Six Toxic Words to Ruin Your Mediation

Six Toxic Words to Ruin Your Mediation

When it comes to settling a conflict through the mediation process, you want to make sure every word you use is meaningful and purposeful. However, for those who are not familiar with the world of mediation, there are some words which can have a catastrophic effect on settlement possibilities. In this blog post we will take an in depth look at six “toxic” words commonly seen during Mediation proceedings so both clients and lawyers alike can avoid any potential mishaps along the way.

The power of words during mediation and why it’s important to watch what you say

Mediation can be a powerful force in resolving conflicts, but it also requires some finesse to get through. One of the most important things to consider when in a mediating situation is the power of words. What you say could serve as the foundation for an agreement, or hold enough weight to derail any progress made thus far. It’s essential to be aware of both the literal and figurative meanings of the words used during mediation because they can have a significant influence on how the case concludes. Thoughtful discourse and respectful communication are paramount to facilitate a successful negotiation.  Basically, make sure your words don’t end up doing more harm than good!

First Word – “Never” – Why this word can cause an impasse in a settlement

The word “never” when used in settlement negotiations is a surefire way to put an immediate stop to discussions. No matter what scenario or context, it is totally unproductive and it communicates a complete unwillingness to compromise. In fact, throwing the word out there during mediation could be viewed as a declaration of war.  By immediately setting an adversarial tone, “never” will do little more than send both parties back to square one.

Yes, sometimes negotiations require a firm stance. But, stepping away from the table with hardline terms like “never” achieves nothing. Let’s try leaving such inflammatory language at the door and work together for a positive outcome. 

Second Word – “Can’t” – Why this simple word can shut down negotiation progress

“Can’t” is a deceptively powerful word! We often think of it as a harmless negation – an easy refusal, or a way to retreat from an uncomfortable situation. In the context of settling a case through mediation, however, “can’t” carries a nasty burden. By simply saying “I can’t”, a party can give an impression they are unwilling to go any further in negotiation.  Such a conclusion could easily be the death knell for any chance of resolution.

In contrast, choose phrases to build toward mutually beneficial negotiations,   Phrases such as “let me investigate that further” or “let me discuss this with my team” communicates a person may not be thrilled with a proposal, but leaves open the possibility of progress. Remember – when it comes to mediation, “can’t” can cost you!

Third Word – “Contingency” – How using conditions hinders success

When mediating, it’s important to keep an open mind and avoid placing conditions on the desired outcome. The word “contingency” is especially discouraged for this reason. Even if two parties theoretically agree during mediation, introducing expectations or contingencies can break any already formed agreement. After all, in an ideal world the goal of a negotiation would be to come to one clear compromise, not several small ones all attached with individual strings! Ensuring there is no hidden agenda or “if-then” policies will guarantee that everyone is on an even playing field and working towards one common goal – settling a case.

Fourth Word – “Fair” – Why “Fair” is the F-word.

When it comes to mediation, “fair” is the F-word because all too often, both parties focus only on what is fair for them instead of looking for solutions. This idea of fairness is subjective and can create roadblocks in reaching agreements that benefit everyone.

Instead of focusing on “fair”, turn to negotiation skills and compromise.  This will take you much further than the debate about who deserves what. Aiming for a good business decision you can live will take you much farther than focusing on what is or is not fair.  After all, when two parties work together to create an outcome that is good for both sides, everybody wins.

Fifth Word – “Fault” – assigning blame is a recipe for disengagement

The fifth word to avoid in attempted case resolution through mediation is “fault”. In the quest for peace and agreement between parties, pointing the finger will earn little progress. All too often, attempts at assigning blame only serve to destroy the chances of each side getting what they want in a peaceful manner. It’s important for successful negotiation to keep blame out of the equation.  It’s a recipe for disengagement that won’t yield good results!

Sixth Word – “Should” – Why the tyranny of the “shoulds” can destroy progress

When it comes to settling a case during mediation, the word “should” is often like an uninvited party crasher – it can derail progress and throw a wrench into negotiations. By putting expectations on the other person or making one side feel their choice is wrong, the guilt of a “should” can create tension and damage any idea of compromise. Committing to the tyranny of shoulds can render both parties unable to move beyond limited thinking and prevents creative solutions. As such, it’s wise counsel to avoid “should” while mediating; unless, of course, you like adding fuel to an already tense situation!

The Six Toxic Words to Destroy Your Negotiation

  • Never
  • Can’t
  • Contingency
  • Fair
  • Fault
  • Should

"Stressed

"Need

Remember, there is no such thing as impasse in mediation! When you are stuck, it doesn’t mean you storm away from the table and declare a failure. It just means you and your mediation team haven’t found the right proposal yet.

