Mediators come to the table looking for a shift in perspective by the parties. They’re not going to say that up front, maybe not at all. But that is the secret sauce of mediation…giving the parties enough space and time to be heard, and to listen, to create an opening for new perspectives and new solutions to take hold.

If you’ve never been to a mediation you’re probably wondering what happens at the first session with the mediator. And if the dispute that brings you to mediation is filled with a lot of emotion for some or all of the people involved, you may be feeling the same level of anxiety about a first session as some people feel about going to the dentist for a root canal. So let me help put everyone at ease by explaining what you might expect at the very first session.

A mediator’s task is to facilitate negotiations of the participants not to decide the matter for them. The mediator may use different mediation techniques in conducting the mediation. If the mediator may believes that one of the parties to the mediation is not being realistic about the cost/benefit or the risk/reward of litigating a dispute she may act as “an agent of reality” and test that party’s assumptions about the conflict.

Last week I explained what the “scope of the mediation,” “good faith” and “impartiality” means in a mediator’s agreement.

Today we’ll look at one very important term that you can expect to see in the mediator’s agreement.

When you’re ready to hire a mediator the mediator will likely present everyone who is coming to the mediation with an agreement to sign before the mediation begins. For non-lawyers this written contract might appear to have a lot of legal terms that might make it seem like you need a lawyer to advise you before you sign on so I thought I’d point out the key terms you’re likely to see in the mediator’s agreement to make this next step a little less imposing.

After a family member contacts the mediator the mediator will reach out to the other family members who are concerned about the care and well-being of an elder in their lives and might want to be involved in the conflict resolution process.

For those who are still new to the process mediation is a confidential, voluntary conflict resolution process that is often more economical and more efficient than a lawsuit and often the only appropriate method for resolving disputes that shouldn’t be in court for a variety of reasons.

No one wants to acknowledge that some people take advantage of the elderly but mediators who meet with families in conflict need to be on the lookout for anyone who might be exerting undue influence over an elder’s decisions and not ignore a huge elephant in the room.

Conflict Coaching Can Help!

A client recently described a troubling situation with her elderly mother. Mom is living alone with the help of an aide but is not doing well and the client needs to consider next steps.

Read the latest press coverage on Conflict Resolution for Elders and sign up to receive occasional updates.

F.A.Q. #2: How can mediation help when family members don't approve of the decisions an elder is making?

What could be worse than a loved one, and a 6th degree heir to the throne, cutting you off and leaving the country for good when you and the Duke are in your 90's? I'm sure I could have helped. Dear Queen; did you ever hear of mediation? It's a confidential process (I know how important that is to you) facilitated by a trained neutral facilitator (as in no biases towards anyone) and is economical (I'm pretty sure that's an issue for you too) and efficient.

Some decisions that elders have to make are appropriate for mediation. Issues surrounding care, continued autonomy or legal decisions involving assets are entirely appropriate for mediation.

A recent virtual lecture by Khalid Rehman, MD given to the Association for Conflict Resolution of Greater New York, addressed the sensitive topic of mediating end-of-life discussions.

People often ask what to look for in a mediator so I thought I'd share the suggested questions that the New York Court website lists as a good place to start:

I frequently run workshops to introduce elders and their families to problem-solving through mediation. One of the practice modules we use in the workshop involves a discussion about helping an elder decide whether or when to give up their car keys.

Negotiation is always about steering a relationship, and the first relationship we need to steer is the one we have with ourselves.

Sounds simple, right? Actually how these three principles are applied by a mediator can affect the outcome of a mediation. Does self-determination mean that a party has the right to accept a terrible settlement without any intervention by the mediator?