Wednesday, July 26, 2006
The Top 10 Reasons Not To Mediate
The Top 10:
1. Saying I want to mediate will show weakness to the other side and telegraph I think I have a weak case.
2. I have a slam dunk case and there is no point in mediating.
3. I don’t want to show my case to the other side before trial.
4. The case is too complex.
5. The parties (or the lawyers) are too emotionally involved to sit down together.
6. It will be a waste of time.
7. The case will not settle because the other side is unreasonable and will not listen until we get to the courthouse steps.
8. My client doesn’t want to mediate.
9. I have to spend the time preparing for trial, and at trial I have the best chance of getting a good award for my client.
10. I can do it better myself.
So, you’ve never heard these before – right?!? Naahh!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Challenges Of “The Profession”
Along similar lines, is this thank you editorial in The Daily Commercial from Judge Donna Miller to Lake County’s County Court volunteer mediators who clearly are mindful of Florida’s Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, Rule 10.690(a), Advancement of Mediation, Pro Bono Service which provides:
Mediators have a responsibility to provide competent services to persons seeking their assistance, including those unable to pay for services. A mediator should provide mediation services pro bono or at a reduced rate of compensation whenever appropriate.
How about you?!?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Who’s Sorry Now?
I know – you’ve already figured it out – the power of an apology! Excellent! The concept of “full disclosure/early offer” as a policy for settling medical malpractice cases has proven effective according to this article in The National Law Journal. The key to the policy lies in the open exchange of information, particularly between experienced counsel, that enables the early settlement of meritorious claims.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Friday, July 21, 2006
My Mouth Is Moving But My Body Is Doing Most Of The Talking!
Have a nice weekend!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
It’s Not Clear And I’m Not A Party – Why Am I In Contempt?
The final judgment did not expressly prohibit [and apparently neither did the mediated settlement agreement – what’s the lesson here?] a third party [the appellant in this case] from purchasing the real property which was the subject of the litigation after the closing date incorporated into the final judgment.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Unconscious Mediation!
Does this give “no fault divorce” new meaning? Not so fast!
In an earlier post I noted that the High Court in Kerala has said that under Muslim law, mediation should be undertaken before using the Talaq option in divorce. Hmmm! What if the man first had a dream about family mediation with his wife and then, in the same dream, gave “Talaq?” Would the “divorce” then be valid? What do you think [or am I just ‘dreaming’ – sorry, I couldn’t resist]?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
MEAC Opinion 2006-002 – Now Online!
Mediation of a small claims case resulted in impasse. Thereafter, the County Court judge instructed the parties on trial procedures and how s/he was likely to rule in an effort to urge them to settle. The judge then “suggests” that the parties return to a “second” mediation. The mediator in the “second” mediation must carefully monitor the parties’ participation in the mediation to ascertain their ability to exercise self-determination and must be prepared to terminate the mediation if any party is unable or unwilling to participate meaningfully in the process. In the context of small claims mediation, where the parties may not be familiar with the traditional court process and may be intimidated by the proceedings, a mediator is not relieved of ethical responsibilities by writing the “agreement” up as a “scrivener”.
Remember Florida’s Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, Conduct of Mediation, Closure, Rule 10.420(c) provides:
The mediator shall cause the terms of any agreement reached to be memorialized appropriately and discuss with the parties and counsel the process for formalization and implementation of the agreement.
The Committee Notes to that Rule provide, in part:
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.730(b), Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.290(o), and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.740(f) require that any mediated agreement be reduced to writing. Mediators have an obligation to ensure these rules are complied with, but are not required to write the agreement themselves.
So, since context is important, do you think MEAC would reach a similar conclusion if the parties were represented by counsel in any type of mediation, whether it’s small claims, civil county court, circuit civil, family or dependency? What if one [or both] party is pro se? What if . . . ? Keep thinking about this!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Albert Einstein – Mediator!
a=success
x=work
y=play
When asked what “z” was, Einstein mischievously remarked “That, my dear sir, is ‘keeping your mouth shut.’” All to say, knowing when to be quiet is as important in knowing what your mind should be doing when your mouth is “shut” – listening critically.
