaches to
successfully representing clients in a way that preserves the
attorney-client relationship, and also addresses the question “What
is in the client’s best interests?” These attorneys provided
so much valuable insight on this and related issues, that to
be more easily readable, the information is presented in several
articles. The final article in this series discusses the following:
What special issues face big businesses, government entities,
insurance carriers and their defense counsel that impact plaintiffs’ counsel,
and how do each prepare for these unique issues? When do attorneys
inform their clients in writing of the status of the case and
how much do the attorneys tell the clients. Preliminary
Question: To Mediate Or Not? There is
a preliminary critical question to answer which can save a lot
of time and money: “To go to mediation or not?” For the defendant,
going to mediation means paying. For the plaintiff, going means
giving up some of the claim. There is no ability to mediate in
good faith unless the client is willing to compromise. The attorney’s
challenge is twofold: moving his client to reality
by having him face the costs and risks of litigation and exploring
with his client the benefit of compromise. One attorney reminds the
client not to expect to hit a home run in a mediation. He also points out that successful mediations
are the product of a compromise solution, encouraging the client
to have an open mind going into the process. Don’t go to mediation if
your client is not willing to give up something, perhaps to give
up a lot.
Preparing the Client for Mediation Preparation
for mediation is everything. Counsel prepare effectively for
trial; counsel must prepare just as effectively for mediation.
Though mediation is a less formal process than trial, this does
not mean counsel can prepare any less for mediation. The mediator
can ask very probing questions of the attorney and the client. How
the mediator assesses the answers to those questions will, consciously
or subconsciously, influence the neutral mediator and his evaluation.
Prepare the client for everything and anything. Surprises for
the client at the mediation can undermine the client’s confidence
in the attorney, the mediator, and the mediation process. On
the other hand, thorough preparation can validate the attorney
and enhance the client’s confidence in the attorney, the mediator
and the mediation process. It
is critical to inform the client about what to expect during
mediation - from
the attorneys, the other parties and the mediator. The attorney
must know what the client’s needs are, what the client’s agenda
is, at the latest, while preparing the client for mediation. Yet,
preparing the client for mediation may require more strategies
than trial. Preparing the client for direct and cross examination
in trial is different than preparing the client for the unexpected
questions that may come from the mediator and questions the mediator
may carry back from the other party during caucus. Explain to your client
that though the mediator is neutral, his role is ultimately to
facilitate putting together a deal. He will ask hard questions
about the critical issues and push the client to talk about those
issues. The client should be prepared to address such questions
as, “How do you think the jury will evaluate this issue? the
case?” Prepare your
client for all the follow up questions from the mediator should
your client not respond realistically. Have positions on all
issues thoroughly thought out. Know what
the client’s bottom line is. And what the real bottom line is.
Know how to get there and assist the client in an objective assessment
of damages. These can be very tough issues for the client, and
tough even for the attorney to raise with the client. Other attorneys
prefer to have the mediator raise the most probing issues with
the client. Preparing
The Client To Withstand The Perils Of The Joint Session The mediation
is the client’s single opportunity to give a free-wheeling account
of his position and to be heard. Therefore, preparation must
be effective, and not limited to simply advising the client
to tell the facts of the claim. There are too many opportunities
to fumble, and as one attorney has stated “once the tooth paste
is out of the tube, it’s hard to put it back.” The more counsel
is committed to resolving the dispute, the more counsel must
be committed to having the client speak in the joint session.
For the defendant, it may be very important that there be a comment
of contrition, a mea culpa, “I’m very sorry this happened
. . .” In a complicated
case, the client has to be prepared to tell the story, tell it
well, and tell it with conviction. If this is done in joint session,
it can carry impact to the opposing counsel and party. If told
only in caucus/private session, with the client looking the mediator
straight in the eye, and communicated persuasively, one attorney
believes the mediator may make a subconscious value judgment. Other
attorneys, however, strongly believe there are clients who are
better off not speaking in the joint session. Explaining
to the client what to expect at every point along the way provides
comfort to the client. Point out what to expect in the joint
session, the caucuses/private sessions, and from the mediator,
opposing counsel and opposing party. Indicate what the opposing
counsel is likely to say on each issue of fact and law. Explain
how it will sound to your client. Explain in as much detail as
possible how it may feel to your client; a general discussion
with the client will have little benefit or impact. During the
mediation, when these issues are brought up by the opposing counsel
or the mediator, it will not be a surprise or shock to the client. The
more thoroughly informed and prepared the client, the more the
client will have confidence in his attorney, the process and
the mediator. Preparation will ultimately help counsel do what
may be in the client’s best interest, i.e, advise or encourage
the client to resolve the dispute. Adequate preparation can also
alert counsel as to the point in the mediation when the client
reaches his limit; when the benefit to the client of going to
trial exceeds the maximum possible benefit of a negotiated settlement.