"Download

Here’s a great little cheat sheet you can use during negotiations to become a pro at negotiating. Follow the tips on this sheet and make specific and plausible proposals based on rational evaluation rather than emotions.

Conclusion

As the ability for parties to reach a settlement often lies in the hands of what is said, the six toxic words explored in this post are ones that should be watched out for if you want to stay on track during a mediation. Although finding the right combination of words is challenging, avoiding these six particular words will help ensure successful negotiations during mediation and a positive outcome.

Know any other toxic words?

These aren’t the only toxic words which can ruin a mediation.  Which ones can you identify?  Share your toxic words and phrases in the comments!

Why mediation is a better option for complex financial disputes.

Why mediation is a better option for complex financial disputes.

If you are going through a divorce and have significant wealth, chances are you are looking for the best way to resolve complex financial disputes.  Litigation is an option, but it can be costly and time-consuming. The better option is mediation because it allows you to remain in control of your decisions and avoid the drawn-out process of litigation. Here’s why mediation is the best solution for resolving complex financial disputes.

Mediation offers a number of benefits over litigation when dealing with complex financial disputes.

More Control

First, mediation allows people to remain in control of their decisions instead of leaving them up to a judge. This means people get to decide what is best for them, rather than having someone else decide for them.

Faster

Importantly, mediation can be much faster than litigation because there are little to no court dates or hearings to schedule. This makes it a much more efficient process and one you can complete in a matter of weeks or months instead of years.

Better Communication

Skilled mediators can help facilitate better communication between parties by creating an environment where both sides feel comfortable speaking openly about their concerns without fear of judgment or retribution. This type of dialogue often leads to better understanding on both sides.  What’s more, it fosters agreement on issues that would otherwise be difficult to resolve through court.

More Cost Effective

Mediation also helps to keep costs low because mediators charge fewer billable hours than lawyers do, making it possible for people with limited funds to still access a quality dispute resolution service.

More Privacy

Finally, mediation provides more privacy than litigation as there are less public records associated with the outcome.  Mediation confidentiality law protect meetings and mediation communications from public disclosure. This may be very important for those who wish to keep their private matters private.

A Great Way to Resolve Complex Financial Disputes

Overall, mediation provides many advantages over traditional litigation when resolving complex financial disputes between parties during a divorce. It gives people more control over their decisions,  It provides an environment where open dialogue can lead to agreement on difficult issues without incurring high legal costs or waiting out long court battles. If you’re looking for a fast, cost-effective way to settle your dispute without sacrificing quality results, then look no further than mediation!

Additional Reading:  Are You a Victim of Financial Infidelity?

 

What Does Alternative Dispute Resolution Mean?

The term “alternative dispute resolution” (or “ADR”) is often used to describe conflict resolution without going to court.

If you find yourself facing a family law matter, you might first ask, “How do I avoid going to court?”   Parties can use ADR for any family law issue, whether it’s a divorce, child custody dispute, or support issues.  But, there is a lot of confusion about what ADR practice actually entails.  Professionals and parties alike often use words like “mediation,” “arbitration,” and “private judging” interchangeably.  However, these terms could not be more different.

The main theme of all of these alternative dispute resolution options is that the mediator, arbitrator, or private judge acts as a neutral.  They are not there to advocate for or legally advise either party.  Rather, they are there to get the parties to a resolution, or settlement.  However, the powers and abilities that they have depends entirely on which process you choose.

MEDIATION

Mediation is typically what most people think of when they think of staying out of court and reaching an agreement.  A mediator’s job is to help the parties communicate with each other so they reach an agreement themselves.  A mediator does not make any orders or decisions for the parties.  Rather, a mediator facilitates an effective dialogue between the parties.  Sometimes, a mediator might provide legal information about what the law says, but will never provide legal advice to either party.  Mediation allows parties to never go to court, because it is a private process outside of court.  Mediation is usually the most informal process of these three options.

You can utilize a mediator in a couple different ways:

Mediating with Just the Mediator and No Attorneys in the Room

You can work with the mediator exclusively to settle all of your issues.  The mediator has training to help resolve conflicts.  She can help you uncover areas where you agree and find solutions for areas where you do not. Because the mediator is a neutral, however, you are wise to consult with an attorney outside of the mediation sessions.

Mediated Settlement Conference with Attorneys Present

If you prefer to have your attorney present, you can schedule a neutral settlement conference with your mediator.  The mediator leads the discussion as neutral and your attorneys participate in the discussions.  This can be done in lieu of or in addition to litigation depending on the posture of your case.  Because your attorney is in the room during the negotiations, you can get your advice in real time during the meeting rather than having to schedule a later appointment with your advising lawyer.

