Posts Tagged ‘settlements’

Week in Review (April 16 – 20, 2011) The Eye Opener Health, Law and Medicine Blog

Saturday, May 21st, 2011

From the Editor (Brian Nash)

Another week of great posts (IMHO) by our blawgers. Apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks so since we have now surpassed 21,000 page views in the last 30 days. The number keeps rising. Our sincere gratitude to all our readers!

Our topics were once again quite varied. They spanned the law, health, science and medicine. We even had a piece on a local event – Marathon Kids. This piece is part of our new program to promote charities and civic organizations in our own backyard – Baltimore and Washington.

We try week in and week out to find topics of interest for you, our readers. If you ever have any suggestions for topics of interest to you, please leave a comment or send us an email or fill-out the contact form with your thoughts and suggestions. We’d love to hear from you.

Let’s get to it then. What did we cover this past week that you might be interested in reading? Take a look -

Why early settlement is a win-win for all

By: Michael Sanders

There is an old adage in the law that cases settle on the courthouse steps. There is a reason for that. When the parties are actually walking into court to try their case, they seem to suddenly recognize that there are significant risks to going to trial, and that there is serious money at stake. When you go to trial, only one side can win. The other side goes home a loser. Faced with such a stark outcome, both sides tend to become more reasonable in their assessment of their case and more willing to talk settlement. After all, despite all the years of experience that trial attorneys amass, no one can ever predict what a jury is going to do in any specific case. As one mediator I know likes to tell the litigants, going to court is like going to Vegas:  you roll the dice and you take your chances. Read more….

Milk from Mom: Effective in preventing common infant complication (NEC)

By: Jason Penn

The debate among parents regarding the use of human milk vs. formula wages on, but according to a recent study, you can chalk one up for the human body.  That study, headed by the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, concluded that premature babies fed human donor milk were less likely to develop the intestinal condition necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).  Both sides has its advocates, willing to do battle at any time. When it comes to NEC, Mom’s milk has the decided advantage. Read more….

H.I.V. treatment advances, but what are the implications of terminating research early?

By: Sarah Keogh

Last week, I read some exciting news about H.I.V. treatment and transmission. A New York Times article reported that a large clinical trial found that “[p]eople infected with the virus that causes AIDS are far less likely to infect their sexual partners if they are put on treatment immediately instead of waiting until their immune systems begin to deteriorate…” The study found that “[p]atients with H.I.V. were 96 percent less likely to pass on the infection if they were taking antiretroviral drugs…” These findings are overwhelmingly positive and the implication for public health is huge. Read more….

A Windy, Rainy but Fabulous Day in Baltimore: Marathon Kids Final Mile Celebration

By: Rachel Leyko

Despite the wind and rain, this past Saturday I volunteered at the Marathon Kids Final Mile Celebration Event at Western Polytechnic High School in Northwest Baltimore.  I learned of the event through the Junior League of Baltimore and to be honest, prior to Saturday, I did not know much about the organization, its purpose or effect on the children it sought to serve.  However, after Saturday’s event, not only was I impressed with the purpose of Marathon Kids, but I saw firsthand the positive effect this program has had on the children who have participated. Read more….

Acquired Brain Injuries: Causes and Impact

By: Theresa Neumann

On the heels of Jason Penn’s blogregarding calling “911″ for signs of a possible stroke, I decided to introduce a variety of acquired brain injuries for further discussion in future blogs since damage to the brain results in some of the most catastrophic injuries possibly sustained by the human body with significant “collateral damage” for all of the friends and family involved in the individual’s life. Read more….


Sneak Peak of the Week Ahead

Some topics we’ll be covering next week…and then some…

  • You or someone you know has been diagnosed with cancer, now you have to deal with the horror. Jon Stefanuca will be writing a piece based on our experiences with a number of clients “living with cancer.”
  • Mike Sanders and I have both recently resolved cases involving families who have lost a child. Mike’s involved the death of a fetus very near term. He’ll share that story and the experience of the case with you.
  • Maybe those of you who have children with special needs are familiar with the local (Maryland and Washington, D.C.) resources to help you and your child. For those who may not be or just want to learn more, Jason Penn will be providing information on this next week.
  • You may have heard the recent news about labeling of certain medications for children. Sarah Keogh will report on this and also delve into some practical problems and issues that parents face every day in terms of medicating their children.
  • We’re going to begin a new series on exactly what is recoverable in our jurisdictions (Washington, D.C and Maryland) under what is known as the Survival Act and the Wrongful Death Act. We’ll be paying particular attention to issues involving what’s known as pecuniary benefits, loss wages and diminished earning capacity. Should be educational. We hope you enjoy it.

