781.708.4445

info@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

DIVORCE MEDIATION: WHAT’S A LAWYER TO DO? Part 3 (Lawyer-Attended Mediation)

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Lawyers who are representing clients in divorce mediation, sometimes for the first time, ask divorce mediators: what are we supposed to do? We introduced this subject in our last two entries, including specific attention to lawyer-assisted mediations (where one or both parties have consulting counsel who do not attend mediation sessions) in Part 2.

Here, we discuss the role of counsel in lawyer-attended mediation. A lawyer-attended mediation is one in which clients have counsel with whom to both consult before and after divorce or other family law mediation sessions, but who also attend the divorce mediation sessions with them. In addition to fulfilling the traditional roles as educator, and counselor (as considered and described in Part 2), these lawyers also play a direct role as negotiator for the client. But how is this role different in lawyer-attended mediations, as compared with litigation or traditional lawyer-led negotiations?

First, despite counsel’s presence, divorce mediation is intended to be a client-centered process. Knowing, voluntary deals with which both parties can live remain the goal, and attending counsel must acknowledge this critical focus. Hard advocacy for extreme positions or distinct one-party advantage is out-of-place and counter-productive.

Second, counsel attends to be supportive and encouraging of the client’s self-expression, as part of a collaborative team with the client. The concept of a client remaining silent while his or her advocate articulates a sophisticated and perhaps polarizing position on his or her behalf is inconsistent with the parties’ intention to speak, as indicated by the choice of mediation. Counsel need not be mute, but the lawyer-attended mediation that works best is one where lawyer and client negotiate a balance in speaking roles, supporting and reinforcing each other. The client needs to “be heard” in mediation, and develop a rapport with the divorce mediator, a process that is stunted by consistent silence. Technical competence and subject matter expertise will guide counsel nicely is determining how much or how little he or she ought to be heard. The lawyer’s support, emphasis and correction are invaluable, critical to the client’s comfort and essential to the mediator’s understanding of facts and interests.

Third, counsel needs to resist the temptation to use loaded words and phrases, especially when working in joint session. Language that promotes hardened positions, and harder feelings, is inconsistent with the search for common ground. Divorce Mediation is not meant to be a different forum for litigation: it is a new place for a different kind of discourse. There will be plenty of time and opportunity for personalized advocacy if the mediation fails; but its presence in the mediation room will only hasten that day, with one more painful failure in the parties’ memory bank.

Fourth, compromise is the order of the day. Family law matters are rarely zero sum. The search for openings, trade-offs and pie – expanders is dynamic. It is encouraged by candor, and it is undermined by rigidity. Divorce counsel needs to support the client in critical listening to the other party, to his/her lawyer and to the mediator; and to maintaining an open mind. Far more often than not, reasoned compromise will solve the matter if the parties stay flexible and open.

Fifth, patience is more than a virtue. Divorce mediation does not succeed without it. The process requires confidence building, across and around the table. This is often the parties’ first opportunity for open communications, shielded by confidentiality, and bounded by reasonable etiquette. When the parties feel comfortable, confident in the divorce mediator’s impartiality, knowledge, judgment and “people skills”, and convinced that the opposing party and counsel are serious negotiating partners, real negotiations ensue. Impatience – cutting to the chase so to speak – can subvert this process fatally.

Sixth, counsel needs to be frank with his or her client. Cost-effectiveness and “BATNA” reminders when timely made are critical. In other words, “If we don’t make a deal here, court will cost $X and the likely outcome will be Y.” Without this context, the client lacks true parameters. Stepping back and examining the actual dollars at issue in a particular aspect of the negotiation often reveals that it is just not worth the fight.

Finally, the divorce lawyer needs to realistically assess the client’s true bottom line. Simply saying “no”, or labeling a truly last and best offer for what it is, after allowing the process to work reasonably, is part of every lawyer’s job: no less so in mediation. The process is purely voluntary, and a client deserves counsel’s absolute candor when he or she feels that the process is spent.

 

DIVORCE MEDIATION: WHAT’S A LAWYER TO DO? Part 1 (Introduction)

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

Lawyers who are representing clients in divorce mediation sometimes ask us: what are we supposed to do? It is an important subject matter, and one of interest to the bar, as evidenced by the inquiries that we have received.

