by admin on August 31, 2008
Last time I discussed the benefits for customer satisfaction that mediation can provide in consumer-business disputes. Another benefit to businesses (and, ultimately, to consumers when business costs are kept in check) is that mediation is cost-effective. Instead of a prolonged battle that consumes the time and money of both sides, mediation can be both faster and less expensive than a lawsuit or even an arbitration. Because parties retain control of the situation, they decide if the best negotiated agreement they can achieve is a better resolution than what they are likely to achieve if they go another route. A mediator can help parties consider the pros and cons and move both sides to an agreement that ends the conflict and meets with both parties’ approval.
by admin on August 30, 2008
Mediations between businesses and consumers are on the rise. A prime reason is customer satisfaction. Every business strives to satisfy its customers, for many reasons. It’s easier to retain a customer than to find a new one. It’s easier to expand the business relationship with a current customer than to elevate a brand-new one to a higher level. And, not least, it’s a truism that an unhappy customer tends to broadcast dissatisfaction farther and wider than a happy customer broadcasts satisfaction.
Mediation can provide a way to provide satisfaction in a creative way. Sometimes a customer needs to know that a glitch has been resolved or a defect repaired. A credit towards future orders can compensate for a previous problem. With the help of a neutral third-party, customers and businesses can find custom solutions to their unique challenges.
by admin on August 29, 2008
The recent New York Times business section article, “The Cost of Not Settling a Lawsuit”, by Jonathan D. Glater, touched on the finding that plaintiffs are far more likely to overestimate the value of a case than defendants are to undervalue a case. Although it’s difficult to make broad generalizations, personal injury cases make up a large number of the civil cases brought in state courts. In those cases, the plaintiff is likely to bring suit once in a lifetime. An individual defendant, too, is likely to be sued only rarely. Yet the defendant who has insurance coverage will be provided with a defense (and indemnity) by a insurer who is a repeat player.
Most important, when an insurer makes decisions about settlement, they are largely (and, often, completely) business decisions. An individual plaintiff, however, is motivated by a perceived wrong, personally — and perhaps physically painfully — suffered.
Where one side sees apples and the other may see bananas, settlement can be difficult to achieve. Mediation can help parties to see the other side’s perspective and the limits of their own point of view. A broader view may make settlement both possible and appropriate.
by admin on August 28, 2008
An article in the New York Times business section on August 8, 2008 discussed a recent study of civil lawsuits and the decisions that litigants make about whether to settle a lawsuit before trial, and for what amount. In “The Cost of Not Settling a Lawsuit,” Jonathan D. Glater described a study that found that plaintiffs frequently perceive their suit to be to be of greater value than it is. This misperception appears to lead plaintiffs to reject settlement offers from defendants that are in fact better than the amount awarded to the plaintiffs at trial.
One question raised in the article is whether plaintiffs’ attorneys are not making adequate explanations of the risks and weaknesses in their clients’ cases or whether the clients themselves refuse to accept that their own view of the strength and righteousness of their cause may not be shared by everyone, including a judge or jury.
A mediator can help with the “reality check” for plaintiffs and defendants. At times the attorney who has advocated for a client through a lengthy and contentious pre-trial process is in a difficult position when engaging in negotiations. First, the attorney must accurately evaluate and accept the weaknesses that he or she has tried to minimize. Second, the attorney must explain those challenges and the risks they present to a client who does may resist compromise after months or years of fighting. A neutral third-party can help parties, in a confidential and informal setting, to carefully consider whether continuing the fight is truly in their best interests.