Dealing with “Difficult” Parties
Have you ever been in a mediation when one of the parties rushed into the session and started complaining about everything that had gone wrong that day – and then seemed to be carrying that frustration into the mediation session? What about a party that starts out with saying that he really doesn’t believe in mediation or that settlement is possible and, although he is “of course” willing to participate, he really doubts it will be of any use? Perhaps you’ve experienced a situation when one of the parties in a mediation doesn’t seem to speak at all and, even when asked a direct question, remains silent and turns to her attorney to speak on her behalf? Or you’ve experienced a party’s attorney who offends other parties by re-explaining everything anyone says to his client and what his client says to everyone, as if they cannot understand for themselves.
Lisa Savitt and I recently had the pleasure of presenting on the topic of dealing with “difficult” parties like those above at the International Association of Lawyers (UIA) 31st World Forum of Mediation Centres in Frankfurt, Germany. It was a lively discussion among the attendees, with so many willingly offering insights from their own experience. Lisa and I and our co-panelist, Javier Fernández-Samaniego of Madrid, Spain and Miami, Florida, also offered some suggestions about how to approach such situations. We reminded attendees that the key goal must be kept in mind: helping the parties explore all potential solutions to their problem – not to change the way one party or another behaves.
We pointed out that “difficult” behaviors can arise from several sources:
Emotions – Someone is afraid, anxious, frustrated, etc.
Dynamics between Parties – The history between the parties makes it difficult for them to come to the table with an open attitude.
Strategy – A party thinks some disruptive behavior can show strength or shake up a party or situation.
Legal Traditions – Behaviors can be linked to the parties’ roles and behaviors they think are expected of them based on their backgrounds.
Cultural Differences – “Rude”, “difficult”, and “disruptive” behavior in one culture can be seen as relatively normal in another. Maybe the actor is just acting in a way that would be entirely appropriate in another culture.
We also shared some of our tactics for addressing such situations to make sure that unwanted behaviors don’t destroy a mediation:
Prepare ahead of time to anticipate differences in legal traditions and cultural differences. It may mean that pre-mediation sessions will take some extra work to develop a strategy to discuss these differences or perhaps deciding it is appropriate to keep the parties separated rather than having joint sessions.
Listen, listen, listen! Try your best to determine what the source of the behavior really is
It’s not all about you! - Remember that such behaviors may have nothing to do with you.
Remember the importance of self-determination. If this situation really raises concerns for someone, for one reason or another, is it appropriate to continue and/or does something or someone have to change for this to work?
Explore the source of the behavior with the actor.
Consider whether this is your problem – maybe your own background makes you hypersensitive to a behavior that doesn’t bother anyone else.
Consider your own ideas about the source of the behavior and test that out.
Consider ways to address the underlying source (rather than the behavior itself).
Consider ways to ask the actor to modify the behavior – the actor may not be able to change emotions, but can change actions.
Inquire with others about the effect on them, recognizing they may be more or less affected than you are.
Assess the ability to mitigate the impact on others to get the mediation back on track – can it work or does this end the prospects for resolution?
Next time a mediation includes a “difficult” party – we hope that all attendees at the conference and our blog readers feel better prepared to face the challenge and move ahead towards a positive outcome.
RULES here, RULES there, RULES RULES EVERYWHERE!
There is no substitute for reading, knowing, and following the rules of one’s trade, and that includes work in mediation. A lawyer must follow the rules no matter where one practices law and a mediator must follow the rules no matter where one performs mediations. Now that we are all working virtually, practicing law or performing mediations frequently takes lace across many borders of states or countries. There is no substitute for knowing the ethical rules of the road, whether by statute, court rules, laws of other countries, or treaties, wherever the work occurs. Ethical requirements may vary widely from one place to another.
That said, although the wording may vary, there are many consistencies in best practices for facilitative and evaluative mediations everywhere.
1) Self Determination. This is a basic tenant of mediation no matter where you or the others are located. The mediator is not an advocate for either side. The mediator should be sure the ultimate decision on settlement of the case is the parties’ – that it is voluntary and non-coerced.
2) Impartiality. A mediator is often referred to as a “neutral.” This word is used both as a noun and a verb. It is descriptive of the mediators’ position and how they must act and also how they must be perceived. Mediators must be careful not to fall victim to their own actual or implicit biases and to recognize bias in others. If mediators find they have biases for or prejudices against either side , whether before or during a mediation, and they feel they can no longer perform their duties fairly, they should withdraw.
