Archive for the ‘Celebrities, Entertainment & Sports’ Category

As a mediator and leadership coach, I have to say this:  While generally I don’t disagree with most of what Meryl Streep said during her acceptance speech for the Hollywood Foreign Press’s Lifetime Achievement Award at tonight’s Golden Globe awards, she did miss an incredible opportunity.

First, she used her audience, her station, and her status the same way she accuses President-Elect Trump of using his.  Then, by attacking him, all she did was up the ante and unify his supporters (half of our country), while ensuring that Newton’s third law of physics persists:  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  As long as any of us advocate for one “side” over another, or argue over who/what is right/wrong, and frame it as “us and them”, we simply continue volleying in the same game.  The only way to unify us as a people, and appeal to the vast middle of the bell curve, is instead to catch the ball, stop the game, walk to the middle of the court and have real dialogue, with listening, understanding, and acknowledgement.

If you were cheering her speech, you may be caught up in the game, too.  We call it confirmation bias, where you seek out what you agree with because it feels good.  If you are booing it, maybe you should listen again and hear her words.  The fact that she delivered them in advocacy doesn’t mean that they are wrong; it only means she said them in a way that some couldn’t hear them.  And perhaps with a little too much judgment.

As a mediator, I know that telling people they are wrong doesn’t change their minds.  And as one who regularly mediates with the biggest celebrities in “Hollywood”, I know that even the ballroom before her was divided.  I also know that her talk made it unsafe for any who disagreed to speak up.  That’s why the election polls were so inaccurate.

We should be seeking to make people stop and scratch their heads and think in a new way about things they hadn’t before considered, rather than seeking to make the majority cheer and raise a fist.  As long as both sides persist in the latter, we are trapped in this volley for the unforeseeable future.

I call upon my mediator and leadership colleagues, and on all of you reading this, to help change the game and create dialogue, modeling more inquiry and active listening than advocacy.  It is up to all of us.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (3 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
Share

Concussion Discussion?

Author: Lee Jay Berman

Junior Seau Chargers[This blog post was originally written on August 9, 2015]   Something needs to be said about yesterday’s NFL Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony.  There was one very important person missing:  Former All-Everything Linebacker Junior Seau.  He is missing because he took his own life in 2012, between the time he retired after 20 NFL seasons, and the date of his induction into the Hall of Fame.  He took his life by pointing a gun at his heart and putting a bullet through it, allegedly so as to not do damage to his brain, and to leave it to be studied by doctors to assess the impact of repeated concussions from playing the sport.

Seau was one of several to take their own lives in this way, presumably to prove to the NFL and others that they needed to study Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE, chronic brain damage that is said to make people feel crazy, like they’ve lost their minds, and also known for leading to severe depression), and because he could no longer live with the symptoms of the disease.  Seau did not leave a note, but the year before Seau’s suicide, Dave Duerson committed suicide in the same fashion and did leave a note requesting that his brain be studied for CTE.  To date, 18 players have been diagnosed with CTE, and 8 more are suspected to have had it.  Currently, 32 living former NFL players have been diagnosed with CTE or ALS, presumed to have come from repeated concussions.  These are names you know, including Brett Farve, Tony Dorsett, and Jim McMahon.

As you know, this space is not one for advocacy of one side or another on an issue, but rather to advocate for the discussions we should be having about difficult issues.  Neither side can stick their heads in the sand on such an important issue, but on this one, both sides did.  Players, ceding for the moment to the macho, jock stereotype, were not the most likely to step forward and admit a medical weakness from playing the game.  And the NFL owners likely looked at this as a risk of potential liability, so they went into denial mode until these suicides began, almost as a trend.

Eventually, the players filed a lawsuit, and there was a 2013 settlement, though it is still in conflict, with players opting out.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Isn’t this how our society works?  One side or both on an issue put their heads into the sand, refusing to acknowledge a problem, forcing the hand of the other to file a lawsuit in order to get the other side’s attention, and after each side has spent unheard of amounts of money fighting in our adversarial system, only then do they begin to have discussions.