Since most of effective communication involves listening, determine your listening quotient by taking this test to learn if you need to become a better listener.
If you find you need some “listening help”, take a look at these top ten tips for becoming a better listener from Coachville or these Strategic Listening tips from Witt Communications.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Back To Basics!
You’ve heard it before – “We’ll prepare and exchange releases later.” Uh oh! Now what?
This isn’t the first time the First District Court of Appeal called this to our attention – see my earlier post on the issue.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
It’s Still Just A Duck – Not Mediation!
In the California case of Lindsay v. Lewandowski, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 821 [Cal.App. 4th 2006] the court explored the differences between mediation and arbitration and “binding mediation”. In the case on appeal, the parties reached a mediated settlement on all but two terms. The payment terms were left up in the air and the parties also agreed “in the event of a dispute as to the terms of the settlement the parties agree to return to the mediator for final resolution by . . . .” Here is where the communication broke down. One version said binding arbitration, but had a line through it, and was replaced by the word “mediation.”
Here’s how the mediator described the procedure he intended to use to resolve the parties’ disagreement [this was not a good mediator move] over the payment terms of the settlement he had mediated: “[T]he parties have agreed in advance that in the event the parties fail to agree, I then decide these terms and conditions, typically by asking the parties to each submit to me their final offers, accompanied by their oral argument as to why I should select their version over all others. I then select as the final binding provision the term or terms of either one party or the other.” [Sounds like arbitration to me – baseball arbitration, actually!]
There are significant problems with the concept of “binding mediation.” Among them are:
What rules apply – the arbitration rules, the court-ordered mediation rules, the mediation confidentiality rules, or some mix?
If only some rules, how is one to chose?
Should the trial court take evidence on the parties’ intent or understanding in each case?
Three justices on the Court of Appeal were flabbergasted, and one of the concurring justices called the term “binding mediation” oxymoronic [I agree!].
All to say, call the process what it really is – arbitration; it is not mediation, just a duck! [You know if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck - it’s a duck!]
Please read and re-read this excellent opinion. How would you, as the mediator, have handled the parties’ disagreement?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Places Of Worship, Public Policy And Mediation
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, July 03, 2006
They Said What?!?
So, what does this have to do with mediation? Nothing, exactly and yet . . . .
One of the fundamental learning objectives in mediation training programs is to “[i]dentify techniques for mediating cases where there is a language barrier or when a translator participates in the mediation session.” I interpret [pun intended – sorry!] the word “translator” here to mean interpreter. These new rules give mediators valuable insight into what professional conduct is expected of a certified court interpreter and, hence, what we can expect of them if they participate in mediation.
Additionally, Part IV, Discipline, in these new rules delineates the conditions under which disciplinary action may be taken against a certified court interpreter. The discipline may take the form of suspension or revocation of certification. Rules 14.410-14.460 set forth a detailed disciplinary process based loosely on those applicable to mediators. See Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators 10.810-10.880. Hmmm, how about that?!?
Since we have the benefit of such a wonderfully diverse cultural population here, I thought this would be an appropriate post for the 4th of July! Enjoy the holiday and stay safe!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Mediating Over Troubled Waters
Not so fast! According to this article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Governor of Georgia has asked the Governors of Florida and Alabama for a personal meeting [sounds like mediation to me] to resolve a 16 year tri-state water war. Georgia’s Governor believes there is too much at stake to let the courts decide! How about that?!?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Ask “What If?” To Avoid Latent Ambiguity
The agreement expressly provided that the parties would “stipulate to the recommendations of Canoy Roberson,” the children’s therapist regarding reunification of the father with the children and that the mother would retain sole parental responsibility until such time as the named therapist recommended shared parental responsibility. This therapist was the only therapist referenced by name in the agreement; however, the agreement did provide that the mother could take the children to an “additional therapist to address concerns other than those being addressed by” Roberson and that the father would be responsible for half of the uninsured costs of therapy “between the children and [Roberson] or any mutually acceptable therapist.” After the mediation agreement was ratified by the court, the named therapist resigned. The trial court determined that the detailed language of the agreement was unambiguous and the appellate court disagreed finding that the mediation agreement contained a latent ambiguity because it does not address the eventuality of the named therapist’s unavailability.
