Parties and lawyers involved in mediation – and to a large degree mediators themselves – often pay lip service to the theory of self-determination that underlies the process. In fact, many cases demand (and most lawyers hope for) a mediator who can “beat up” both sides to hammer out a deal.
I am continually uplifted by the wisdom parties often demonstrate if given the chance to participate meaningfully in the mediation process. In the United States, parties often play little or no role in mediation; they sit there silently, glad not to have to say anything, and relieved that their lawyers can do all the talking for them. Usually I encourage the lawyers and parties to engage in a joint session, and usually I face strong opposition to that part of the process. The joint session develops useful information and provides the opportunity for the clients to preview their opponents and the lawyers, and get impressions of how the stories will play in court.
Usually everyone is pleasantly surprised at how useful a joint session turns out to be. But not every case is the “usual” case. In fact, every case should be treated as unique, and so mediation must be tailored to the situation. That means that sometimes, the process is re-ordered or a joint session takes a different form.
