Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Business / Work / CareerWorkMediation procedure power moves

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Mediation procedure power moves

#1 · January 30, 2022, 12:18 am

Quote from B on January 30, 2022, 12:18 am
Hi Guys!
I took part in a mediation procedure as lawyer for a condominium before getting to know Power University.
The mediation was started by the former manager of the building, who requested to be paid an amount she stated she had anticipated on behalf of the condo while in office. I was assisting the condominium against this former manager.
Premise: the mediator should be an impartial officer who tries to see if an agreement is possible between the parties, and the procedure is governed by law.
First meeting
So we start the mediation, and the mediator immediately says these two things that unfortunately fly under my conscious radar: (a) the other lawyer (assisting the former manager) “is a honest guy”, and “if he started the mediation there must be some merit to his claims”; (b) it’s in any case “better to settle for the condo”.
I state that no agreement is possible for us, because (i) the demand is not proven in any way, and only unilaterally stated, and (ii) on the other hand, my client has proof that the former manager caused several specific damages to the condo while in office due to her behavior, one of which was proven by her using the bank account of the condo for unrelated payments. So it is the condo who has recourse against the former manager.
Immediately the lawyer for the manager interjects forcefully:
Other lawyer: “You are taking a big responsibility as a lawyer in refusing to even bring to the condominium a proposal for settlement”.
Me: “I am taking exactly the responsibility that comes from me being the lawyer who this condo has entrusted to represent them”.
The mediator pushes to allow us to receive additional documentation by the manager, which should prove her claim.
Mediator: “The manager should have a chance to disprove your claim that she is trying to steal money, because if what you say is true, she is a thief".
Me: "No mediator, we never said that nor do we believe that".
Mediator: "But if what you say is true, she is stealing"
Me: "Again, we never said that nor we do believe that".
Mediator: "Then I'm the one saying that".
Me: "Then you are very wrong".
The Mediator starts saying that in any case we should allow the former manager to prove her claim, since the mediation has already started and we can avoid a lawsuit this way.
Me: “OK, but one thing must be clear: this is not the time for us to help you provide better proof of your claim, so either the documentation is clear, or it isn’t and the mediation is over.”
The meeting is adjourned to two weeks later. The current manager of the condo receives by e-mail a document which is essentially just a unilaterally prepared sheet restating the amount claimed by the former manager. I counsel my client to not even answer the request of the former manager to know if the documentation is sufficient. The new meeting comes.
Second meeting
The mediator starts by asking if we are ready to settle. I say that unfortunately, we have not received any proof of anything, and the mediation ends here.
This is where the real action starts.
Other lawyer: “It is impossible to negotiate fairly if every time you enter with your aggressive moves full throttle and nip in the bud any chance of an agreement”.
Me: “Your demand has no basis, so no agreement is warranted here”
Other lawyer: “You should in any case bring the matter to the condo assembly, and maybe if they want to offer 1 dollar then we can at least have a counterproposal on which to negotiate”.
Me: “We have received a clear mandate from the condo assembly, so there is no need to bring any proposal to anyone here. But if my client the current manager believes this is useful…”.
Current manager (my client): “No, I have nothing to say to the condo. The documents we received do not prove anything”.
Former manager (my adversary): “If you had told me that when I sent you the documents, I would have answered with the proof you need”.
Me: (I look at former manager, say nothing, turn to mediator): “OK, I believe we can sign that no agreement is possible and say goodbye”.
My heartbeat in the meantime was noticeably increasing, and I was really starting to get angry.
Then the real power move came from the mediator:
Mediator: (to me) “Well, it’s understandable you act like this, because your current manager is stealing and you are sold.”
Me: “No mediator, I won’t allow you this”.
Mediator: (shaking) “You are so negatively charged you interpret everything in a bad way. I was just making a joke”.
Me: “Yeah, sure you were”
Mediator: “Yes I was, I was just saying that IF you settled here people would think the current manager steals and you are sold.”
Me: (silence, I look at my client and say): He's actually saying that again.
Mediator: “So he steals and you are sold”
Me: OK, I think this is over, if we can please sign that no agreement is possible we can go our way. (to the other lawyer) and if you still think the case has merits, we’ll see you in court. Goodbye.”
Outcome
No lawsuit was started by the former manager, so we essentially "won" under the law.
But I came out very flustered and felt I could have handled it much better. I also felt I didn't defend my reputation, and the reputation of my client, enough.
My takeaways after starting PU
The other lawyer was framing me as aggressive, while he was the one aggressing me.
The mediator was using push-pull, disguising his covert agreement with the other lawyer, and using manipulative mirroring: he was the one who, to use his own words, was “sold” for the other lawyer. Unfortunately, I realized this only after I got back to my office after the second meeting.
I thought about suing him for slander afterwards, but ultimately decided to just take the learning.
I think if this happened today, what I would do is:
One: accuse the other lawyer back of being disrespectful and aggressive when he tried to frame me as aggressive, like this:
Other lawyer: “You are taking a big responsibility as a lawyer in refusing to even bring to the condominium a proposal for settlement”.
Me: “Are you trying to put into doubt my power to represent my client?”.
And:
Other lawyer: “It is impossible to negotiate fairly if every time you enter with your aggressive moves full throttle and nip in the bud any chance of an agreement”.
Me: “The only person who is pulling out aggressive moves here is you, as everyone here can see”.
Two: say something along these lines to the mediator when he jokes about me being "sold" and my client of "stealing":
Me: “Interesting you say that, and I’ll address that in a minute. But first, I was just wondering how long have you known Mr. Other Lawyer here, and how come you did so many mediations with him: shouldn’t there be a rule here that says there should be a rotation between mediators?
Mediator: “What are you implying?”
Me: “I’m asking questions here. While you, on the contrary, tried to smear my professional reputation and the personal reputation of my client with a bad taste joke. So I’ll tell you what happens now. Since I’m sure it was a bad choice of words on your part, you can apologize right here to my client and to me and it will be forgotten. Or, you can not apologize, and I will devote the next two weeks to preparing a lawsuit for slander against you. Because the Supreme Court is clear in specifying that it is inadmissible to make jokes at the expense of the reputation of a person. And for sure I will not let your smearing of our reputation go by”.
Then, whatever the outcome, I have enforced the boundary, and can sue afterwards.

