“The decision here is most likely all or nothing. One side is going to win and the other side is going to lose—and that’s going to be very happy on one side and very tough on the other side.”
–Judge Steven Rhodes, encouraging parties to reach a settlement, as quoted in “Detroit Resurrected: To Bankruptcy and Back,” by Nathan Bomey.
This statement from Judge Rhodes is a powerful argument for insisting that parties mediate their disputes in close-call / winner-take-all circumstances. Such circumstances create a moment, if ever one exists, for judicial activism in moving the parties into a mediation process.
Actions, like the quotation above from Judge Rhodes, meet an essential need:
–Imagine you are a party in a lawsuit. Mediation has not occurred and is not being considered. Trial day is approaching. And imagine the judge believes this:
–the decision-after-trial is likely to be a close call; and
–the result is likely to be all-or-nothing for both sides.
–Wouldn’t you want to know this? And, armed with such information, wouldn’t you appreciate one-last-chance to consider settlement possibilities?
A Duty
I suggest, in such circumstances, that the judge has a duty and obligation to communicate such beliefs to the parties and to direct them into mediation.
A Reason Why
Attorneys who’ve been working a case for an extended period of time often start to believe their arguments!
This is neither cynicism nor a joke. Here’s how it works in the day-to-day grind of managing a case:
–Upon learning about a case from the client, the attorney’s first impression is of a weak case; but the client is in a difficult position and desperately needs to win.
–The attorney’s research identifies several legal theories, each of which, on its own, seems a bit of a stretch; but the attorney keeps developing the theories—which, collectively, begin after a while to seem plausible.
–After extensive work on the case, the attorney now has a carefully-crafted set of arguments that have an aura, in the attorney’s mind, of weightiness.
–The attorney and the party are beginning to believe they can actually win this case and need to forge ahead.
–They now believe their arguments.
This is one of the reasons why statements, like Judge Rhodes’s quotation above, need to be made to the parties in a close-call / winner-take-all situation. And this is why the parties must, armed with such knowledge, have one last chance to mediate their case.
Conclusion
In such circumstances, every effort must be made by the judge to fully-inform the parties of the risks and to move the parties into mediation. Then the parties can:
–take and receive a fresh-look at their arguments and assess anew the risks of their position; and
–take the resolution of their dispute into their own hands – rather than letting a stranger tell them what the resolution is going to be.
Because of Judge Rhodes’s efforts, like his quotation above, mediation worked well in the City of Detroit bankruptcy.
** If you find this article of value, please feel free to share. If you’d like to discuss, let me know.
MEDIATBANKRY 
Leave a Reply