Have a great weekend, Everyone!

Why early settlement is a win-win for all

Friday, May 20th, 2011

There is an old adage in the law that cases settle on the courthouse steps. There is a reason for that. When the parties are actually walking into court to try their case, they seem to suddenly recognize that there are significant risks to going to trial, and that there is serious money at stake. When you go to trial, only one side can win. The other side goes home a loser. Faced with such a stark outcome, both sides tend to become more reasonable in their assessment of their case and more willing to talk settlement. After all, despite all the years of experience that trial attorneys amass, no one can ever predict what a jury is going to do in any specific case. As one mediator I know likes to tell the litigants, going to court is like going to Vegas:  you roll the dice and you take your chances. So often times, the closer a case gets to the trial date the more motivated the two sides are to talk settlement. But is there a better way?

A couple of recent cases made me start to think about settlements and how they come about. (If you missed it, Brian Nash wrote an excellent piece on the frustrations of mediation and trying to settle cases). I’ve recently handled two cases that illustrate how settlements work and how two cases can go down dramatically different routes to ultimately get to the same place. Both of these cases are subject to confidentiality agreements so I can’t divulge the names of the parties or the settlement amounts, but they were both seven-figure cases with significant injury.

In the first case, the patient alleged that her doctor failed to timely diagnose stomach cancer over a period of several years. By the time the patient was properly evaluated by another physician, the cancer had progressed to the point that there was virtually no chance of a cure, and the young woman was likely going to die in the next few years. In the second case, the patient alleged that he suffered serious neurological complications (motor and nerve dysfunction in his arms and legs) as a result of post-operative complications that were not treated quickly enough. In both cases, a lawsuit was filed in court.  At that point, the two cases diverged.

Case Example #1 – Getting it done early

In the cancer case, before any depositions had taken place, the defense attorney called and asked if we might be able to talk about resolving the case. That’s always a great call to get as a plaintiff’s lawyer because it means there is a good chance that you will be able to get a nice result for your client, which is always the ultimate goal. Within a matter of weeks, we had reached an agreeable number and the case was over.

Case Example #2 – Grinding it out to the courthouse steps

In the second case, there was no early talk of resolution. The case proceeded through the normal course of litigation, which in the District of Columbia usually means about eighteen months of discovery, depositions, expert meetings, etc. Twenty-five experts were hired to review records and testify. Twenty-seven depositions ended up being taken. The case got all the way up to the Thursday before trial was scheduled to start on the following Monday morning. At that point, the parties finally reached agreement on a number and the case was settled.

Why the difference in approach?

So we have two cases, both with significant injury and both with questionable care. One case settled right away, and one dragged on for almost two years before settling. Is there a simple reason why? Not that I’ve been able to figure out. After years of doing this, I, like every other attorney, get a gut feeling as to what cases are worth, which ones will likely settle, which ones will go to trial. But it’s still a gut feeling; there’s no science involved.

It’s usually a combination of factors – the quality of the medical care, the severity of the injury, the likeability of the plaintiff and the defendant (more important than most people realize), the specific jurisdiction you’re in, etc. On top of these factors you have a myriad of psychological reactions that pop-up in lawsuits and there is no predicting those. Sometimes people get entrenched in fighting for no other reason than to fight. Some people get a number in their head for what a case is worth and don’t want to budge. So even though I can’t sit here and explain why certain cases settle early and some settle late, I do want to talk about the value of early settlements to all sides.

Common Sense and good economics say “get it done early”

It is easy to see why early resolution of cases benefits everyone, and it comes down to the costs of litigation. In today’s world, it can easily cost $75,000 to $100,000 (if not more in many instances) just in expenses to take a case to trial; it can easily be much higher in complex cases. (I know of one attorney who spent $300,000 on a case that he took to trial; he lost the case). These expenses consist primarily of expert fees paid to doctors to review records and testify. Expert doctors routinely charge at least $400 per hour and oftentimes more for their time. For trial testimony, doctors usually charge around $5,000 per day (some substantially more). If it runs into two days, that’s $10,000 just for one witness. It’s not unusual to spend tens of thousands of dollars for expert fees alone.

