During the last 10 days or so I was fortunate to spend time with Gary Friedman, one of my mediation teachers whom I had not seen in many years, and with old friend Joe McMahon, also trained by Gary. Our discussions were warm, wide-ranging, and somewhat weary. The weariness came from seeing how mediation in many arenas continues to grow more lawyer-driven and less party-centric.
About those changes we have seen in mediation over the last three decades . . .
Even though I have pointed you to Joe's article before, it was over two years ago. If you read it back then when I linked to it, or when Geoff Sharp did so in his blog post The legal community has learned to accept low-functioning mediation, I recommend a reread.
And if you have not read "Moving Mediation Back Towards Its Historic Roots—Suggested Changes" (The Colorado Lawyer) [pdf], please do so now. No matter what philosophy of mediation you embrace, you will likely read some thoughts with which you agree, and some with which you do not.
As I said back then, "Moving Mediation Back Toward Its Historic Roots—Suggested Changes,by Joe McMahon is possibly one of the most important, and I hope controversial, articles authored by a practitioner in the recent past.
Since then I have weighed in with 'In Praise of Joint Sessions' at http://www.geoffsharp.co.nz/articles/in-praise-of-joint-sessions-2/ and David Hoffman is about to publish an article in The Negotiation Journal reminding us of what can be achieved in private session.
Posted by: Geoff Sharp | November 09, 2010 at 09:56 PM
I've always thought the ultimate goal of mediator, from a craft perspective, is to be able to conduct and resolve issues in joint session, without ever going to caucus. Definitely a road less travelled.
Posted by: Ben Ziegler | November 10, 2010 at 08:13 AM