I’m been asked about “difficult” mediations. Confidentiality prevents me from describing a specific mediation, which could in some way be related to the actual participants, so I can only describe one in general terms.

A couple with three young children rented a home next to a retired couple In an established neighborhood with longterm residents . Shortly after the couple had occupied the home their children were soon playing in the backyard. As children will, they were running and playing and making what some would consider loud noises. Their neighbors dog became excited and tried to squeeze through the fence separating the two households.

When the children’s father saw the dog he ran over to try to stop it from coming into the yard. In doing so, the dog bit him. His neighbor, who was one of the long standing residents, came running out of his house and rushed to take the dog inside the home. The young father was concerned enough about the bites to go to an urgent care facility for medical treatment.

There was no further contact between the neighbors until the retired couple who owned the dog received a notice of court action. The parties agreed to mediation and I was scheduled to meet with both parties.

One can never predict what can happen during a session. This mediation lasted six long hours and had both parties at times in tears.

The children’s father described his fear at seeing the dog trying to enter his yard. He said he acted out of concern for what could have happened to his young children. Beyond compensation for his injury, he wanted his neighbor to understand what could have happened if the dog had gotten into the yard and attacked his children. He held up his bandaged hand and said, “Look at what your dog did to me. Imagine what it could have done to my children.”

In private caucus, the retired couple shared with me their feelings. They were genuinely distraught when thinking about what could have happened to the children but doubted that scenario as their dog was a gentle one that may have been excited and only bit the man because he forcefully pushed the pet away. Their tears came when sharing how the dog was like a child to them and they were terrified that this lawsuit could result in losing ownership or worse, if the dog were to be put down. Their tears were genuine and intense. At one point they were so upset they needed a break.

I won’t share all the things I needed to do to help these parties reach an agreement, but I will share elements of what was accomplished. For starters, the retired couple agreed to pay any medical bills not covered by insurance. They also agreed to pay the costs for materials to repair and strengthen their fence. The young man agreed to provide the labor to repair and strengthen the fence and not report, nor take any further action, concerning the dog. As the written agreement was being prepared the young couple said “We really should get to know each other now that we’re neighbors.” The retired couple responded “We’d like to invite you to come over this weekend for a dinner!” And what about the dog? The couples agreed to slowly introduce the eldest child to the pet.

I don’t know, of course, the current status of the relationship between the neighbors, but I do know there were no further legal actions taken. And I believe situations like this illustrate the difference mediation can make in neighbor-to-neighbor disputes.

Where are the lawyers with mediation skills?

Law school accreditation standards include alternative dispute resolution in their skills curriculum. By 1986, a majority of American Bar Association approved law schools began providing courses or clinics on alternative dispute resolution. And some law schools added comprehensive programs in negotiation, arbitration and mediation.

What statistics do not reveal is the style of mediation students in law school experience. For example, the Evaluative Style of mediation became commonly used in the 1980s primarily for court-ordered and court-referred mediations. The evaluative mediator points out strengths and weaknesses of each sides’ positions, which might rely on past experience with the law and may share opinions or make recommendations as to what might happen if the case is returned to court.

In contrast to the Evaluative Style, the Facilitative Style became commonly used in community mediation centers in the 1960s and 1970s. A facilitative mediator is impartial and does not give advice, share opinions nor make recommendations. The facilitative mediator assists the disputing parties to find and analyze options for a mutually agreed upon solution by asking questions, providing summaries and developing interests behind demands each party makes. Facilitative mediation has been most successful for on-going disputes among families, neighbors and consumer-merchants.

Most attorneys feel more comfortable with evaluative mediation. This difference is dramatically and humorously illustrated in an article by Allison Peryea, a 2007 graduate of the University of Washington School of Law. Ms. Peryea signed up for a one-week mediation training session expecting it to be a typical continuing legal education class where people sit and listen. Instead she found it to be participative.

She learned about facilitative mediation and found that to be in contrast to her past experience as an attorney telling people what their issues are, what information is important, what the options are and what would be a good result. After years of telling people what to think, she found it a challenge to let people discover their own solutions.

Her first thought was that facilitative mediation was not very time efficient. In time she came to appreciate that in facilitative mediation it is only the participants who really know what they want. And she also learned that in facilitative mediation the participants can come up with creative solutions she would not have considered herself.

Ms. Peryea concluded that attorneys would find facilitative mediation training worth the time to become engaged in a new way of thinking and learning how to see situations from different perspectives.

I couldn’t agree more. That’s what my best attorney friends do.