The lesson here is, “What if . . . ?” Say, how about the parties building in a dispute resolution procedure [i.e. return to mediation before litigation, although not to a specifically named mediator] not only about performance or non-performance under a mediation agreement but also about interpretation of its terms? Just a thought!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
What It Takes To Be A Good Mentor!
Here’s a succinct article from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation to help each one of us demonstrate nobility of character by revealing the best of ourselves – the essence of being a good mentor.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Florida’s 15th Annual Conference For Mediators And Arbitrators
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Supreme Court Arbitration Training (10 am - 5 pm)
Early Conference Registration & Welcome Reception (5 pm - 7 pm)
Friday, August 25, 2006
Annual DRC Conference (8:30 am - 5 pm)
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Conference continued (8 am - 11:45 am)
Here are the conference brochure and the registration form.
I hope to see you in August at the Dispute Resolution Center conference in Orlando!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
New Parental Relocation With A Child Statute Impacts Family Mediation!
F.S. 61.13001(1) provides definitions [a cornucopia of thought provoking information] while F.S. 61.13001(2) establishes the criteria parents, who sign a written agreement to relocate a child’s principal residence, must satisfy in order to meet the requirements of the new law. As you read the statute, pay particular attention to the terminology.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Mediation Is Not A Bulletproof Vest!
Remember this post about the husband who stabbed his wife to death following a private mediation session.
Yes, Florida’s Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators addresses safety.
For example, Rule 10.420(b) (5), Conduct of Mediation, Adjournment or Termination provides that “A mediator shall terminate any mediation if the physical safety of any person is endangered by the continuation of mediation.” [Emphasis added.] There’s no wiggle room here – stop talking.
All to say, please be careful out there – mediation is not a bulletproof vest!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Who Can Be Present During Mediation?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
“What Do You Mean Standing To Mediate?”
Initiation of mediation and initiation of litigation are both “challenges” under F.S. 723.037(1). In order for a mobile homeowner’s association to have standing to mediate and standing to sue [i.e. both are ‘challenges’], it must have the written agreement from a majority of affected homeowners according to Sun Valley Homeowners, Inc. v. American Land Lease, Inc., 927 So.2d 259 [Fla. 2nd DCA 2006] from the Second District Court of Appeal.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Does Mediation Have A Dark Side?
Not everyone is enamored with mediation as this article from the Traverse City Record-Eagle points out. So, what do you think of the opinion of this business editor on mediation in zoning related litigation?
But [and it may be an effective “but”, if you know what I mean], there is someone who believes mediation should be as accessible as fast food according to this article in the Sun-Sentinel!
Now what do you think of the opinion in the first article?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Do Judges Read “Florida Mediator”?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Minimizing Mediation Risks In Domestic Violence Cases
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
“But I Have A Good Case; Why Should I Settle?”
Well, you'll need to read this interesting article to gather the lateral thinking behind the settlement!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
“Florida Mediator” Named In Top Five Blog List!
“The advent of blogging as a form of internet communication has begun to revolutionize how information is disseminated on the web. The mediation field has not been immune from this development, and there are a growing number of blogs relating to the mediation field popping up on the internet. In recognition of the efforts of these blog pioneers, we have surveyed the field and our findings are presented below.”
5. Florida Mediator (Written by Perry S. Itkin, Fort Lauderdale, Florida) Although somewhat regional in its scope, our top five list would not have been complete without including this veteran blog. Florida Mediator always contains items of interest to mediators, even those who are not from Florida. Because of its longevity, this blog also has an extensive archive collection. In short, this blog is a good read for a mediator in any geographic area, but a must read for any Florida mediator.
