A lot of folks don’t know that there is more than one form of mediation.  That includes a lot of lawyers.

To be clear, there’s mediation and then there’s mediation. They are as different as night and day.  Wished we used different words for them, but we don’t.  But there is a clear distinction. Here it is: (more…)

The traditional way lawyers choose mediators is understandable.  You choose someone with a bunch of experience in the subject matter. No one can fault you later for choosing someone who has “seen it all before.”  Even if you don’t reach agreement. You’re safe.

There are limitations with that approach.  Here’s what I mean. (more…)

“Soft.”  Warm & Fuzzy.  Nice.  Even “nicey-nice.”  Respectful. Gushy & Squishy.

Isn’t this how many of us in dispute resolution and mediation describe our work?  Isn’t it how many skeptics describe it?

Yet is this real?  Is this the way it is? Language forms our thinking, and this language is amorphous, disassociative, ephemeral.  Is this how we view our work?  How others see it?  How our clients see it?

What if we used different language? (more…)

Here’s a great post from Daniella Schilling on how — and why — to consult with an attorney in mediation.  Her practice and context is divorce, but her good advice applies to any mediation.

[Here's a revision of a pre-hack blogpost. And now it has a pic! JB.]

As a mediator, there’s a lot of powerful symbolism in just holding the Beer Summit.  It shows that talking about our differences has value.

The press was not allowed in for more than a few seconds to take some pics and see that it was actually happening.  But even that little bit allowed us to see that there’s more to be learned there.  Take a look: (more…)

Here’s an issue that can keep mediators talking into the wee hours: when to use joint meetings, and when to use private meetings?

Some people hold the preconceived notion that their approach – private or joint – is always better, all the time, for all people and in all cases. (more…)