Hi Guys!

I took part in a mediation procedure as lawyer for a condominium before getting to know Power University.

The mediation was started by the former manager of the building, who requested to be paid an amount she stated she had anticipated on behalf of the condo while in office. I was assisting the condominium against this former manager.

Premise: the mediator should be an impartial officer who tries to see if an agreement is possible between the parties, and the procedure is governed by law.

First meeting

So we start the mediation, and the mediator immediately says these two things that unfortunately fly under my conscious radar: (a) the other lawyer (assisting the former manager) “is a honest guy”, and “if he started the mediation there must be some merit to his claims”; (b) it’s in any case “better to settle for the condo”.

I state that no agreement is possible for us, because (i) the demand is not proven in any way, and only unilaterally stated, and (ii) on the other hand, my client has proof that the former manager caused several specific damages to the condo while in office due to her behavior, one of which was proven by her using the bank account of the condo for unrelated payments. So it is the condo who has recourse against the former manager.

Immediately the lawyer for the manager interjects forcefully:

Other lawyer: “You are taking a big responsibility as a lawyer in refusing to even bring to the condominium a proposal for settlement”.
Me: “I am taking exactly the responsibility that comes from me being the lawyer who this condo has entrusted to represent them”.

The mediator pushes to allow us to receive additional documentation by the manager, which should prove her claim.

Mediator: “The manager should have a chance to disprove your claim that she is trying to steal money, because if what you say is true, she is a thief".
Me: "No mediator, we never said that nor do we believe that".
Mediator: "But if what you say is true, she is stealing"
Me: "Again, we never said that nor we do believe that".
Mediator: "Then I'm the one saying that".
Me: "Then you are very wrong".

The Mediator starts saying that in any case we should allow the former manager to prove her claim, since the mediation has already started and we can avoid a lawsuit this way.

Me: “OK, but one thing must be clear: this is not the time for us to help you provide better proof of your claim, so either the documentation is clear, or it isn’t and the mediation is over.”