What would happen if at the beginning of the problem, the very genesis of it, they brought in a mediator to serve as a neutral party and help them exchange information, discuss options, and look toward solutions and resolutions?  As a mediator, I can say that there is a huge difference in the options available to us early on in a dispute, as opposed to later, after litigation and discovery have entrenched everyone.  In the early stages, we talk about collaborating on a resolution, in the late stages, we talk about accepting a monetary settlement, often from an insurance policy that covers the defendant.

Until insurance companies, corporations, and individuals begin to decide to talk it over in the early stages of a conflict, we are going to keep going down this same path.  And what should be glorious celebrations of sport and victory will continue to be marred by death, sadness, and whispers of what would have been, and how it could have been different.

(more…)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

Saying Goodbye to The Great Teachers

Author: Lee Jay Berman

John R. WoodenJust one week ago, members of the mediation community gathered in Los Angeles to celebrate the life of our dear friend and mentor Richard Millen (see Mediation World Loses a Patriarch).  My friend Phyllis Pollack wrote a wonderful summary of that night in her blog.

Today, we lost the great teacher and coach John R. Wooden, long time and legendary UCLA basketball coach.

I’m wondering with these teachers now gone, will we continue to follow their lessons?  I’m wondering with them now gone, the Dalai Lama turning 75 and Nelson Mandella turning 92 next month, I’m wondering who will be our next great teachers?  Who will walk the talk and live a life that embodies both greatness and goodness?

Wondering this makes me proud to have been in the company of Ken Cloke last week.  Ken was a co-founder of Mediators Beyond Borders and has published prolifically.  Ken is a great teacher who lives a life of compassion and grace.  Erica Ariel Fox is another.  She founded the Global Negotiation Insight Institute and is working on her first book.  I see many other great mediator friends doing incredible work – teaching conflict resolution skills in prisons, or to children.  Most of them are growing and preparing into our next great generation of teachers.

Sports might offer us Coach K at Duke basketball or Phil Jackson and his blend of Native American,  Zen and Christian learnings, known for giving his multi-millionaire players books on philosophy, spirituality and balance.

I don’t think we’re going to see teachers of the caliber of Richard Millen and John Wooden any time soon.  They had so much in common, not the least of which was, to quote Kareen Abdul Jabbar on Coach Wooden, “he sent a lot of good people into this world.”

Coach Wooden had said that his proudest accomplishment as a player was being named Scholar Athlete of the Year at Purdue.  Richard Millen, a humble young man from Tennessee  became a Harvard Law graduate.  The national college basketball players of the year (man and woman) receives the John R. Wooden Award; the Southern California Mediation Association’s peacemaker of the year receives the Cloke-Millen Award.  Both men were selfless – Coach Wooden was paid $32,500 in his final year at UCLA in 1975; Richard Millen also made a small fraction of those mediators who he mentored.  Coach lived by, “Success is the peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you did your best to become the best you are capable of being.”  While Richard Millen would agree, perhaps his favorite was, “A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say:  ‘we did it ourselves’.”

Who will lead us next?  Who will be our next great teacher?  Who will be worthy of us learning from?  Will it be you?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

Lindsay_LohanLindsay Lohan is in trouble again.  She’s in trouble with a certain judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court… again.  This time, she may have gone too far.

Lohan is stuck in Paris with an allegedly lost/stolen passport and her attorney, Shawn Chapman Holley says Lohan will not be able to appear in court Thursday morning, May 20, as ordered.  Lohan’s hearing is to determine whether the actress-singer has complied with the terms of her probation order for her 2007 conviction for driving under the influence.  See:  “Lawyer:  Lindsay Lohan will miss court date“.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Marsha Revel extended Lohan’s probation hearing from a year ago in order to allow Lohan to complete her mandated alcohol abuse education.  Upon granting Lohan the extension last October, after first issuing a warrant for Lohan’s arrest for failing to comply with the requirements of her sentence, Judge Revel warned Lohan not to “thumb your nose” at the court, saying, “This is the last time we are going to be talking about re-enrolling and doing what you need to do.”

