No one attends a without an agenda. Every person'sagenda is different.

The mediator must control the flow of communication, or thenegotiation will founder. That is why he was hired. Withwhatever subtlety or bluntness this is accomplished, it isessential. The mediator must be willing to shut off adestructive communication. He/she must also be willing to drawnecessary communication out of participants who are keepingsilent, even if this requires a private session.

The easiest way to control the dynamics of the situation,without attempting to stifle them, is to have the participantscommunicate with each other through the mediator. The slightdeflection that this requires has an ameliorating effect on thelanguage and the attitude of the speaker. As this is exactlywhat happens in court, attorneys are used to it.

There are only two kinds of communication in mediation. Thefirst is any communication that keeps the negotiation movingtowards clarity and settlement. The second is any communicationthat tends to torpedo, stifle or impede clarity and settlement.When "bad" communications occur, as they always do, the mediatormust repair the damage and move on.

There are only two venues for a communication. The first is injoint session. The second is in private session.

Joint sessions are for participants to communicate positivelysuch facts, attitudes, interpretations, arguments, and offers aswill tend to move the parties closer to the goal of settlement.

Individual sessions have two purposes. The first is to permitparticipants to "vent." Venting means to express negativethoughts and emotions about the other side. The setting in whichsuch venting takes place must be controlled by the mediator insuch a way as to advance, not impede, the purpose of settlement,and this means in private session. The purpose of venting is toget it said and done with. Some people take longer to vent thanothers. Some people never stop venting on their own volition, inwhich instance the mediator must make a calculated judgment whento call a halt to it. The second purpose of private session isto discuss what the participants will say in joint session, orwhat they want the mediator to convey to the other side.

Sometimes a participant wants to express his or her thoughts,emotions, feelings or attitudes directly to the other side. Thisis the side of that is closest to therapy. The onlyreason to permit this is if it will advance the settlementprocess. How this is done is very important. There is a world ofdifference between on the one hand, explaining how one feels,and on the other hand, engaging in an ad hominem attack onanother participant. This can be quite subtle. However much aperson is coached, sometimes they just cannot resist turning anaccount of how they feel into a personal attack. There is asimple rule concerning ad hominem attacks: don't do it, becauseit never helps.

These issues do not always arise. Often, the volume and extentof these potentially explosive interactions is reduced orminimized by the parties themselves or their lawyers. Somelawyers prefer keep their clients out of the negotiations,keeping them on hand to ratify settlement proposals. Someparties do not want to take an active part in the proceeding,feeling that is what they retained an attorney to do for them.Also, attorneys often do not want their clients interactingdirectly with the other side's attorney. Some clients becometerribly frustrated with the other side's attorney, seeing himor her as the supreme obstacle - sometimes such a client takesthe opportunity to call the other side's attorney a liar; themediator should put an immediate stop to such "fighting words."

About the author:Charles Parselle graduated from Oxford University's Honor Schoolof Jurisprudence, and is a member of the English bar and theCalifornia bar. He is a prolific author and sought-afterlecturer. You can contact him through his website:http://www.parselle.com