Judge Pro Tem Experience

I volunteered four hours this morning at the Placer County Superior Court as an appointed Judge Pro Tem.  Handed two cases to try and help resolve.  One was a smaller case, with an in pro per plaintiff and a large national insurance carrier on the defense.  Both parties were reasonable, put their confidence in me, and we negotiated a respectable resolution that removed risk for all involved, save thousands in litigation expenses and preserved court resources.  My experience and reputation with the defense attorney and claims representative from the carrier were important in efficiently resolving the case.  Other case involved an injury causation dispute from a major motor vehicle accident.  This was the type of case on which reasonable minds could differ, which they did and continue to do.  Neither party was mean or disrespectful about their positions, but were firm in their principles.  And both were prepared for trial in two weeks.  Despite spending two hours with the parties, could not come to any common ground.

Mediation ordered by Court to avoid "litigation morass" - WaMu's final hope?

Mediation ordered to avoid "litigation morass". WaMu Reorganization Plan Fails.  U.S. Bankruptcy Judge orders thousands of claimants and stakeholders to pursue mediation. Judge says mediation required before lawsuit can proceed.  Most Northern California Superior Courts now require parties to submit to some form of Alternative Dispute Resolution.  Mediation is often the best ADR option because it provides candid, cost effective discussion and resolution at a fraction of the cost and time inherent in complex litigation.  Some counties (Contra Costa, Solano, Alameda) provide mediators who volunteer the first two hours of mediation, which makes mediation even more attractive.

A proposal of mediation does not signal weakness

The prevailing perception about someone proposing mediation is that the proposer is dealing from a position of weakness or urgency; that the proposing party is anxious to resolve the matter and is willing to do so at a discount or premium depending on which side the party is on.  Rather, a proposal of mediation should be taken at face value, for what it plainly is, a proposal by the opposing party to informally resolve the dispute by a cost effective means.   The proposal should not become an assumption that the proposer is weak, anxious, eager or willing to severely compromise his or her prior position.  Such assumptions, or overly optimistic expectations, only set up the mediation and the parties for failure.  If you engage in mediation based on these assumptions you will only be disappointed by the outcome, the result will always fail to meet your expectations and you will have squandered a good opportunity to resolve the case.  An invitation to mediate should be understood as an invitation to discuss the dispute, narrow the issues and compromise.  Rather than perceived "weakness", a proposal of mediation shows confidence and an open-minded approach to resolution.  My experience is that mediation works best for those parties who enter into mediation with reasonable expectations, a willingness to listen and share, and with an objective of compromise.

Real Estate Dispute Resolves Through Mediation

I was appointed by the El Dorado County Superior Court to serve as one of two of mediators on a pending action filed by a homeowner who claimed the home mortgage and interest rate she ended up with was not the loan she applied and was approved for.  She claimed she did not know the loan could adjust from less than 1% interest rate to over 4%, effectively doubling her monthly payment, which it did over the next four years.  She subsequently lost several thousand dollars to a fraudulent loan modification program, which she claimed she would not have lost had she not been stuck with an adjustable rate mortgage.  She subsequently sued the mortgage officer, broker and the lender, a national bank.  At the outset of the conference, the parties were reluctant to discuss settlement or even engage in any substantive discussions of the issues.  In short, both were entrenched in their positions and unwilling to move.  One party was offended at being sued, the other felt hurt and betrayed.  After some encouragement from myself and my partner about the benefits of candid discussion of the issues and reassuring that there was nothing to lose by engaging in a confidential exchange of ideas, the parties got involved.  Once the parties began negotiating in earnest, a settlement was reached within a few hours.  Continued litigation of the matter, including experts, would have cost the parties tens of thousands of dollars.  The parties avoided those expenses and resolved the dispute for one-tenth of the expense of trial.  Both parties were relieved to put the dispute behind them, emotionally and financially.