By: Joseph Grynbaum, P.E.

Joseph Grynbaum, P.E. — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:08:32 +0000

My mediation practice focuses on construction disputes where the parties are primarily interested in resolution based on getting on with business settlements, rather than strictly pursuing a legal argument. I’ve had clients insist that attorneys be excluded from the discussions.
With this in mind I preface my mediator introduction with the statement that mediation is not by its nature a legal ruled process. That is, it is not adversarial and rules of evidence or swearing in of witnesses is not required. I request that executive decision makers speak directly to each other in joint session, followed by their attorney according to their wishes. In preparation for the mediation session I have sometimes called a party directly, without attorney present, to clarify a matter that may have become muddied in the black or white speak of a factual position painted by their attorney.
During a recent mediation I found it necessary to ask both opposing attorneys to leave, so that I could speak directly with the principals in order to encourage them to step back sufficiently to agree on an acceptable settlement framework. They then proceeded to direct the attorneys to modify the draft settlement agreement accordingly.
Notwithstanding the above actions, I have also found many attorneys to be well informed and supportive of the mediation process, which can often produce a mutual settlement with rebuilt bridges for possible future work opportunities.

Comments on: Do Attorneys Obstruct Mediations?

By: Joseph Grynbaum, P.E.