On top of that there is the cost of court reporters for each deposition, copying charges, obtaining medical records, long-distance calls, travel expenses, etc. Going through litigation is an expensive undertaking, and the longer the case goes on the more expensive it is. On the plaintiff side, all of those expenses are usually advanced by the attorney (in jurisdictions where this is permitted), but they all get paid back by the client at the end of the case (assuming the plaintiff wins; if there is no recovery, the plaintiff’s attorney “eats” those costs). So every dollar spent on litigation comes straight out of the client’s portion of the recovery.

On the defense side, insurers and self-insured institutions (like hospitals) have those same expenses, but on top of that, they also have to pay legal fees to their attorneys. Defense attorneys charge by the hour for everything they do on a file from reviewing records to meeting with clients to talking to experts to taking depositions. The complexity of medical negligence cases means long hours of work on each file, generating substantial legal fees. Those fees get paid to the defense lawyer whether the case is won, lost or settled at the last minute. The longer the litigation lasts, the higher the legal fees.

Of course it always costs money to investigate a case. There is no avoiding that.  Records need to be obtained and reviewed. Experts need to be retained for an initial opinion. But instead of spending $75,000 or $100,000 (or more) on a case, it may cost only several thousand dollars to work-up a case to get it ready to file – that is, to be in a position where early resolution can be discussed with the defendant. If a case can be settled early on, all of those thousands of dollars that would have gone to litigation costs go straight to the client. That is a huge benefit to the client.

The defendant benefits too. No hospital or insurance company wants to spend money needlessly. Early resolution means that the defendant doesn’t have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in expenses and tens of thousands more in legal fees. The only way it makes sense to spend that money is if, at the end of the day, the “defendant” (read insurer/hospital) believes it can either win the case or settle it for less down the road. But here’s the thing – a case can usually settle early on for less than the case would be worth had the case gotten closer to trial. This isn’t always true, of course, but as a general rule, a good case does not become less valuable over time.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys don’t undersell their cases to get an early settlement, but in practical terms, attorneys and clients are usually willing to consider some discount because they know that an early settlement is to their mutual benefit.The plaintiff gets a guaranteed financial payment now rather than waiting eighteen months for a trial and then a possible appeal that may drag the case out another two years. In that circumstance, the plaintiff is usually willing to take a little less money now because it is certain. It’s the age-old question: would you rather have X amount of money now, or wait eighteen months for the chance of getting more? For most plaintiffs, it’s an easy answer. Also the defense can pay less on a case than it would have ended up paying anyway and save thousands in expenses and legal fees by doing so. It’s a win-win for all parties.

Just do the math!

The big secret with early settlements (and which can sometimes be difficult to explain to a client) is that even though an early settlement might be for less than what a jury might award, the client can actually put more money in his or her pocket with a lower settlement amount. Again, we’re back to the issue of litigation costs. If a firm spends $10,000 to investigate a case and get it ready to file rather than $100,000 to take a case to trial, that is an extra $90,000 that goes straight to the client. Also, some law firms will have a contingent fee agreement in which the fee is higher (usually from 1/3 to 40%) when the case goes to trial, which serves to compensate for the additional time,  risk and expense of going to trial. When you consider the higher legal fees and the increased costs of litigation that have to be paid back, it can actually take a substantially larger jury verdict to put the same amount of money in the client’s pocket as he or she would get with a smaller early resolution.

Some cases may just need to be tried

I don’t mean to imply that every case that gets filed should be settled early. Far from it. Some lawyers undoubtedly file cases that are simply without merit and should be defended vigorously. Other cases – while they may be defensible – fall into a middle category where the care may not be the best but the plaintiff has problems with his/her case too. Some cases can be difficult to evaluate without further investigation and discovery to gauge the strength of the case. In those cases, it is entirely appropriate to proceed with litigation – even on a somewhat limited scale through discovery. No doubt there are instances where insurance companies do need to protect the interest of their doctors, and sometimes that means vigorously defending a case all the way through trial.

Some cases, however, – the cases where the medical care is truly egregious and the damages are clear – need to be looked at early on to see if the two sides can be reasonable and find some middle ground. If a case is going to ultimately settle (and believe me, experienced attorneys and claims adjusters can usually identify those cases early on), it makes sense to talk sooner rather than later. It requires compromise on everyone’s part, but the value to both sides is so great that it makes sense to talk early and get it done.