It's an honor to be in such distinguished company!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Mediators Are High Impact Leaders!
Have a nice [and safe] Memorial Day weekend!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
“What? What Did You Say? What Did You Mean?”
Reminders are good from time to time, don’t you think?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
It’s Not Always About The Law!
These latter aspects are the focus of this article from The Olympian Online which emphasizes the positive dimensions of the legal system [and you thought there were none – just kidding!].
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Ooops! I Made A Mistake – I’m Not A Perfect Negotiator.
Pay special attention to Error Number 9!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Speaking Of Communication, Who Is This Guy?!?
You did it watch it, right?!?
Well, as it turns out there was a mix-up because two guys named Guy showed up for interviews—one was there for an on-air discussion about online music; the other was applying for a job. The receptionist made a mistake. She thought Guy Goma was a different guy [Guy Kewney] who is an expert and was actually scheduled to discuss a trademark lawsuit over Apple Computer’s use of a logo in its online music store – iTunes. Unfortunately for the BBC [and fortunately for us], it interviewed Mr. Goma about the lawsuit, on live TV!
Now, watch it again – look at Mr. Goma’s expression when he realized he was the “wrong guy” and appreciate how smooth he was in continuing with the interview! Notice the interviewer missing his expression and, undaunted, just marching forward! Maybe she had no choice – it was live TV.
All to say, as mediators don’t we always have to check for the shared meaning of words to make sure we’re all on the same page? Well, sure we do! Remember my mantra – nothing is as it seems nor is it otherwise! Huh?!?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Email Misunderstandings Can Make Us Better Mediators!
Have a nice weekend!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
MEAC Opinion 2006-001 Now Online!
If the quotation provided [“Got Conflict . . . Mediate, Divorce through mediation contested or uncontested. Call 555-5555”] is the complete advertisement and the telephone number relates to a person [or company] that does provide mediation services, it does not violate the mediator’s ethical standard for advertising. However, if the advertising mediator is not competent to mediate the cases advertised, or if there were additional text which was false or misleading, the advertisement would violate Florida’s Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, Rule 10.610.
Rule 10.610. Advertising
A mediator shall not engage in marketing practices which contain false or misleading information. A mediator shall ensure that any advertisements of the mediator’s qualifications, services to be rendered, or the mediation process are accurate and honest. A mediator shall not make claims of achieving specific outcomes or promises implying favoritism for the purpose of obtaining business.
What does your advertising look like?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Pre-Spousal Mediation
Huh?!? Look at this from a different angle – wedding mediation. It’s true! Remember the movie “The Wedding Crashers” which began with a divorce mediation scene? How about a prequel – “The Wedding Planners & Mediation”? Okay, I made up that title and not the idea which, according to this article from Sys-con Media, is another venue for mediators. Among the issues to be mediated are:
- Disagreements between the future in-laws regarding the wedding process
- Conflicting traditions
- Intra-family conflicts
- The role of each parent in the wedding process
- Emphasizing common ground between the parties
All to say, could you have used the services of a Wedding Mediator! [More than once?!?]
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Florida Supreme Court Amends Small Claims Rules – Revised Opinion
The Court, recognizing the importance of this effort at encouraging a mediated settlement, referred this proposed amendment back to the Small Claims Rules Committee for further consideration.
However, the Court did adopt a new form, Form 7.350 Corporate Authorization To Allow Employee To Represent Corporation At Any Stage Of Lawsuit. Guess what that includes?!? If you guessed mediation, you were right – congratulations!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Mediation And The Estate Of Rosa Parks
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
This Is Huge! Florida Supreme Court Adopts Amendments to Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators!
In addition to the new point system for certification, certain ethical rules have been amended. The revised rules [with the changes in bold] are as follows:
Rule 10.360. Confidentiality (a) Scope. A mediator shall maintain confidentiality of all information revealed during mediation except where disclosure is required or permitted by law or is agreed to by all parties.