If she fails to appear, she will have violated her parole two times:  once for the failure to appear as ordered by the court, and a second time because Lohan was to have completed her alcohol abuse education program by this date, and according to Holly, Lohan has, “been in substantial compliance” but has apparently not been perfect in her ordered attendance.

Upon being notified that Lohan was unable to fly back from the Cannes film festival in time for her hearing, the judge indicated that she expected Lohan to effort all means and expense possible in order to appear.  Lohan’s father is expected to appear to plead with the judge to send his daughter back to rehab.

This is when I wish that there was an opportunity for a mediator to intervene in the process.  If that were possible, a mediator might first sit with the judge alone and ask her if she was able to allow for the possibility that Lohan’s passport might have actually been stolen.  The mediator could ask her if she could be open minded to the possibility of Lohan’s true innocence.  And that mediator might ask her what, if anything, Lohan could do to make it better with the judge – what proof would satisfy her, or what apology would trigger her forgiveness.  The mediator could remind judge Revel about her choices and about her goals and her moral compass, and about her career and her integrity, all to make sure she is making her ultimate decision with an open mind and with a clear view of all of her important perspectives, rather than out of frustration or indignation.

Then that mediator could sit with Lohan and do the same, asking her if she realizes the gravity of what has happened and whether she can see how this looks on tabloid TV when they show her partying in Cannes and then missing her court date immediately after.  The mediator might ask her to consider how the judge would look if she were lenient with Lohan, and ask Lohan how she thought she could take responsibility for her actions in a way that would convey real remorse and contrition.  By reminding her of the choices that she has – choices about what to do and how she goes about doing it, and walking her quickly through the likely outcome of each of her choices, the mediator could assist her in focusing on her big picture life goals and help her to avoid focusing just on this hearing and this ruling and miss the forest for the trees.

Individual coaching with each side in an escalating dispute is often helpful to keep them balanced and to try to help them keep their emotions from driving their decision making.

Eventually, a mediator could bring the judge together with Lohan and Holley and let them talk.  The judge might want to make it clear to Lohan that she had violated the court’s order and that there were a range of options at the judge’s disposal, including jail time.  Lohan would likely try to explain clearly the events that led to her passport’s disappearance and to come armed with a police report about the theft and a copy of the affidavit and request filed with the U.S. Consulate in Paris, and for Lohan to genuflect deeply and sincerely and apologize for putting the court in such a position.

From there, the judge would do as she saw fit.  She could find Lohan in contempt of court and order jail time, fines, or rehab, or she could believe her story and proceed with the hearing.  But whatever she chose, she would do so having had a sincere dialogue and from a place of being informed.  And Lohan, even if ordered to prison for a week or two, would at least feel like she had her opportunity to be heard.  But making a rash decision without looking into her eyes and seeking the truth would be unwise.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

Larry King + Shawn Southwick E! entertainmentOne of this week’s most talked about legal issues is whether or not Larry King will divorce his wife Shaun Southwick.  See “Larry King Divorce ‘Full Steam Ahead”.  Last week the media speculated about the state of Tiger and Elin Woods’ marriage.  The week before it was all about Sandra Bullock and Jesse James, and the week before that Charlie Sheen and Brooke Mueller.  Next week another couple with a marriage in crisis will take the spotlight amid accusations of cheating, disclosures of prenuptial agreements, divisions of millions in assets and child-custody battles.  Like many failed marriages, however, when the focus goes away the discussion about those matters will remain toxic.

Every day, famous and unknown families are torn apart by divorce.  Here’s a story that didn’t make headlines.  While it did not have a happy ending, the couple involved are still speaking to each other and making joint decisions about their children’s care.