What has been your experience?

I’d be curious to know the experience of our readers. Has anyone been involved in a lawsuit that settled? Did it resolve early on or did it stretch out for years? Do you think the time involved had any impact on the amount of the settlement? Any tips or tricks you might suggest? Let’s hear from you – maybe we can all learn how to get these cases resolved earlier and stop wasting time, resources and money.

You may also want to read these related posts:

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)

A View from the Shady Side – The Defense Perspective

Every bad outcome does NOT a malpractice case make! Some practical advice

 

Mediation of Lawsuits: The Top 5 Things that Tick Me Off!

Monday, April 25th, 2011

Having practiced law now for almost four decades, I’ve been involved in the resolution/settlement of thousands of cases. When I was a much younger lawyer, we didn’t have formal mediation sessions. We would  just talk with the other lawyer, pick-up a phone or sit down with the claims adjuster and just worked it out. Now the in-thing is formal mediation.

For those who may not be familiar with the mediation process, in the context of our firm’s areas of practice, it is basically a formal meeting involving all parties to a legal dispute, who hire an independent person called a mediator, to try to resolve the dispute between the parties through settlement. The intent is to avoid the risk, uncertainty and expense associated with taking the dispute to trial.

There’s no doubt in my mind that a good mediation session settles some cases that might otherwise be difficult to work out. That being said, I seem to be running into some trends over the last couple of years that are – quite frankly – starting to really p**s me off!

Normally, I would keep my lawyer-rants to discussions with those in my law firm or with some lawyer pals, who share the same frustrations. Recently, however, I read a post by a legal blogger – a blawger (a lawyer who blogs), Scott H. Greenfield, who took to task legal bloggers for not taking a stand on issues. His blawg is titled Dead Lawyers Have No Enemies. I decided I would do the Lazarus thing and take a stand on an issue that’s been bugging me for some time – modern day mediation and mediators.

In no particular order, here is my list of the top 5 things about mediation that just tick me off:

1. No meaningful discussions before the mediation session

How many times now have I heard the mantra -”No, we don’t want to engage in any settlement discussions (interpretation – no first offer) until we get to mediation.” Far too many times I’m afraid. Why is this? Can’t people get the process started before mediation so that we all can make an intelligent decision as to whether formal mediation has a chance of working or whether the upcoming mediation has all the ear-markings of a waste of time and money?

Here’s the mediation scenario: The clients have to miss work or otherwise be inconvenienced to be at mediation. Many times we have to travel some distance to attend. We sit through the mandatory (but necessary for the clients) introduction by the mediator advising those new to this process who the mediator is, what his/her background is, what the process is all about, how it’s confidential and nothing said can ever be used outside the mediation session. The confidentiality form is signed and the parties go to their separate rooms.

On behalf of my clients (the party bringing the lawsuit), we make a demand. After some time passes (which varies greatly depending on the mediator), the first offer is made. Lately, more often than not, the offer is some ridiculously low-ball amount. The mediator tells you and your clients: “Don’t take it personally. They’re just trying to send a message” You fight every instinct welling-up inside you to send your own message by just walking out. After getting control of your own emotions, you try to calm your clients down. Not easy to do sometimes – for instance when (by way of a real life example) my clients just been told their dead child is worth $25,000. Of course that’s not what’s being said by the defendant’s insurer, but that’s exactly how it resonates – in this example – with the plaintiffs, who do take it personally.

There’s no doubt that when as a plaintiff’s lawyer you make a demand that’s simply ridiculous, you somewhat deserve to get low-balled in Round 1. However, when you purposely try to put a reasonable number on the table – albeit giving yourself room to negotiate, it is enraging and detrimental to the process on many levels when you get low-balled by the defense. Apparently, the defense doesn’t believe you actually tried to make a reasonable initial demand. They take a reasonable demand as a sign of weakness in the plaintiff’s case. Yet, if I were to take the other approach and start with an equally outrageous demand in Round 1, I would never hear the end of it from the other side. Sure – “reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder, but skilled advocates generally have a sense of the range it takes to be in at the end of the day to settle any given case.