Rule 10.370. Advice, Opinions, or Information
(c) Personal or Professional Opinion. A mediator shall not offer a personal or professional opinion intended to coerce the parties, unduly influence the parties, decide the dispute, or direct a resolution of any issue. Consistent with standards of impartiality and preserving party self-determination however, a mediator may point out possible outcomes of the case and discuss the merits of a claim or defense. A mediator shall not offer a personal or professional opinion as to how the court in which the case has been filed will resolve the dispute.
Rule 10.420. Conduct of Mediation
(a) Orientation Session. Upon commencement of the mediation session, a mediator shall describe the mediation process and the role of the mediator, and shall inform the mediation participants that:
(3) communications made during the process are confidential, except where disclosure is required or permitted by law.
It’s well worth your time to read this 48 page opinion!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
What Does A Hairdresser Have To Do With Co-mediation?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Humming Is Not A Good Technique!
We can learn from this lawyer’s experience[s]!
Florida’s Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators addresses this type of conduct in the following rules:
Rule 10.350. Demeanor
A mediator shall be patient, dignified, and courteous during the mediation process.
Rule 10.410. Balanced Process
A mediator shall conduct mediation sessions in an even-handed, balanced manner. A mediator shall promote mutual respect among the mediation participants throughout the mediation process and encourage the participants to conduct themselves in a collaborative, non-coercive, and non-adversarial manner. [Emphasis added.]
All to say, you would never do such a thing – right?!? Not even in caucus. But . . you knew that!!!
As an aside, I’ve been training and hence not posting; plus, a road construction worker knocked out a main telephone trunk line and our entire geographic quadrant is without telephone service. All to say, service is supposed to be restored sometime next week [sure!] and posting may be difficult over the next several days.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, May 01, 2006
“I Heard You But I Didn’t Listen!”
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
If All Else Fails, There’s Always . . .
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
“It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over!”
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, April 24, 2006
“Extended Family” Mediation – Is That Real?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Resolution Report, April 2006, Now Online!
Plus, you can go directly to my Case and Comment article which appears in that issue.
Take a look!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
The Pause That Refreshes Doesn’t Always Have Bubbles!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
“I Really Mean It! If You Had Only Told Me!”
Oh well, some people never learn! A court order is not merely an invitation to do something if one feels like it – it’s a court order for Heaven’s sake!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Procedural v. Substantive Good Faith
What?!? You know – substantive good faith, i.e. “You’re not mediating [read “negotiating”] in good faith”! How do you measure that? It’s much easier to demonstrate procedural good faith or the lack of it as is shown by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ unpublished order in Negron v. Woodhull Hospital, et al., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9004 [2nd Cir. 2006].
After the Hospital voluntarily agreed to mediate with Negron, the district court ordered both parties “to appear and mediate in good faith.” [Notice that’s 2 things for the parties to do – I read it as to appear in good faith {demonstrable} and to mediate in good faith {not demonstrable}]. The district court found the Hospital to have violated this order when the Hospital disobeyed the instructions of the mediator [Hmmm!!!!!] by failing to bring a principal party with settlement authority to the mediation [at the least, don’t the court rules require this?]. The Court of Appeals found that while the Hospital was free to adopt a “no pay” position [see, you don’t even have to make an offer at mediation and that’s substantive], its failure to bring a principal party was a violation of a court order and impaired the usefulness of the mediation conference. Perhaps the instructions of the mediator were for the parties to abide by the court order [a very good move].
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.Friday, April 14, 2006
When Is A “Done Deal” Not A “Done Deal”?
Okay, how about the meaning of “I don’t have any choice”? I’m certain you’ve heard that before – what does it mean? When you read the opinion you’ll see that it’s not what you’re probably thinking!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
As Good As We Are, Can We Improve Our Training?