3) Conflicts of interest. A conflict can arise in a number of ways. For example, it would be a conflict if the mediator is related to or in a business relationship with one of the parties. The mediator should not accept the case. However there are instances in which the conflict may not be as apparent. In such instance, the mediator must nevertheless disclose the conflict or potential conflict and its potential implications, even if the mediator believes he or she can be fair. The mediator must give the parties a chance to discuss the issue privately. If the parties then all agree to go forward with the mediator anyway, the mediator may continue. Even if not always required under applicable laws or rules, putting the disclosure and waiver in writing is advised.
4) Appearance of conflict or bias. Mediators must be conscious of the appearance of conflict or partiality for or against a party. Perception can be as dangerous to the process as an actual conflict of interest. In such cases, some state statutes mandate following the same process required for actual conflicts.
5) Competence of Mediator. Mediators must maintain competence in technology used for mediations. This is one component of competence — of equal importance to knowing ethical and other rules of the relevant jurisdictions.
6) Competence of Parties. If at a mediation, a mediator suspects a party is incompetent due to drugs, alcohol or mental condition, the mediator should make sufficient inquiry to decide whether the mediation should proceed. If it’s determined the party is not competent for any reason, the mediation should not proceed.
7) Confidentiality/privileged. There are different rules on confidentiality depending on a mediator’s jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the parties. In many states, for example, if the parties are in different rooms, virtually or physically , and one party shares information with the mediator, the mediator may not disclose it to the other side without express permission. The mediator must keep the confidences of each party. Often confidential communications of mediation parties are privileged by law, as well. That means a mediator must keep facts disclosed in mediation confidential from all others, including the court if called as a witness, unless all parties agree otherwise. Typically confidentiality requirements are found in the rules of evidence for the relevant jurisdiction but sometimes are set by statute or other law. Mediators must check the rules of any and all relevant jurisdictions because the amount of protection may vary.
Closer to home, Minnesota State Supreme Court ecently adopted rules for mediation that set the standard for Minnesota:
Mn Rule of Civil Procedure (MRCP) 114. 07 regarding Use of Evidence in Court states in part, “Without the consent of all parties and an order of the court,… no evidence from an [alternative dispute resolution] process or any fact concerning the ADR process may be admitted in any later proceeding involving any of the issues or parties.”
MRCP 114.08 Neutrals Duty of Confidentiality states in part “notes, records, impressions, opinions, and recollections of the neutral are confidential, and the neutral shall not disclose them to the parties, the public, or any third persons, unless (1) all parties and the neutral agree …or (2) disclosure is required by law, or professional codes …”
In all instances, the mediator must explain the scope of their confidentiality to the parties.
THESE ARE BASIC and ELEMENTARY practices that should be applied by every mediator with the primary and prevailing practice being to always check the rules, HERE, THERE and EVERYWHERE a mediation will take place.
Japan Adopts New Mediation Act and Sets Path to Accede to Singapore Convention
Japan’s New Mediation Act
On April 21, 2023, Japan announced the adoption of a Mediation Act, which lays the foundation for a robust mediation framework within the country. It provides that a Japanese court must enforce an international settlement agreement, once a party has submitted the agreement and documents proving that it is an international settlement arising from a mediation. To avoid such enforcement, an opposing party must establish to the court’s satisfaction that one of a limited number of grounds for declining enforcement has been established--such as:
Incapacity of a party;
Invalidity of the agreement under applicable law;
The mediator’s serious breach of applicable standards; and
Bias-related issues.
The Mediation Act was adopted to enhance Japan’s mediation infrastructure and encourage the use of mediation in cross-border disputes in Japan. The Act is seen as an indicator of Japan’s interest in leading the global mediation community to promote mediation as a means of resolving cross-border disputes—to demonstrate Japan’s mediation-friendly culture.
One of the additional significant implications of Japan's Mediation Act is its alignment with the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (commonly referred to as the “Singapore Convention”). The Singapore Convention was signed by 56 countries, including the United States, to promote easier enforcement of mediated settlements across borders and now countries are beginning the process of ratifying it. The Singapore Convention became effective September 20, 2020, but only applies to any country six months after that country has deposited with the United Nations its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Right now, just eight countries are parties, but many will become bound in the coming years. Japan may be able to be at the forefront of the countries acceding to the Singapore Convention, with this new Mediation Act.
As an aside: The U.S. has not yet ratified the Singapore Convention. The American Bar Association has urged the Department of State to seek accession by the Senate of the convention as soon as possible, but the exact timeline for U.S. accession remains uncertain.