He was a professor, she was a surgery nurse, and their girls were three and five.  Just like most folks in their forties, they had a house, individual retirement accounts, some stocks, some love and some anger.

This couple chose co-mediation, where they met with a pair of mediators:  she was a family law attorney and he was trained in psychology.  After the mediators facilitated rational conversation and give-and-take, the couple agreed on everything from dividing their belongings and support issues to a collaborative parenting plan for the girls.  They spent less than $2000 for the entire process, and more importantly, they remain civil and friendly to each other.  And they decided the outcome.  They retained control of their own lives.

Some people still choose to get divorced the old-fashioned way – where they let their emotions overtake their logic.  They fight over everything, including things they don’t even care about.  All they really care about is hurting the other one as the conflict escalates.  This method requires lawyers and judges.  One such young couple had $30,000 in community property and no kids.  When they finished fighting, her legal bill alone was $40,000.

Couples with children who choose to fight do damage in another way, too.  Their kids are watching and learning how to engage in conflict from their parents’ example.  These kids will grow up thinking it’s normal to have parents who don’t have the skills to get along and who have to be carefully seated separately at graduations and weddings (stealing the spotlight at their kids’ events).

Some may say that a couple’s approach to divorcing depends on whether it ends by mutual agreement or by deceit and betrayal.  I submit that it’s the other way around – that the way they approach divorce depends on their choice of process.  Maybe like other contracts, there should be a marriage contract with a pre-dispute mediation clause in it, meaning, “We love each other now, let’s agree now that if anything ever goes wrong, we’ll use mediation to sort it out civilly.”

It’s a mediator’s job to keep a divorcing couple on the civil path, where it’s a lawyer’s job to advocate for their client’s interest above all others.   The only thing divorcing couples have to do – celebrities or not – is make the choice to go the more civil path, and then let their mediator help them keep it there.  They should make this decision for themselves and for their children.

Nobody knows how many celebrities use mediation to divorce, mostly because mediation is confidential, but judging by the magazine covers in the supermarket, far too few consider it.  Maybe it’s because the financial cost of the divorce isn’t as daunting to them.  Maybe it’s because they have an ulterior motive for having their names on the front pages for an entire week.  Most of the couples in the news lately, however, have small children who are going to have to live for years with the consequences of their parents’ decisions about their break-ups.  I hope at least one of them reads this post and looks into mediation.  As you read this, you may know a couple who is in need of this advice.  It could save them a lifetime’s worth of regret.

What do you think about the viability of a prenuptial mediation agreement?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

oprah winfrey courtesy afro.comOprah Winfrey last week settled the defamation case brought by Nomnuyo Mzamane, the former headmistress of Winfrey’s girl’s school in South Africa.  “Winfrey made certain remarks following a 2007 sex-abuse scandal at the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in South Africa.  Mzamane’s lawyers claimed that, because of Winfrey’s visibility and popularity, she could easily sway the public to believe that her statements were fact rather than allegations.” said Afro.com.  However, “Winfrey’s defense for her statements was that she was exercising her right to free speech and she was just voicing her opinion about the incident.”  See “Oprah Winfrey Settles Defamation Lawsuit”.

What’s remarkable about their settlement is that Winfrey and Mzamane met together on the eve of trial without their lawyers to craft what their representatives described as a peaceful resolution to their mutual satisfaction.

Once a lawsuit is filed, litigants don’t usually meet together without their lawyers to try to reach a settlement.  Few lawyers would even advise it, and that’s not because the lawyers are always anxious to display their courtroom skills.  Normally, by the time a dispute makes it to trial, the parties have exhausted their own abilities to settle the controversy.  “According to the suit, there were several comments which drew the ire of Mzamane.” said Afro.com.  What it takes is someone who hears a statement like that and understands that the parties need to come together face to face, and it takes a person such as Oprah Winfrey with above average communication skills to accomplish what few can do on their own.

