Sometimes mediation benefits from having two mediators conduct a session. Co-mediation is commonly used and has a long history, so clients are usually not informed as to why their dispute requires it.  

Co-mediation is often used in training programs. And a person matched with an experienced mediator as part of their training, is identified as a co-mediator. Typically, they are not introduced as a “trainee” since by the time they are trained, they are considered prepared.

Sometimes two experienced mediators do work together in specialized areas such as insurance and real estate. If you’ve followed my postings you know that facilitative mediators don’t decide the outcomes but rather assist the parties be their own problem solver. As I so often say, the disputants own the conflict, the mediator owns the process. So you might ask why does the mediator need to know anything about the nature of the dispute?

One of the mediator’s skill is asking questions to help the disputing parties think creatively. If the mediator knows nothing about the area of the dispute, the mediator is at a disadvantage. In real estate disputes I have frequently co-mediated with a former real estate broker. With over 20 years of experience as a broker, she has the background to ask the questions unique to real estate issues that can help the parties solve their problem. 

This approach can slightly alter the process when co-mediators meet in advance to discuss the process. For example, in real estate disputes we agree that my co-mediator focuses on the technical questions while I’ll focus on other aspects, such as summaries. It is important that the co-mediators work together as a team or one disputant may try to “work” the process by trying to get one to side with them. 

Two co-mediators who are comfortable working together may well be more likely to keep the disputing parties involved in the process and, hence, enhance the opportunity for settlement.

How much is an apology worth? Mediators know that it is not unusual for disputants to settle their disagreements when one party is willing to apologize. But for many of us that is simply not easy to do.

When I ask people to recall their first memories of apologies, many recall being taken in hand by a parent and told to say those words “I’m sorry” to a playmate. To many of us the lesson is that we had done something wrong and that to apologize is admitting to having done so.

Actually, there are several forms of apology: Apologies can be ritualistic as when we bump into another person at a crowded reception and say, “Excuse me.” Most likely no offense was taken and there is no further interaction. Apologies can acknowledge and correct minor offenses as when we unintentionally interrupt another person and say, “I’m sorry, go ahead.” Again, probably no offense was taken and the interruption is not mentioned.

Apologies are also used to express sympathy for another’s misfortune without taking any responsibility for it. For example, when a friend tells you about having an auto accident, you might say “I’m sorry” to offer support.

Finally, apologies can acknowledge an offense and accept responsibility for it. Thinking of apologies only as an admission of guilt also makes do so difficult for many people.

Here’s an illustration: In a consumer-merchant mediation, the consumer had prepaid for his daughter’s wedding. The father contended that the caterer was late and otherwise provided poor service. He was suing the caterer to recover $10,000 of what he had paid. He was quite emotional as he felt that his only daughter’s reception had been ruined by the late set-up and poor service. The caterer attempted to explain that the delays were due to weather conditions and fewer staff being available.

After much discussion the parties appeared to be willing to settle on a refund. The parties were in the $3,000 range when the problem-solving appeared to be breaking down. The father kept repeating that his daughter’s wedding reception had been ruined. The caterer kept repeating that he should not be held responsible for the delays caused by bad weather.

At that point the caterer said, “I want you to know how sorry I am this happened. I really do understand how important your daughter’s reception was to you.” That was all that was required to settle. The father said, “That’s all I wanted to hear from you. How about $2,500 for the extra expenses we had accommodating our guests who had to stay over because the dinner was served so late?” They agreed on this amount.

As a mediator I have asked disputants to think about what they can apologize for. Most are willing to express sympathy without taking responsibility. Expressing regret for a conflict ever occuring can sometimes be all that’s required to bring parties to where they can reach an agreement.