You’re ready for your remote video mediation. Everyone has the latest version of the technology and knows how to join. You rehearsed with your client; maybe you did a practice session with the mediator. You submitted the mediation confidentiality form and contact form. Now you can concentrate on the facts and the law.
Wait–What about the Interpreter?
At the beginning of every remote mediation, I confirm that everyone present has signed off on the confidentiality agreement. Yet, sometimes, against all the rules, someone else is there. Often, it’s a family member who is “just there to interpret.”
It’s inconvenient, but perhaps not a major issue. Just as would happen with an in-person mediation, someone who does have a role in the mediation can execute the confidentiality acknowledgement at the last minute. But some family members refuse documented participation in any court proceeding. Sometimes the party lacks the technology to return a signed document immediately.
Usually, the attorney can interpret for the client. Of course, the attorney is bound by confidentiality rules, but this arrangement often omits a few steps.
Get the Client What the Client Needs
An English language confidentiality agreement executed by a party who clearly needs an interpreter raises questions. Did the client sign a document without understanding it? If the attorney or a family member interpreted, that should be documented within the agreement. The person who interpreted should be a signatory, e.g.,
I translated this document and read it to Plaintiff in Spanish:___________________________________
The Settlement Agreement
Attorneys on both sides of the conflict should be concerned about the validity of an English-language settlement agreement when one or more signatories are not fluent in English. Nobody wants to be in in court after the fact because someone is contesting the agreement. The document should be read to the non-English speaker, and the interpreter needs to disclose and sign off on the settlement document. Ideally, lawyers will also provide a written translation of the document. Google Translate can create it quickly, but not necessarily with 100% accuracy.
Translating to Everyday English
You may think all the mediation participants are speaking English, but you have failed to realize that at least some of you are speaking a foreign language. The most common foreign language used in mediation is Lawyer, and Adjuster is also common. In some mediations, everyone except the claimant is speaking Insurance, but no one has thought to provide a translation.
While the professionals in the room are speaking one of these languages, the clients are often mystified, simply trusting that their counsel is looking out for them. Sometimes, though, a client’s inability to understand becomes apparent near the end of the day.
I have heard of mediations where, when it was all over, the client asked, “What just happened?” In one of my mediations, as the attorneys were finalizing the details of the settlement, the claimant asked me how a particular issue was being resolved—an issue that hadn’t been addressed at all. I had to make sure the attorneys addressed this concern with the claimant and each other.
Professionals who use jargon regularly can easily forget that people outside their closed community don’t understand what the professionals are talking about. Just as you would provide an interpreter to translate an international language, make sure everyone understands what is being said in the languages of Lawyer, Adjuster or Insurance.
Mediate all day
Oh, what fun it is to see
The disputes go away
Make nice, it’s Christmas time
Or Hanukkah or Kwanzaa time
Remember this smart rhyme
A way to bring folks peace
Your settlement agreement
Will be a masterpiece
Do you know about the business interruption insurance coverage test case in progress in the United Kingdom? To create some consistency and avoid a litigation morass, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has brought a test case, something like a declaratory judgment. The FCA regulates the UK financial services industry. Their work includes protecting consumers, stabilizing the financial services industry and promoting competition. Eight insurers have agreed to be bound by the test case decision. Some of those defendants, such as Zurich, Arch, and Royal & Sun Alliance, also do business in the United States. Also bound will be their managing agents and sales brokers and agents. Issues to be considered include what constitutes “property damage” under the policy and the effect of a pollution exclusion, the same issues coming up in lawsuits in the United States.
The outcome will be binding in the UK, but why should United States insurance professionals care?
Lately we have seen a stunning lack of empathy in our country. On the same day as a county announced that COVID-19 had become the county’s leading cause of death, one resident yelled, “It’s my body and I want to go to work.” Another defiantly asked, “Why shouldn’t I be able to sit in a restaurant and eat?”
The answer is that many people, perhaps the majority, who are infected with the virus are asymptomatic. COVID-19, unlike collisions, drownings, obesity, heart disease, and cancer, is wildly contagious. There is currently no vaccine and no cure. More than 81,000 Americans have died. Around the world, people are not allowed to work in close quarters or sit in a restaurant because that potentially exposes coworkers, servers and other customers to the contagion. Not everyone reacts to the virus the same way.
Similarly, the television journalist who tweeted that anyone who wants to continue to shelter in place should just stay home lacks any awareness of how most people live. If the boss requires workers to show up or lose their jobs, those workers don’t have the luxury of working from home. There are more people living paycheck-to-paycheck to pay the rent and buy groceries than people pulling in big bucks.
And then there’s the 79-year-old Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice who said “regular folks” were not getting COVID-19. Got that, anyone with a family member in a nursing home?
Negotiators need not have suffered a serious injury or business reversal themselves to empathize with someone who has. Perhaps you have had a personal experience which makes you wonder why your negotiating opponent is apparently so much less resilient that you. Again, not everyone reacts to an event the same way. An inability to concede that these are that person’s feelings, even if you think they are baseless, impedes meaningful settlement discussions.