This is not to say that litigants meeting to talk about their cases isn’t wise.  But after months of litigation, people tend to become even more polarized, which is why having an experienced mediator there to facilitate the communication, keeping them on track as they talk about settlement, is often a good idea.  That’s the main reason mediation exists.  But most people need a skilled communicator who is not emotionally involved to facilitate the kind of peaceful conversation Winfrey and Mzamane had.

Mediation is the process of sitting down with the person or company with whom you have a dispute and talking about possible solutions.  Successful mediation involves brainstorming, negotiating, talking about the problem with the goal of resolving the dispute cooperatively, collaboratively, with the help of a professional, unbiased third party who brings experience and creativity.  And here’s the best part: the litigants retain control of the outcome, instead of turning it over to a judge or jury.  It is the peaceful way to resolve a dispute, the civil way, and I would argue, the new American way.

From all indications, I believe that Oprah would agree with me.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

“I don’t care if it’s Tiger Woods, Bernie Madoff, or Toyota, if an apology comes late it’s going to be seen as phony,” Atlanta lawyer Jimmy Faircloth told the Los Angeles Times recently.  Faircloth is among a number of litigators representing plaintiffs suing Toyota for alleged acceleration incidents involving its automobiles.  Most lawyers agree the Toyota acceleration litigation will be long, complex, involve multiple jurisdictions and reach “historic proportions.”  See “Lawyers Circle Toyota

I beg to differ with Faircloth, because I believe it is never too late for a sincere apology.

Here’s the dilemma:  Most product manufacturers that allegedly cause injury are advised against apologizing because it could be viewed as an admission of wrongdoing.  Most injured parties require something more than an apology to be made whole.  Defendants realize that no matter what, they are still on the hook for monetary damages, so why bother.  Besides, they think that no matter what they say, it won’t ever be enough.  Just ask Faircloth.

So why apologize?  I submit that it is almost always the right thing to do – both ethically and strategically.  From a strategic perspective, people (plaintiffs) will fight longer and harder in the absence of an apology.  And why is that?  Because absent expressions of real remorse or empathy from the alleged wrongdoer, the aggrieved person has no choice but to fill that vacuum with his or her own worst imagination.  Couple that with the frustration of not having expectations of an apology or empathy met, and you have a recipe for explosion.

Wouldn’t a sincere apology from the Pope regarding the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal ease a good deal of the public’s outrage about the Church’s handling of the incidents?  Without that, people fill that void by assigning to the Church feelings of apathy, indifference, even tacit acceptance, and it is that array of feelings to which people are reacting.

Akio Toyoda Apology from knx1070.comIn Toyota’s case, company President Akia Toyoda apologized publicly.  He said the important words, “I am sorry for any accident Toyota drivers have experienced … and I will do everything in my power to ensure such a tragedy never happens again.”  You can listen to his entire apology here:  http://aiminst.com/toyoda.

Is he sincere?  Only time will tell, but the world will be watching Toyota’s production quality very closely, and skeptically, to see.

Litigants don’t have the opportunity to offer or hear apologies such as the one Toyoda made to Congress and the world.  In civil litigation for monetary damages where lawyers and witnesses do all the talking, apologies are almost never a part of the equation (except sometimes on TV dramas).

Mediation is different, however.  In mediation, litigants come together for the express purpose of talking about their disputes in an environment that both encourages and facilitates apologies as part of resolution.  For some parties, hearing the words “I’m sorry” is part of being made whole.  For defendants, having the opportunity to say and mean those words can lift a burden they may have carried for years.

I have seen apologies work wonders for all involved in sexual harassment and discrimination cases, medical malpractice cases, product liability and personal injury cases.