The Request for Proposal has a July 5, 2006 4:00pm deadline for submissions.
There’s some interesting background about Florida’s mediation training programs in the RFP.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
What Does The ADR Rules And Policy Committee Do?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, April 10, 2006
“Prove It!”
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Mediating Felonies – You’re Kidding, Right?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Tax Language In Settlement Agreements – Is It Binding [On Whom]?
However, is this language binding and, if so, on whom – the parties; the court; the state taxing authorities; the IRS? Read this interesting article to find out.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, April 03, 2006
The FBI Is Watching You And Your Bagels, Doughnuts And Fruitcakes!
Remember, Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators provides:
Rule 10.330(c) Impartiality, Gifts and Solicitation.
A mediator shall neither give nor accept a gift, favor, loan, or other item of value in any mediation process. During the mediation process, a mediator shall not solicit or otherwise attempt to procure future professional services.
The Committee Notes suggest that subdivision (c) does not preclude a mediator from giving or accepting de minimis gifts or incidental items provided to facilitate the mediation.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
MEAC Opinion 2005-005 Now Online!
1. While a mediation unit is not a mediator per se, many of the communications made to the mediation unit would be included under the umbrella of confidentiality. Each co-mediator is to be treated as a mediator subject to the Florida Mediation Confidentiality and Privilege Act. The Committee declines to answer the question whether the party breached confidentiality as being beyond its jurisdiction.
2 and 3. Assuming the party has affirmatively requested that the complaint be handled at the trial court level, the mediator may reveal mediation communications to the mediation office charged with investigating the conduct.
4. Revelations made by a mediator in furtherance of a grievance investigation should be kept in a separate file independent from the court file.
5. The relationship described in the question would not necessarily be a “clear conflict” requiring the withdrawal of the mediator regardless of the express agreement of the parties. However, if the mediator is no longer impartial or the parties request that the mediator no longer continue, the mediator is required to withdraw from the mediation.
6. A different mediator within the mediation unit may mediate if all parties, being aware of the relationship, are agreeable to proceeding.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Mediators Are Critical Thinkers Too!
Take a look, I’ll think you’ll enjoy it! It’s a PDF download.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Clarence Darrow And Mediation
He concluded with:
“When lawyers and courts, and laymen, accept the scientific theory which the physicians forced upon the world long years ago, then men will examine each so-called delinquency until they discover its cause, and then learn how to remove the cause. This requires sympathy, humanity, love of one’s fellow-man, and a strong faith in the power of knowledge and experience to conquer the maladies of men. The forum of the lawyers may then grow smaller, the courthouse may lose its spell, but the world will profit a thousand fold by a kindlier and more understanding relation toward all humankind.”
After reading the article, don’t you think he was actually making an argument in favor of mediation?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Structured Settlements – Tell Me More!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Intervention In Mediation – Is It Appropriate?
Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, Rule 10.320, Nonparticipating Persons states that “[a] mediator shall promote awareness by the parties of the interests of persons affected by actual or potential agreements who are not represented at mediation.”
After you read the article, think about whether this rule would adequately address the concerns of the “intervenors”. Remember, during training, one of the Mediation Process and Techniques learning objectives was to “[i]dentify individuals who are entitled to participate in the mediation conference as well as those non-parties who may need to be present. . . .”
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Florida Supreme Court’s New Rules Regulating The Florida Bar Impacts Mediators And Other Third-Party Neutrals!
Rule 4-2.4 Lawyer Serving As Third-Party Neutral provides:
(a) A lawyer serves as a third-party neutral when the lawyer assists 2 or more persons who are not clients of the lawyer to reach a resolution of a dispute or other matter that has arisen between them. Service as a third-party neutral may include service as an arbitrator, a mediator, or in such other capacity as will enable the lawyer to assist the parties to resolve the matter.
(b) A lawyer serving as a third-party neutral shall inform unrepresented parties that the lawyer is not representing them. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that a party does not understand the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall explain the difference between the lawyer's role as a third-party neutral and a lawyer's role as one who represents a client.
