Thought Leadership

Why Say Anything at All? Legal Advocacy in Mediation

New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer - NYSBA 

January 1, 2021 by Michael Starr

In a mediation, why should the lawyer say anything at all? In a courtroom, lawyers speak to convince–to convince the judge or jury to decide an issue of law of fact favorably to their client and, ultimately, to have the neutral decision maker impose on the other side an outcome their client desires. In a courtroom, lawyers speak to convenience and, ultimately, to prevail. . .  [Read more]

How Mediation Differs From a Judicial Settlement Conference

New York Law Journal

August 5, 2019 by Michael Starr  

Most lawyers would say, if asked, that the difference between mediation and a judicial settlement conference is about five hours: Judges tend to schedule settlement conferences to two-hour sessions and mediations tend to take all day. This is true. But the reason it is true is that mediation is a fundamentally different process from a judge-directed settlement, and that different process takes time to unfold . . .[Read more]

In Mediation, Right is Irrelevant

New York Law Journal

May 23, 2018 by Michael Starr

Good lawyering advances successful outcomes for our clients in both litigation and ADR.  But the skills that work in trial-like settings (litigation and arbitration) are different from those that work in mediation. The German general Clausewitz reputedly said that “war is politics by other means.” Lawyers who approach mediation as if it were litigation “by other means” miss the opportunity to achieve better outcomes for their clients . . .  [Read more]