ARBITRATION

Arbitration is similar to a trial at court.  However, the arbitrator is the one who makes the decision rather than a public judge.  Each side will present their case to the arbitrator.  They might use the same procedural tools as a court process might require, such as discovery and evidence.  An arbitrator then makes a decision based on each side’s case.  Arbitration takes place outside of court, and is usually more relaxed and informal than the courtroom.

Parties might choose arbitration because they want a private, third-party neutral to make a decision for them, but don’t want to set foot inside a courtroom.  There are two kinds of arbitration – either binding or non-binding.  Binding arbitration means that the arbitrator’s decision is final, and the parties must accept that decision.  However, non-binding arbitration means that if the parties disagree with the arbitrator’s decision, they can go back into court to have a judge decide.

PRIVATE JUDGING

Private judging is very similar to arbitration, except a private judge has the ability to make binding court orders the same way a public judge does.  With private judging, parties generally go through the same process as litigation.  This might include procedures like filing a motion at court, but a private judge would determine the case instead.

A private judge is usually much more accessible than a public judge.  This is because private judges are typically experienced family law attorneys, or retired former judges.  Their schedules tend to be more flexible than the impacted calendars of current sitting judges.  Private judges are also able to devote more focus to one case at a time.  With court, a matter may take several months before a court even has time to hear it.  Parties might choose private judging if they want to have the structure and formalities of litigation, but don’t want to go through the courtroom or deal with the wait times of the court’s calendar.

There are many different options for conflict resolution.  It’s important to know which one suits your personal situation best, as each process has its own pros and cons.  It’s a good idea to discuss your options with a knowledgeable family law attorney who is skilled with ADR practice.  He or she can help you navigate the intricacies of a family law matter, no matter which process you choose.

What Does Alternative Dispute Resolution Mean?

The term “alternative dispute resolution” (or “ADR”) is often used to describe conflict resolution without going to court.

If you find yourself facing a family law matter, you might first ask, “How do I avoid going to court?”   Parties can use ADR for any family law issue, whether it’s a divorce, child custody dispute, or support issues.  But, there is a lot of confusion about what ADR practice actually entails.  Professionals and parties alike often use words like “mediation,” “arbitration,” and “private judging” interchangeably.  However, these terms could not be more different.

The main theme of all of these alternative dispute resolution options is that the mediator, arbitrator, or private judge acts as a neutral.  They are not there to advocate for or legally advise either party.  Rather, they are there to get the parties to a resolution, or settlement.  However, the powers and abilities that they have depends entirely on which process you choose.

MEDIATION

Mediation is typically what most people think of when they think of staying out of court and reaching an agreement.  A mediator’s job is to help the parties communicate with each other so they reach an agreement themselves.  A mediator does not make any orders or decisions for the parties.  Rather, a mediator facilitates an effective dialogue between the parties.  Sometimes, a mediator might provide legal information about what the law says, but will never provide legal advice to either party.  Mediation allows parties to never go to court, because it is a private process outside of court.  Mediation is usually the most informal process of these three options.

You can utilize a mediator in a couple different ways:

Mediating with Just the Mediator and No Attorneys in the Room

You can work with the mediator exclusively to settle all of your issues.  The mediator has training to help resolve conflicts.  She can help you uncover areas where you agree and find solutions for areas where you do not. Because the mediator is a neutral, however, you are wise to consult with an attorney outside of the mediation sessions.

Mediated Settlement Conference with Attorneys Present

If you prefer to have your attorney present, you can schedule a neutral settlement conference with your mediator.  The mediator leads the discussion as neutral and your attorneys participate in the discussions.  This can be done in lieu of or in addition to litigation depending on the posture of your case.  Because your attorney is in the room during the negotiations, you can get your advice in real time during the meeting rather than having to schedule a later appointment with your advising lawyer.

ARBITRATION

Arbitration is similar to a trial at court.  However, the arbitrator is the one who makes the decision rather than a public judge.  Each side will present their case to the arbitrator.  They might use the same procedural tools as a court process might require, such as discovery and evidence.  An arbitrator then makes a decision based on each side’s case.  Arbitration takes place outside of court, and is usually more relaxed and informal than the courtroom.

Parties might choose arbitration because they want a private, third-party neutral to make a decision for them, but don’t want to set foot inside a courtroom.  There are two kinds of arbitration – either binding or non-binding.  Binding arbitration means that the arbitrator’s decision is final, and the parties must accept that decision.  However, non-binding arbitration means that if the parties disagree with the arbitrator’s decision, they can go back into court to have a judge decide.

