A bunch of reasons.
First, it’s easy for the decision maker for either side to become isolated, and stuck to one view of the case. Mediation exposes each side to a neutral – the mediator – who can question the basis of each side’s assumptions, which may lead to loosening their position.
Second, it provides support for any person wanting to settle a case against the other side. If an attorney – who realized the potential for a disastrous verdict – attends a mediation with his “boss”, the adjuster, chances are the mediator will reinforce the attorney’s views in conversations with the adjuster.
Third, in the words of Jerry Lawson, who has been respected as a mediator for over 25 years in Cincinnati, “Everyone wants to know what I think.” This goes back to reason number one – often, lawyers are working alone, getting no feedback on the value of their case. The mediator is feedback.
Finally, a lot of participants target mediation as the best opportunity before trial to resolve their case. If they question the other side’s willingness to settle for a reasonable sum, mediation offers the best shot – they can count on the mediator to “feel out” the other side.
If both sides “plan” on settling their case at mediation, that’s where it’s most likely to happen.
I have been a lawyer over 30 years. Planning for any lawsuit has to include the possibility that sooner or later, a judge is going to order the case to mediation. If you have a personal injury case in Cincinnati, Ohio or if you want to know what your lawsuit is worth, talk with an experienced Cincinnati Personal Injury Lawyer about the case. Call me, William Strubbe, at 513-621-4775.
Because all situations are different, and because there may be other facts pertaining to your case that I don’t know about, you should not rely on this answer for legal advice. I am not your attorney, and no lawyer client relationship has been formed.
{ 0 comments… add one }