My free advice: If mediators were doing their job, they would get the negotiations underway before the first formal mediation session. My suggestion: let’s get all the foreplay out of the way before the formal mediation session. If it’s going to be a waste of everyone’s time, then let’s put our efforts and money to better use and not mediate in the first place.

2. The Defense not understanding the impact of their conduct

Having been a defense lawyer before switching sides (referred to by insurance adjusters as “going to the dark side“), for years, I didn’t sit in the room with the injured party when we sent the first offer (and the second and the third and….) into the plaintiff’s room. Had I been a fly on that room’s wall, maybe I would have realized a lot earlier just what impact our “message” was going to have on that injured party, whose case we claimed we were trying to settle.

As the years went by and I saw some plaintiff lawyers packing-up their bags and heading-out with their clients as a response to our message offer, I started to get it. Call me a “slow learner,” but at least I had my epiphany.

Now that I am sitting with the injured person who brought the lawsuit, let me share a bit of advice with my colleagues on the other side. Don’t p**s off the plaintiff and in turn his/her lawyer by sending the wrong message. Does any defense lawyer or risk management person really believe the plaintiff wants to hear: “Your dead child (or replace with – your injured child, your missing leg, your paralyzed son – and every other injury that has befallen a plaintiff) is worth $25,000 or $50,000.”

Now that I’ve been sitting with these injured or grieving people for years, I get to see firsthand  just what kind of impact a low ball, “message offer” has on people. It starts the process out on the wrong foot. You – as the lawyer representing the injured person – have to try to remain calm in order to calm your client down. You try to convince them that this is just a game being played and they shouldn’t read anything into it. Well, Dear Defense Lawyer and Claims Person, it is not a game to the person who’s been injured!

Apparently many defense lawyers are relying on their bible, Mediation 101, which ostensibly tells them that when they are in the initial general session, the defense should tell the plaintiffs just how sorry they, the defense, are for the injuries and losses the plaintiffs have suffered.

Well here’s some free advice from the dark side: With the first chance you have to show that this empathy was really sincere, don’t slap the plaintiffs in the face with a low ball, message offer. It’s not a good technique!

If you, the defense, take this approach, you have completely lost all credibility, the war is on and now it will take hours of worthless and unnecessary haggling to get to where this all could have started if the parties had started out in good faith efforts to negotiate. Hopefully, Advanced Mediation Technique – 201 will be coming out soon!

3. Mediators who are nothing but high-priced messenger services

Finding a qualified mediator seems to be getting harder and harder. The good ones seem to be booked-up for months to come. Maybe that’s because they are good. Why does it seem to me that every retired judge now thinks that he or she is a qualified mediator? Sorry, Former Member of the Judiciary, but you are not all qualified. Some are; some are not.

How many times have the litigants experienced a mediator who simply walks from room to room and delivers the latest offer or the latest demand? My answer: way too many times! If I need a courier, I’ll hire a courier. They are a heck of a lot less expensive and could be equally effective.

Since so many of us “in the trenches” are searching for skilled, qualified and effective mediators, who don’t cost an arm and a leg (and dramatically increase the costs of the case), a lot of newbie mediators are among the selection pool. Well, I for one am not interested in a mediator getting his or her training-wheels on my client’s case. Can’t there be some universally accessible databank or message board or listserv in today’s digital age where litigators can freely express their views, comments and criticisms of mediators so that litigants can have a real choice of qualified, reasonably priced and effective mediators? Maybe I’ll make that my next project – in my spare time.

4. Using mediation as a “feeling out” session

I cannot tell you how many times I have gone to a mediation session where the goal seems to be that one side – usually the defense – wants to get a feel for just how much it’s going to take to get the case settled or to get a feel for the plaintiff and how they will come across to a jury if the case doesn’t settle.

Sorry, but mediation is not discovery! If the defendant’s insurer or claims person wants to gain these insights, then they should take the time, in serious cases, to attend the plaintiff’s deposition. If they can’t be there, maybe they will be interested to learn that there’s new technology called a video deposition. It’s only been around for years!

In this same vein, it fascinates me when I hear a messenger mediator tell me some of the justifications for why a low-ball offer being made is well-founded. The mediator (particularly those in the messenger class) takes as gospel so-called facts about the case from the defense and conclude they are being reasonable – or even magnanimous – when these facts are nowhere to be found in the evidence of the case being mediated!