PRIVATE JUDGING

Private judging is very similar to arbitration, except a private judge has the ability to make binding court orders the same way a public judge does.  With private judging, parties generally go through the same process as litigation.  This might include procedures like filing a motion at court, but a private judge would determine the case instead.

A private judge is usually much more accessible than a public judge.  This is because private judges are typically experienced family law attorneys, or retired former judges.  Their schedules tend to be more flexible than the impacted calendars of current sitting judges.  Private judges are also able to devote more focus to one case at a time.  With court, a matter may take several months before a court even has time to hear it.  Parties might choose private judging if they want to have the structure and formalities of litigation, but don’t want to go through the courtroom or deal with the wait times of the court’s calendar.

There are many different options for conflict resolution.  It’s important to know which one suits your personal situation best, as each process has its own pros and cons.  It’s a good idea to discuss your options with a knowledgeable family law attorney who is skilled with ADR practice.  He or she can help you navigate the intricacies of a family law matter, no matter which process you choose.

Divorce Mediation: Why patience with your spouse is so important

 

cartoon diagram about patience and the difference between the plan and the reality of achieving success

In my divorce mediation career, I’ve learned over the years that people approach divorce from different places. Sometimes people want the divorce very badly and are happy to get started. Others are devastated by the breakup.

 

It’s not uncommon for a couple in the process of their separation to move at different speeds. One party may be ready to move quickly while the other spouse may be having a terrible time and may need to move more slowly. In my experience, the divorce mediation will only move as quickly as the slowest person. That can be very frustrating to the spouse who wants it over with. My best advice is to take your time and give the other person the time and space he or she needs.

Divorce can feel like a death.

In her seminal work, on Death and Dying, Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross describes the “Five Stages of Grief”. They are Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Divorce professionals have learned to spot these very same stages and patterns when people face the loss of their marriage during a divorce. (See The Emotional Stages of Divorce: What to Expect During and After the Divorce ProcessThe Emotional Stages of Divorce: What to Expect During and After the Divorce Process) We’ve learned that people are unable to effectively deal with the present issues of the divorce without reaching the point of acceptance that the divorce is happening. But to get to acceptance, people first need to travel through the other four grief stages. That can take some time. If you’ve sat with your decision to divorce for awhile before breaking it to your spouse, it is likely that you went through the five stages of grief on your own before reaching your own point of acceptance. Your spouse, who may be just learning of your intention to divorce is late to the grief cycle. You’ll need to afford him or her some patience and time to work through it.

If you’ve been sitting with your decision to divorce for awhile before breaking it to your spouse, it is likely that you went through the five stages of grief on your own before reaching your own point of acceptance. Your spouse, who may be just learning of your intention to divorce is late to the grief cycle. You’ll need to afford him or her some patience and time to work through it.

Forcing a person to complete a divorce case before completing the grief process can be problematic.

First, a rushed agreement is rarely followed.

The person who is rushed will resent the process and will likely make efforts to undermine or to revise the agreement. Worse, a party who agreed under duress would have grounds to set aside the settlement altogether. It is better to take the time to get the settlement right so that there is buy-in from both parties.

Second, pushing the slower party often has the opposite of the intended effect.

If you own a dog, you may very well know the behavior that happens when you try to pull on a dog’s leash. The dog will tug in the opposite direction or may even stubbornly stop moving or sit down. In divorce mediation, trying to rush a party often has the same effect. The slower spouse who is rushed may even slow down more.

Third, not allowing the slower spouse room to accept and deal emotionally with the divorce mediation process can lead the pushed spouse to choose more aggressive and expense processes such as divorce litigation.

Trust me, the wheels of justice at court will turn even slower. So it’s best to work with your spouse to try to reach consensus. But if that consensus doesn’t come overnight, it’s not the end of the world. Letting your spouse have the time in a safe space to deliberate, review financials and consult with a lawyer is best even for the faster spouse because pushing a person too hard can lead to a much slower court process.

In Divorce Mediation, Slower is Faster.

So be patient and compassionate towards your soon-to-be ex. Let him or her have time to deal with the emotional pain of the breakup. Don’t push so hard that he or she slows down or worse, chooses to litigate. Sometimes slower is, in fact, faster.

See also these related posts:

Can I Be Divorced Yesterday? Or is Slower Faster? by Shawn Skillin, Esq.

We don’t get along very well. How can we possibly mediate our divorce?

Five Tips to Have a Miserable Divorce

Human Side of Divorcing