My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad



« In Illinois, Which Side Pays for the Cost of Deposing a Doctor? | Main | So You Can't Think of a Reason Why Law Libraries Are Useful? »


david giacalone

Evan, I wish I could see the entire article. My first reaction, as a retired mediator, is that any lawyer who was not already aware of these principles in 2006 should be barred from representing a client at a mediation (maybe even from representing clients period, since part of a lawyer's ethical duty to clients is to understand alternatives to litigation enough to give the client competent counsel about the alternatives.)

My reaction to "The client should be at the mediation and should be given access to the mediator. Generally, you should let the client speak if the client wants to speak" is: I'm glad that I did the kind of mediation where the client and not the lawyer did the talking (and where lawyers were almost never even present).


David: I agree they are simple points. One thing I've noticed in my own practice is that some lawyers forget the simple rules in proportion to how much money is at stake. But it doesn't work that way: the same simple negotiating rules apply whether $200,000 or $2 million or $200 million is at stake.

That point is hinted at in the article, as the examples deal mostly with large personal injury cases. It doesn't come across in my summary though.

The comments to this entry are closed.



    How to Feed a Lawyer (and Other Irreverent Observations from the Legal Underground)

    Click on the book cover for details!

Search Trial Practice Tips