So, what additional language will you be including in your mediation confirmation [or engagement] letter? You do use one, right?
Also, the Comments [which are very interesting] to each of the above rules specifically state that “[a] Florida Bar member who is a certified mediator is governed by the applicable law and rules relating to certified mediators”. [Emphasis added.] This blends nicely with Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, Rule 10.650 Concurrent Standards:
“Other ethical standards to which a mediator may be professionally bound are not abrogated by these rules. In the course of performing mediation services, however, these rules prevail over any conflicting ethical standards to which a mediator may otherwise be bound.”
All to say, this opinion is a must read!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
“Get Involved And Just Enforce It!”
Rather than enforcing the various provisions of the agreement, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that the mediation agreement did not constitute a “real meeting of the minds” of the parties and upon that basis invalidated the agreement in its entirety.
Not so fast held the appellate court. “Although the mediation agreement was ambiguous in some respects, the parties agreed upon the essential terms and intended the mediation agreement to be binding upon them.” It was incumbent upon the trial court to resolve any ambiguities.
What could the mediator have done differently during the agreement drafting phase of the mediation conference? As always, the devil is in the details!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
“What Conflict? I’m Impartial!”
(a) Generally. A mediator shall maintain impartiality throughout the mediation process. Impartiality means freedom from favoritism or bias in word, action, or appearance, and includes a commitment to assist all parties, as opposed to any one individual.
(b) Withdrawal for Partiality. A mediator shall withdraw from mediation if the mediator is no longer impartial. [The objective standard with emphasis added.]
and the connection to
Rule 10.340, Conflicts of Interest
(a) Generally. A mediator shall not mediate a matter that presents a clear or undisclosed conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises when any relationship between the mediator and the mediation participants or the subject matter of the dispute compromises or appears to compromise the mediator’s impartiality.
(b) Burden of Disclosure. The burden of disclosure of any potential conflict of interest rests on the mediator. Disclosure shall be made as soon as practical after the mediator becomes aware of the interest or relationship giving rise to the potential conflict of interest.
(c) Effect of Disclosure. After appropriate disclosure, the mediator may serve if all parties agree. However, if a conflict of interest clearly impairs a mediator’s impartiality, the mediator shall withdraw regardless of the express agreement of the parties.
The fundamental question is would a reasonable person conclude that the undisclosed circumstances would tend to bias the judgment [substitute “conduct”] of a neutral arbitrator [substitute “mediator”].
Since impartiality is the number one grievance filed against Florida mediators, this case gives us something to think about – don’t you think?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Perceptions Can Equal Misconceptions And Vice Versa
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Don't Forget “Florida Mediator” By Email!
Perry
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Mediating With Detective Vic Mackey
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
“Now That I’m Retired, I Have Time To Meditate!”
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Monday, March 13, 2006
“So, What Goodies Do You Have To Offer?”
comments are fun too!
What do you offer mediation participants?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Friday, March 10, 2006
If It’s In Black And White, It Must Be . . . Gray!
The mediation agreement provided that it is “intended to be a full, final and binding settlement of all issues” in the case and that there had “been full and complete disclosure of all marital assets and liabilities.”
The day after the court entered an order approving the mediation agreement, the Wife filed a motion to set the agreement aside claiming, among other things, that there had been no “full and frank disclosure” of the assets because the Husband had not filed a financial affidavit. In a second motion to set aside the mediation agreement the Wife alleged that the mediation left her “physically and emotionally exhausted” and that a financial affidavit was mandatory because the mediation agreement contemplated “permanent financial relief.”
Context is important. Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Rule 12.285(a)(1) requires the filing of a financial affidavit, a “requirement [that] cannot be waived by the parties.”