It is entirely understandable for divorce lawyers to question their role in this process because lawyers are taught from the day they enter law school (and from exposure to our culture long before) that lawyers are required to provide zealous representation for all clients, divorce and family law parties included. This notion is embodied in many codes of ethical conduct and it denotes fighting for one’s “rights”, or less dramatically, working to get the best possible outcome for the client.

Yet, divorce mediation and other family law mediation matters, are not geared to getting the best possible result for either party; but one which both understand fully, and one with which they both can live, while doing as little damage as possible to the functional relationship of the parties (in some cases improving it perhaps) and minimizing the damage to their collective finances. In some cases, we even find ways to “expand the pie” and find a beneficial outcome for both parties.

So, how is a lawyer working with a client who is not looking for zealous advocacy and actively does not want it, supposed to function? In the next two entries we will discuss this question in two contexts: the lawyer assisted-mediation and the lawyer-attended mediation. (In earlier entries, we discussed this distinction at some length, and we invite you to review those pieces, too.)

 

What is good about mediating with lawyers present?

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

In a previous blog entry, we addressed the converse question to this one. Mediating with lawyers present is the predominant model outside of family law; and for family law outside of Massachusetts, it is far more common than the opposite. Despite the fact that most domestic relations mediation in this state proceeds without lawyers present, there are a number of good reasons why lawyers “in the room” can be advantageous. Inside or out, we always encourage a relationship with counsel throughout the mediation process.

The positive aspects of direct, present legal representation during mediation sessions that we will discuss here are that mediation with lawyers presents offers a quicker process, provides immediate opportunity for input on technical and strategic questions and one in which some clients feel more “supported”.

The reason that lawyer-attended mediation may be speedier than the alternative is that sessions tend to be scheduled for longer durations, such as half or whole day of time (as compared to roughly two-hour sessions spaced a week or more apart). The process is more intensive, intently focused and dependent as much or more on communications of counsel than on those of the parties themselves. Many cases that otherwise might involve several events resolve in one or two sessions, when lawyers participate directly.

The lawyers’ presence at mediation often occurs in a “caucus” style format. Clients have significant time alone with their lawyers to discuss questions about law, potential outcomes in court and strategy. Even when the mediation proceeds with everyone in the same room, there is time allotted for “breakout” sessions with counsel. That is one reason why we have multiple conference rooms. For some clients, this is ready access is preferable to consultation with counsel between sessions.

Finally, for some clients who do not wish to litigate, but do not feel entirely comfortable advocating for themselves, there is comfort in having a lawyer attend the mediation and speak principally for the client. Such a party might find mediation without counsel present to feel too personally confrontational; and other clients simply feel that the process is not “protective” enough without the active involvement of lawyers. Confidence in the capacity for effective communication is important.

For those people for whom the foregoing benefits outweigh those that we discussed in the earlier posting might want to consider a lawyer-attended mediation.

 



Get e-mail notifications of new blog posts! Enter email address below.:



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

divorce mediators lawyers arbitration Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly health insurance divorce mediator disputes family and probate law disputes Matrimonial Arbitration how baseball arbitration works resolve disputes med/arb annulment Same Sex Marriage traditional negotiations divorce process Family Law Arbitration alimony law Cohabitation family mediation lawyer Massachusetts alimony divorce lawyers alimony reform legislation litigation rehabilitative alimony family law arbitrator General term alimony private dispute resolution mediation support orders Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act Obamacare Massachusetts lawyers divorce arbitration Massachusetts divorce lawyers family support divorce litigation alimony statute alimony health coverage Baseball Players Defense of Marriage Act Boston lawyer-attended mediation LDRC Massachusetts Massachusetts divorce mediators Major League Baseball Arbitration DOMA Alimony Reform Act Baseball high-risk methodology MLB labor agreement self-adjusting alimony mediators Levine Dispute Resolution facilitated negotiations IRC §2704 Chouteau Levine Divorce Levine Dispute Resolutions SJC divorce judgment Divorce Agreements Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth mediations divorce arbitrator fraud divorced Levine Dispute Resolution Center dispute resolution Self-adjusting alimony orders Baseball Arbitration family law divorce and family law mediators Uniform Arbitration Act COLA divorce arbitrators med-arb medical benefits arbitrator separation divorce agreement divorce and family law conciliation family law arbitrators mediator arbitrators divorce mediation divorce mediations child support Levine Dispute Resolution Center LLC pre-ARA alimony special master Massachusetts alimony and child support Child Support Guidelines family law mediation The Seven Sins of Alimony alimony orders