This is the point at which some attorneys will stop pushing their
client toward settlement. How Preparing
The Client For The Tough Issues Benefits Both The Attorney
and Client It is particularly
helpful to discuss all of those things the client especially
does not want to hear. Issues such as the weaknesses in the client’s
case, the strengths in the opposition’s case, the costs of going
through trial, both in monetary and emotional terms, and the
risks. The client likely does not want to hear about these issues
or to deal with them. And this may cause just a little tension
between the attorney and client. However when the client
hears the opposing counsel bring up these points during the joint
session, the client will not be taken by surprise and think his
attorney has failed him. When the mediator asks probing questions
of the attorney or the client during caucus/private session,
the client will recognize the issue, hopefully have some level
of comfort in discussing it, deal with it, and since the neutral
mediator has brought it up, begin to understand the need to look
at the issues realistically. One attorney
believes that, most importantly, when the mediator brings up
these difficult questions for which the client is prepared, the
conscious and subconscious impact is for the client to have more
confidence in his attorney, the process and the mediation. The
attorney is validated. Imagine if the opposite were to happen.
If the client were to hear something of consequence for the first
time from the mediator, it could completely undermine the client’s
confidence in his attorney. Goodby client. Additionally,
the building of confidence in the attorney, mediator and the
process may expedite the settlement. If the client does not have
confidence in his attorney or the mediator, every issue becomes
a big issue; every counter offer becomes a major decision that
can take an inordinate amount of time. The well-prepared client
is able to make decisions more comfortably and more quickly. When the client has confidence
in his attorney, especially at the end game when the client is
pushed to make the hard decision (i.e., to give up more than he
was prepared to give up), the client is more likely to accept
his attorney’s recommendation. (What will that recommendation
be? What truly is
in the client’s best interest?) The mediation
process is all about compromise. Some parties in mediation expect
to get 100% or more (including attorney’s fees, expert’s fees
and interest) of their claim, and others expect to pay nothing.
If the client expects to avoid compromising, what hasn’t happened
between the attorney and client prior to the mediation? Some
attorneys remind the client what the financial cost will be in
going through trial. They remind the client what the emotional
cost will be, the days the client will be involved helping the
attorney prepare for depositions, participating at depositions,
preparing for trial, and spending days in the courtroom during
trial. Additionally,
remind the client that on all the days in between he will be
thinking about all the issues, the impact on his personal life
and work or business, and loss of future business. And
the complete uncertainty of trial. And the certainty of a settlement,
and the elimination of risk of trial and additional costs and
fees and emotional drain. Always
remind the client of these painful realities. Always gently. According
to one attorney, if the client has been thoroughly prepared for
the mediation, the attorney should be comfortable to “keep his
mouth shut” during the joint session and caucuses/private sessions. The
client has to feel that he has been able to tell his entire story,
so he can accept the negotiated result. If the case does not
settle, the client may feel he did not have the opportunity to
tell his side of the story. Acknowledgment Thanks to
the attorneys who gave so generously in candidly sharing their
valuable experience with me. I wish the readers could have been
on the phone with me during the interviews for the sometimes
very exciting inside look into the strategies of some terrific
lawyers. I apologize to the attorneys who I work with who I did
not interview. Candidly, after a certain number of interviews,
obvious similarities emerged which avoided the necessity of additional
interviews. And to those attorneys who have not yet read the
issues discussed in their interview, be patient, the best is
yet to come. [1] Copyright 2002
CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution, 366 Madison Avenue, New York,
NY 10017-3122; 212-949-6490. Reprinted with permission from the
April 2002, issue of Alternatiaves, a monthly newsletter published
by the CPR Institute, a nonprofit initiative of general counsel
of major corporations, leading law firms and prominent legal academics
whose mission is to install alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
into the mainstream of legal practice.
Paul Fisher has resolved many hundreds of disputes as Mediator since 1986, and has heard hundreds of cases as Arbitrator since 1978. Paul has been a full time mediator since 1991. From 1971 until 1991, he was in a litigation practice. He is an adjunct professor of law at the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine School of Law. In 2001 Paul was named to the Distinguished Panel of Neutrals of New York's CPR International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution. In 2002 he received the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Award for Case of the Year. In 2006 Paul was a discussion leader at the Harvard - International Academy of Mediators conference. Paul is a nationally published author, and frequent speaker. He has been selected as a 2007, 2008 and 2009 Southern California Super Lawyer in the area of dispute resolution.
|