Let's now look at the questions we posed regarding the mediation video. And the first question is how does the mediation process differ from any other negotiation what was your answer to that question? When you look at the mediation process as illustrated by the video, it opened with the mediator stating the ground rules. Then we had opening statements by the parties, we had a search for interests and options. In other words trying to get beneath positions to underlying interests and then we had closure. So in many ways, that looks like the basic process for a negotiation. However, there is one major difference, and that is in the mediation,. The mediator uses a caucus where she met privately and confidentially with each party, to find out whether they had any private concerns, or private interests they did not want to express to the other party. Think of how powerful that is, because the mediator can talk privately with each side. Uh,in a typical negotiation, she can ask them, what's your reservation price. She can look at what they think is reasonable. She can do an analysis. And in effect cons, construct a zone of potential agreement between the two parties it's impossible to do without a mediator. In some cases, the mediator might say right at the outset, well look, there's no way you two will ever reach an agreement, let's go home. And, and forget about it. In other ways she might find, in other mediation she might find there's a large zone of potential agreement and work to construct a, a settlement or an agreement. So the use of a caucus is an especially powerful tool. Of course the other main difference is you've got a, a third party there to mediate and to try to control the emotions of the parties. Our other two questions, what type of mediation is this, evaluative, facilitative, transformative? What did you answer? What type? Well, it's not a mediation that's focused on transforming a relationship. It is a mediation that's focusing on solving a specific problem. So it's not transformative. It's either evaluative or facilitative. Was the mediator asked to provide evaluation, of the results? No. And therefor, this is a facilitive, facilitative mediation which is trying to encourage the parties to work together to come up with a constructive solution. Just as an aside, if you do decide on an evaluative mediation obviously that will affect your choice of mediator, because you want somebody who has the expertise to conduct the evaluation. And then finally, how would you rate the mediator in the situation on a scale of one to ten with ten as the highest value? Normally when I ask my students this question they give the mediator a very high rating for a number of reasons. The mediator for example was very good at what's called active listening. She not only listened, but she was able to reframe what the parties said. She was also very good in suggesting options for the parties to consider. And, finally she was very good at something called reality testing. When one of the parties talked about going to court, we've got a great case, we're just, we're just going to sue. And she used active listening and said yes, you know, I understand what you're saying. You could go to court you have perhaps a good case but think of what that's going to cost you and think about whether that will solve your problem, which is getting your ro, robotics software. In effect the other side's problem is also your problem, why don't we work on solving that problem rather than going to court. So very good on reality testing. So overall, I, I agree with my students I think this mediator did a great job. And by watching her I think you can develop some technics that you can use when acting in a third party role trying to resolve disputes among, employee, or among family members. I belong to a list serve of mediators, and what I found over years is that mediators are very much like this mediator. They're, they're very friendly, they're very open to problem solving. however, a while ago, one of the mediators on this list serve lobbed a hand grenade into the list serve. This is what this person's message said. Get me off the effing list. Now, for those of you outside the United States, I'm not sure if you understand the word effing, but it's not a polite word to use. So when she lobbed this hand grenade into the list serve, I was curious as to how people were going to respond. And the first response was sort of what I expected. What I hear you saying is that you wish to leave the list, you misplaced your information about how to do so, you're a tad frustrated and would appreciate somebody's help. But the next message went on the attack. Other approaches are preferable to you profanely demanding that others make up for your lack of diligence, skill or wit. Thanks much. The next person went on the attack against women in general. The obscene language used by women constitutes one of the double standards men must endure today as the price for collectively having oppressed women in the past. Women today have complete discretion over whether to use colorful language, if men use it in the presence of women, this constitutes sexual harassment. And then finally the last mediator brought it to a close, came full circle back to where expected for mediators, I ask and urge all of us to let this go. As I mentioned earlier many lawyers are not enthusiastic about ADR. They're not enthusiastic about mediation. Here's an example. This is Joe Jamail. I don't know if you remember that name from our earlier discussions in this course. Joe Jamail was the person who won the $3 billion award for Pennzoil against Texaco, he had a lawyer's fee of $400 million. In that case this is his view, I'm a trial lawyer. I try cases. There are some lawyers who do nothing but this mediation bull, bBlip for those of you outside the US, you can probably guess what that is. Do you know what the root of mediation is? Mediocrity. So, you do run into this view from lawyers by the way there's sort of a private joke that in law firms ADR instead of standing for alternative dispute resolution stands for alarming drop in revenue. But here's the view from another lawyer, and I'm going to ask you a trivia question. Can you guess who this lawyer is? My joy was boundless. I learned the true practice of law. I had learned to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men's hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties. The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me that a large part of my time during the last 20 years, of my practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private compromises of 100s of cases. I lost nothing thereby not even money and certainly not my soul. So trivia question. Can you guess the name of this lawyer who especially during the last 20 years of his law practice spent a lot of time with mediation. I, I'll give you a big clue. I think he would be probably on everybody's list as perhaps one of the top five leaders in the 20th century. One of the top five human beings of the 20th century. Any guesses on the name of this lawyer? His name is Gandhi. So, that concludes our look at mediation and in the final segment we'll look at how you can review the success of your contract performance and evaluate that success.