Are Remote Mediations as Effective as In-Person Sessions?
I fought technology for a long time. For years I encouraged clients to come into the office to meet with me before they decided to hire me. I feel like a bit of used car salesman when people who I have only spoken with on the telephone give me credit card to hire me without meeting me in person.
Times have changed and we need to change with them. I have been practicing law for almost three decades and I am quite good at what I do. I am good at assessing the value of a case. I am good at assessing credibility and while I may not be a technology expert, I must acknowledge that tech often makes our lives easier, and it makes it faster to get things done. But is it always the “better” way to do things? And, specifically, if we want to resolve a case, is it better to do it in person, or can we achieve the same results by using technology and doing it in a remote session?
If I get hired to do a mediation, that means that both sides have either agreed to conduct a mediation (hopefully) or they have been ordered by a judge to conduct some sort of alternate dispute resolution. This normally means mediation or arbitration. If parties have to come in person, or I have to go them, first of all this means that it will take more time and cost more money. The point to the mediation is to save money (and time).
I require that all decision makers be present for mediations with full settlement authority. This means that the parties MUST be there with their lawyers and any/all insurance adjusters must be present as well. A normal day of mediation is six hours, three in morning and three in the afternoon. I book a minimum of three hours for every case and parties must be present for the entire session.
When parties agree to a mediation and hire someone privately, it normally means that they are motivated to resolve the case. And, while it is true that not all cases settle, when we have all the players in the same session and they have paid to be there, the parties typically want to make the session worthwhile. This means that we do our best to resolve the case. I did a mediation last week where we were able to resolve the bodily injury aspect of a personal injury case well within the three hour session, but counsel for plaintiff was rather disorganized and had not yet presented his claim for property damage. Thus, the entire case was not resolved in the session, but the major issues were resolved and the rest should have been resolved in a matter of two letters and/or telephone calls.
I did another session a couple weeks ago where emotions were running very high during the session. However, I was still able to get Plaintiff’s counsel to give a reasonable demand and to get the insurance carrier to make a reasonable offer. The parties were given a week to think about the offer and ultimately accepted it after they had time to reflect on it for a few days and still benefited from the value of the mediation. I think in that case, the parents of the injured plaintiff simply wanted to be heard. Not only did the mediation given them a forum to say what they needed to say, but it also gave them a very cost-effective way to get their claim resolved without the time, stress, aggravation, risk and additional expense of a trial.
If you have a litigation matter that you would like to try and settle prior to trial, call me:
Jeffrey Vallens, Certified Mediator and pretty nice guy.
www.jeffreyvallens.com email: vallenslaw@yahoo.com or call: (818) 783 5700.