Recently, I had a defendant and its settlement team of lawyers and adjusters, totally enamored with their causation defense (admitting in essence the caregivers had totally failed to follow acceptable standards of good medical care but claiming – “our conduct, which we recognize was awful, didn’t cause your client’s injuries”) that drove the entire negotiations toward abject failure. After hours of meaningless back-and-forth, small, incremental offers and demands, the whole mediation session fell apart.  If the mediator had truly known the real facts of the case, he would have realized that this so-called defense was in large part predicated on a defense expert’s unfounded opinion. Truth be known, that “expert” had totally failed to read our client’s subsequent care records, which disprove his baseless opinions.

Should I have told the defense where they were wrong? Or – should I save this information for cross-examination if I honestly believe the case is not going to settle and I will have to try it? Tough call – but I opted for the latter course since the negotiations were going nowhere fast anyway. I made a judgment call that the reserve put on the case by the healthcare was so low that this case would not settle no matter what they learned that day.

Mediation sessions are intended to resolve cases, not act as a session for the claim’s representative to figure out what the case is about! Just how many serious cases do these claims people have that they can’t come prepared for mediation? How in the world do they set a reserve on a case not understanding the medicine (in a medical malpractice case) of the case?

A free, albeit unsolicited message for our claims brethren: If you don’t or can’t understand the medicine before you put a value on it, learn the medicine from your defense lawyer. Isn’t that what you are in part paying for when you pay their hourly fees? Really know your file and question your defense counsel about their recommendations. Simply put – come to mediation understanding the facts and the law as best you can. Don’t see mediation as just another opportunity to spend a day out of the office.

5. Mediators who don’t, can’t or won’t challenge the positions of each side

Maybe this is a corollary to my “don’t be just a messenger,” but it holds a special place in my heart– so it makes the list. I can’t tell you how many mediators announce during the initial, joint session (where all parties and counsel are present) that they are not advocates for one side or the other. Well that’s fine; however, there comes a time when the position of one party or the other needs to be challenged by the mediator.

Messenger Mediators just listen and are often blindly impressed by the arguments of the lawyers for each side. Here’s the problem – a good mediator needs to be able to understand the validity – or lack thereof – of those arguments to be effective. If a mediator doesn’t understand the law or the facts of a case well enough to challenge either side’s position, then what purpose do they serve?

Admittedly, a mediator cannot possibly know the “facts” of a case as well as the litigants. That does not mean, however, that they should simply show-up and facilitate a settlement by trying to act as a middleman in reaching the “sweet spot” of dollars that both sides are willing to accept to reach a settlement. While this approach may work in some smaller cases, it simply does not work in more complex and higher value cases.

Some of the best mediators I have had the pleasure to work with listen to the arguments, analyze the relative strengths and weaknesses of those positions and then challenge the parties and lawyers by questioning the validity of their arguments and position. When that’s done, it is amazing how progress is made toward a resolution of the case. Simply put, good mediators cut through the posturing and puffery and expose the weaknesses of each side’s case. The only way that can happen is if the mediator has taken the time to really learn the case. In my field of medical malpractice, that may mean taking the time to read the key medical records, key depositions or whatever other “evidence” each side believes supports their respective position and using that knowledge to cut to the heart of the issues.

Sure – it may mean paying a mediator a bit more for their time, but if it gets a settlement done, isn’t it worth it? I for one would rather spend money for a mediator who can perform this type of service than one who spends hours in the mediation session just listening to a party’s specious arguments, getting a new offer or demand and then doing the shuttle diplomacy gig. Way too often, this time-consuming shuttling from one room to the other doesn’t work. The mediator’s time “in the room” would be much better spent by questioning, probing and dissecting the relative positions of each side. That – in my experience – works more often than not and gets the case settled. Every case has weaknesses for all parties involved. So – Mediators – find the weaknesses, expose them and use them to bring reality to the mediation process in order to get it done. You don’t have to be an advocate, but you do need to be pro-active.

What are your pet peeves?

This blawg rant is not intended just for lawyers or mediators. I’d love to hear from people – like clients/parties to a lawsuit, who have participated in today’s modern marvel – formal mediation sessions.

Lawyers and litigants – plaintiff and defense – what is it about mediation that you think needs to be fixed? Maybe if we all put our heads together, we can make this a more meaningful process for everyone.

Related Posts:

One More Mediation Pet Peeve, John Bratt, Miller & Zois