The meeting is adjourned to two weeks later. The current manager of the condo receives by e-mail a document which is essentially just a unilaterally prepared sheet restating the amount claimed by the former manager. I counsel my client to not even answer the request of the former manager to know if the documentation is sufficient. The new meeting comes.

Second meeting

The mediator starts by asking if we are ready to settle. I say that unfortunately, we have not received any proof of anything, and the mediation ends here.

This is where the real action starts.

Other lawyer: “It is impossible to negotiate fairly if every time you enter with your aggressive moves full throttle and nip in the bud any chance of an agreement”.
Me: “Your demand has no basis, so no agreement is warranted here”
Other lawyer: “You should in any case bring the matter to the condo assembly, and maybe if they want to offer 1 dollar then we can at least have a counterproposal on which to negotiate”.
Me: “We have received a clear mandate from the condo assembly, so there is no need to bring any proposal to anyone here. But if my client the current manager believes this is useful…”.
Current manager (my client): “No, I have nothing to say to the condo. The documents we received do not prove anything”.
Former manager (my adversary): “If you had told me that when I sent you the documents, I would have answered with the proof you need”.
Me: (I look at former manager, say nothing, turn to mediator): “OK, I believe we can sign that no agreement is possible and say goodbye”.

My heartbeat in the meantime was noticeably increasing, and I was really starting to get angry.

Then the real power move came from the mediator:

Mediator: (to me) “Well, it’s understandable you act like this, because your current manager is stealing and you are sold.”
Me: “No mediator, I won’t allow you this”.
Mediator: (shaking) “You are so negatively charged you interpret everything in a bad way. I was just making a joke”.
Me: “Yeah, sure you were”
Mediator: “Yes I was, I was just saying that IF you settled here people would think the current manager steals and you are sold.”
Me: (silence, I look at my client and say): He's actually saying that again.
Mediator: “So he steals and you are sold”
Me: OK, I think this is over, if we can please sign that no agreement is possible we can go our way. (to the other lawyer) and if you still think the case has merits, we’ll see you in court. Goodbye.”

Outcome

No lawsuit was started by the former manager, so we essentially "won" under the law.

But I came out very flustered and felt I could have handled it much better. I also felt I didn't defend my reputation, and the reputation of my client, enough.

My takeaways after starting PU

The other lawyer was framing me as aggressive, while he was the one aggressing me.

The mediator was using push-pull, disguising his covert agreement with the other lawyer, and using manipulative mirroring: he was the one who, to use his own words, was “sold” for the other lawyer. Unfortunately, I realized this only after I got back to my office after the second meeting.

I thought about suing him for slander afterwards, but ultimately decided to just take the learning.

I think if this happened today, what I would do is:

One: accuse the other lawyer back of being disrespectful and aggressive when he tried to frame me as aggressive, like this:

Other lawyer: “You are taking a big responsibility as a lawyer in refusing to even bring to the condominium a proposal for settlement”.
Me: “Are you trying to put into doubt my power to represent my client?”.

And:

Other lawyer: “It is impossible to negotiate fairly if every time you enter with your aggressive moves full throttle and nip in the bud any chance of an agreement”.
Me: “The only person who is pulling out aggressive moves here is you, as everyone here can see”.

Two: say something along these lines to the mediator when he jokes about me being "sold" and my client of "stealing":

Me: “Interesting you say that, and I’ll address that in a minute. But first, I was just wondering how long have you known Mr. Other Lawyer here, and how come you did so many mediations with him: shouldn’t there be a rule here that says there should be a rotation between mediators?
Mediator: “What are you implying?”
Me: “I’m asking questions here. While you, on the contrary, tried to smear my professional reputation and the personal reputation of my client with a bad taste joke. So I’ll tell you what happens now. Since I’m sure it was a bad choice of words on your part, you can apologize right here to my client and to me and it will be forgotten. Or, you can not apologize, and I will devote the next two weeks to preparing a lawsuit for slander against you. Because the Supreme Court is clear in specifying that it is inadmissible to make jokes at the expense of the reputation of a person. And for sure I will not let your smearing of our reputation go by”.

Then, whatever the outcome, I have enforced the boundary, and can sue afterwards.