Because courts are closed, litigating parties should make an extra effort to resolve disputes through negotiation. However, when they are unable to do so, agreeing to mediate is the best alternative. Issues subject to mediation can include conflicts usually resolved by motion, discovery disputes or entire cases. You can contact your mediator of choice by phone or text at 310/889-8165 or by email. She will take it from there.
Two mediation options are available during the shutdown.
Mediation by Video
Your mediator can conduct a mediation while everyone remains at home through several applications, including Free Conference Call, Zoom, or Legaler. This can happen quickly– as soon as parties agree on a time and electronically send the mediator their mediation statements so she knows the basic outlines of the dispute.
Scheduling an In-Person Mediation
If parties insist on an in-person mediation, the time to schedule that is now.
Once courts and mediation venues re-open, scheduling will be a mad dash to secure an available time. Cases already on the court’s calendar for a future date have first priority, pushing litigants with disputes cresting now further back.
In contrast, cases with a date already on the mediator’s calendar will get first chance for any other date if circumstances allow an earlier date or must be further delayed.
You may be feeling frustrated as you see the conflicts mounting in your email inbox. There is a solution available right now: mediation.
THINGS ARE GOING GREAT – LET’S KEEP FIGHTING
Montgomery, Alabama Advertiser, September 1864
Richmond, Virginia Examiner, February 1865, 60 days before the surrender at Appomattox
Typically, the lawyer is the front-line soldier with the best ability to assess how things are going. The client expects reliable status reports and guidance in choosing the best course for the litigation. Corporate and insurance clients usually require reports to include an evaluation.Clients want a lawyer who believes in their case. And lawyers have a duty both to the client and the legal system to represent the client “zealously within the bounds of the law.” But sometimes lawyers prepare status reports which mislead clients to pursue expensive and futile choices.Some lawyers seem to think they are litigation superheroes who can’t be beat. Dig deeper and you will find they settle most of their cases, but at what cost? The justification that the client would have gotten a worse deal without the lawyer’s extreme tactics may not be sound.Many lawyers are like animals burrowing a tunnel who never stick out their head to see where they are. They have a playbook they think they need to follow before even considering settlement. It seems like there is always one more report, one more deposition, one more motion they have to have.Lawyers also fear telling clients the unvarnished truth about their cases because the lawyers want to keep the gig. I’ve seen cases where it is the third lawyer on the case on each side. In one instance, the lawyer told me that both prior lawyers had counseled that the opponent’s settlement proposal was reasonable; each was fired. The current lawyer said, “You and I both know those lawyers were right, and they were fired. I am going to try the case.”
There are psychological reasons why people refuse to settle. For example, people need to justify past expenditures, known as “sunk costs.” So they feel the need to keep fighting, even when settlement is the best way to stop that drain. Another is reactive devaluation, where people refuse to credit information from the opponent which conflicts with the belief system they have created for themselves.When litigation status reports only offer a choice among battle plans, clients may not realize settlement could be their best option.
Pass the Buck to the Mediator
Mediation is a good way to get the most belligerent parties to talk about settlement. Opposing sides don’t even have to sit together. Caucus sessions take place among the mediator and representatives of a single side. Nothing said in caucus gets repeated elsewhere without the party’s permission, so caucus is a safe place to discuss the weaknesses of a case as well as its merits.The mediator is a professional neutral. Parties can get the opinion of someone who comes to the case without preconception. This is closest to what could happen in court. The mediator can ask pertinent questions and bring the parties to partial or full agreement.When parties can’t bring themselves to agree, the mediator can suggest a mediator’s proposal to close the case. This allows everyone to save face and does not damage the attorney-client relationship.If you are creating or receiving litigation status reports that don’t consider mediation, an essential part of the plan may be missing. Mediation offers a timely, cost-effective way to end whatever war you’re fighting.
Like the moon, mediation proceeds in phases. Here’s a primer on what happens when.
The first phase of a mediation consists of fact gathering and defining the issues. When the parties provide exhaustive briefs, time spent on fact-finding may be minimal. We can quickly pin down which facts and issues the parties agree or disagree on.Sometimes people agree on the facts, but not how to interpret those facts. Ferreting out those disagreements is part of defining the issues. Usually case resolution will turn on fewer than five pivotal issues.
As we drill down, disagreement about a fact may emerge, but a participant may be able to get the evidence to resolve the question during the mediation. Perhaps the information was not previously shared because it was not obvious this was an issue, or someone may have been playing hide-the-ball. The employer’s side in a workers compensation case should bring a copy of the indemnity and medical payment print-outs to the mediation.
If no one can access the needed information during the mediation, we can usually put that issue aside and continue to mediate to resolution. But if that piece of the puzzle is critical, we might adjourn the mediation to allow time to gather those details with a commitment to resume on a specified date.
Mediation is not the time to declare you need additional discovery. For purposes of negotiation, let’s assume that each side’s discovery efforts would produce information favorable to that party. If the case settles, no one need undertake that expense.