All to say, just because the mediation agreement recites that there was full disclosure, in the absence of the filing of a financial affidavit what appears to be black and white is, well – gray! Be careful in drafting the mediation agreement. Mediators have an ethical obligation to the parties in “assisting the parties in reaching informed and voluntary decisions while protecting their right of self-determination,” Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, Rule 10.310(a), Self-Determination, Decision-making, and further, “[a] mediator shall not intentionally or knowingly misrepresent any material fact or circumstance in the course of conducting a mediation,” Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, Rule 10.310(c), Misrepresentation prohibited.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
You’re A Mediator – Are You A Mind Reader Too?
According to this article [which contains a couple of interesting exercises] in CIO, accurately interpreting the meanings of nonverbal communications, especially facial expressions, is a skill that can make you more effective in your leadership role and then you can decide whether and how to act on the information you obtain just from reading faces.
Imagine that!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Mediator Testifies As To Party Capacity!
The Husband moved to enforce a handwritten mediation agreement which the Wife and Husband and their counsel signed or initialed, when the Wife attempted to repudiate the longhand agreement, arguing that it was not enforceable because of duress, lack of capacity, and that it was not intended to be an enforceable agreement.
The trial court held a hearing at which the mediator testified that Wife's mental condition did not appear impaired during the mediation. The appellate court found that the mediator in this case was careful not to testify to statements or assertive conduct made by Wife. She did not disclose confidential information or attempt to prove liability via conduct or statements made in the course of the mediation. The trial court then enforced the agreement and this was affirmed on appeal.
Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, Rule 10.310 (d), Self-Determination, Postponement or Cancellation provides that “If, for any reason, a party is unable to freely exercise self-determination, a mediator shall cancel or postpone a mediation.”
Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, Rule 10.420(b), Conduct of Mediation, Adjournment or Termination, provides that
A mediator shall:
(1) adjourn the mediation upon agreement of the parties;
(2) adjourn or terminate any mediation which, if continued, would result in unreasonable emotional or monetary costs to the parties;
(3) adjourn or terminate the mediation if the mediator believes the case is unsuitable for mediation or any party is unable or unwilling to participate meaningfully in the process;
(4) terminate a mediation entailing fraud, duress, the absence of bargaining ability, or unconscionability; and
(5) terminate any mediation if the physical safety of any person is endangered by the continuation of mediation.
[Emphasis added.]
While we’re to be non-judgmental as between the parties, aren’t mediators making “judgment calls” all the time? Take a look at how the mediator was permitted to testify and reconcile the testimony with the above rules.
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
The Need For Tweaking Can Be Fatal!
All mediators should read the New Jersey opinion Lehr v. Afflitto, 2006 N.J. Super. LEXIS 8 (N.J. App. 2006). It’s a long one, full of good lessons on a variety of topics [i.e. mediator’s opening statement, mediator responsibilities to the court, confidentiality and waiver, party remorse, clarity of communication, right to attorney review of agreements, plus more] and well worth reading!
The divorcing couple was ordered to mediation which occurred over two sessions and resulted in a memorandum of understanding [MOU] written by the mediator, who acknowledged “tweaking” was necessary on several issues. The plaintiff represented to the court that the matter was completely settled in mediation. Notwithstanding the fact that everyone agreed that the parties never created nor signed a property settlement agreement, the court used the mediator’s MOU as proof that the divorce was resolved and entered judgment. The defendant appealed.
The Appeals Court held that admission of the mediator’s MOU was error since the parties never waived their right for the mediation to remain confidential. The Appeals Court also held that there was no settlement because certain financial issues were left unresolved, showing a lacking of a final agreement. The mediator did not make a report to the court as required by the court order.
The appellate court viewed the trial judge’s taking testimony from the mediator with disappointment and said that “confidentiality of the mediation process is a matter of great public and systemic importance.” The court identified several bases for confidentiality in mediation: terms in the court order to mediate; the mediator’s oral statements to the parties; applicable court rules; and principles of the Uniform Mediation Act which the court stated was an “appropriate analytical framework” even though the UMA was not in force during the time in question.
So, after reading the opinion, how will you conduct your next mediation?
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.