Phase 2: Working With The Numbers
Now that we know what we’re dealing with, it’s time to talk about value. Sometimes parties have exchanged offers and demands prior to mediation, but often they were waiting for this meeting. If everyone was together in joint session until this point, now may be the time to go into caucus, separate private meetings with the mediator.
Once in caucus, parties can be candid about the strong and weak points of their case. Nothing said in caucus will be shared with the other side unless you authorize it to be shared. Moreover, per statute, no communication between any participants made exclusively within mediation can be used in any civil forum.
Occasionally, a party has a secret reason for wanting to settle that has nothing to do with the case itself. Here are some real-life examples from my mediations that show the importance of confidentiality. An injured person planned to move to another country. A defendant company was negotiating a buy-out; they were undergoing a fiscal review and wanted to get this potential liability off the books. In each case they told me these things, but the information went no further.
While remaining neutral, the mediator gently helps each side form their offers of settlement and communicates them to the other party. Sometimes this entails restating a party’s position in a way to avoid unnecessary antagonism.
As information and offers are exchanged, parties converge on resolution. If everyone is unwilling to go one step further, and it seems resolution is close, the mediator may suggest a “mediator’s proposal.” This allows parties to settle while saving face and can reduce dissatisfaction within the attorney-client relationship.
Phase 3: Documenting the Agreement
We have a deal, and now everyone gets back together. Parties are encouraged to bring a draft agreement to the mediation. If they must return to their offices to hammer out the final document, before leaving the mediation everyone should sign a Memorandum of Understanding which recites the agreed-upon terms.
Putting words to paper can call parties’ attention to missing details. Now is the time to consider the What If’s.
I get calls at least once a month from represented injured workers who don’t know what is going on with their claims. Stop and think about that in light of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Typically, in violation of existing rules, the AA has not communicated with the client. Sometimes the attorney has given the client false information. Recently an IW told me his lawyer said there was no such thing as mediation for workers’ compensation cases.
Many of these IW’s are reaching out directly to the employer’s counsel to try to resolve their issues. This puts the employer’s counsel in a difficult ethical position. New Rules 4.2 (represented person) and 4.3 (unrepresented person) lay out the restrictions on defense counsel for that communication.
Frustrated injured workers who want to resolve their claims are seeking information on the internet. That’s how they get to me.
I am not an advocate for anyone; I am a professional neutral. I have always made that role clear to callers. New Rule 2.4 requires mediators to inform unrepresented parties of the mediator’s neutrality. All I can do is assure the workers that I am available to mediate and to talk to their lawyers or adjusters about starting the process.
If you get a call from someone who wants to mediate, don’t brush off that inquiry. There is no charge to talk to me about whether mediation is right for your case. I’ll give you the information you need.
The California Supreme Court has approved new rules of professional conduct for attorneys licensed in California which go into effect November 1, 2018. These rules generally expand the existing settlement ethics rules. Violation of the rules can lead to a range of disciplinary actions, including disbarment. Here are the ones which affect people trying to settle a case.
Prior Rule 3-500 in a single sentence required lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about significant developments. New Rule 1.4 is more detailed. Now there’s a two-way street: the lawyer must reasonably consult with the client about how to achieve the client’s goals. What’s more, the lawyer must also inform the client about what the lawyer cannot legally or ethically do even if it’s what the client expects.
Prior Rule 3-510 required lawyers to promptly communicate the specifics of a written settlement offer. A California lawyer need only pass along a spoken settlement offer if the lawyer deems the offer significant. New Rule 1.4.1 preserves this distinction.
In evaluating settlement offers or making other decisions about the representation, the Comment to new Rule 2.1 clarifies that a lawyer can initiate advice to a client on relevant, non-legal issues, such as moral, economic, social and political factors.
Prior Rule 3-110 defined “competence” as including diligence. Now a separate Rule 1.3 prohibits a lawyer from “intentionally, repeatedly, recklessly or with gross negligence” failing to act with reasonable diligence.
New Rule 3.2 says “a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to delay or prolong the proceeding or to cause needless expense.” Now an ethical rule may apply to needless court appearances and continuances and improperly postponed treatment.
New Rule 4.1 prohibits lawyers from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person, i.e., someone who is not a client, such as an opposing party or witness. A lawyer cannot knowingly incorporate or affirm the truth of someone else’s false statement. A nondisclosure is the equivalent of a lie if the lawyer makes a partially true but misleading material statement or omission. On the other hand, the Comment to the Rule clarifies that there is no affirmative duty to inform an opponent of relevant facts. Representations about case value are not statements of fact or law.California Business and Professions Code sec. 6068(d) requires lawyers to represent clients with methods which are “consistent with truth.” A lawyer who intentionally deceives the court or any party can be charged with a misdemeanor. This statute remains in effect.Everybody Who Acts For the Firm
Prior Rule 3-110 included within the duty of competence a duty to properly supervise lawyers and non-attorneys or agents. New rules 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 expand on that and provide for vicarious liability for a breach. A subordinate lawyer has an independent duty to follow the rules, but is not responsible for following instructions when there is an arguable question of professional duty.