Once, in a sexual harassment suit I mediated, after the plaintiff told how the harassment had affected her entire life, the defendant shocked us all when he literally confessed. “I did it,” he said.  “I did everything she just described.”  He could only do that because of the protections provided by mediation.  He went on to apologize, explaining that he thought they were all just goofing around, that everyone in their workplace flirted with everyone, that he never dreamed his actions affected her the way they had  and that if someone had ever made his wife feel the way she was describing, he would want to strangle the guy.  He apologized sincerely, asked for her forgiveness, and wanted to know what he could do to make it better.  Those are the three components of a real apology.  More important, his words gave that plaintiff exactly what she needed.  The modest amount of money she accepted meant less to her than the apology.

In a medical malpractice case, when the plaintiff talked of losing her elderly mother, the hospital’s risk manager answered, not by denying liability, but by telling her own story of loss – her elderly father in a hospital.  Upon hearing that, the plaintiff felt she had someone on the other side who understood her.  We were able to resolve that case in about 30 minutes with just one monetary offer.  Read more about this at http://aiminst.com/advopen.

So, my advice to Faircloth — and all who are skeptical about the motives behind apologies — is that the words “I’m sorry” mean something, no matter how long you have to wait to give or receive them.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share

Dark Side of the MoonPPink Floyd is suing its former record label EMI over how royalties are calculated on internet sales.  Among other things, the band is contesting whether its 1999 contract allows sales of individual tracks, as EMI contends, or mandates only complete album sales, which is how Pink Floyd interprets the contract.  “When Pink Floyd’s latest contract was crafted in 1999, iTunes didn’t even exist,” EMI attorney Elizabeth Jones sums up the label’s argument.  “Pink Floyd, EMI Brawl Over iTunes Royalties”.

Almost all contracts are ambiguous, and parties whose incentives cause them to interpret contract terms in their own favor will disagree about almost any contract.  Even the greatest transactional attorneys in the world can’t account for every contingency or every evolution of technology, biology or ecology.  This is why courts look at the intent of the contract.

Mediators bring disputing parties back to the contract’s original intent.  Really good mediators can bring parties all the way back to their relationship at the time of the agreement and the reasons behind their decision to do business together.  It’s not unlike reminding a divorcing couple about their courtship and their wedding to allow them to remember they didn’t always feel animosity toward each other.

In 1999, EMI no doubt courted Pink Floyd for its business.  Pink Floyd signed with EMI, even though the band likely had its pick of record label suitors.  Both of them would do well to remember their original motives and intentions that drove their choices.  In that light, they can view the disputed agreement (I find it ironic that people often fight over something called an “agreement”) with a less extreme interpretation, and each other as something less than the devil incarnate.

Ken Cloke wrote in his book Conflict Revolution that most people have to reduce the other to evil to sustain a fight at the high conflict or heavy litigation level.  Revisiting intent surrounding the original agreement can be a step toward humanizing the conflict.Pink Floyd's The Wall

In reality, these two entities (they are both businesses, after all) will necessarily have a long-term relationship for as long as EMI owns the Pink Floyd catalog.  What that means from a negotiation standpoint is that they can remain in a competitive state, they can settle the lawsuit with a compromise where each walks away still angry because they are anchored to their loss, or they can mediate collaboratively to a satisfactory resolution for both parties, thereby preserving their relationship.

Successful mediation in this case will require three elements:

1.)    Good lawyers capable of seeing the lawsuit as more than right or wrong litigation.  With all due respect to strict litigators, a creative deal-making lawyer at the mediation table is often helpful because transactional lawyers typically view negotiation very differently than a straight trial lawyer;

2.)    The right parties in the room.  We mediators are always making noise about why having all decision-makers in the room is important.  To have any kind of creative discussions, it’s required.

3.)    A mediator who can steer the discussion (often repeatedly) from destruction to a constructive business meeting where the parties explore all options.

For example, options in the Pink Floyd/EMI conflict could include exploring Pink Floyd buying back its catalog or allowing single-sales from all albums except the two top sellers, The Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall.  A monetary settlement amount could be funded with something other than cash, such as EMI stock, which would give Pink Floyd a greater stake in the label’s success and direction.  These conversations and other brainstorming around these issues can only take place when the table is set in a way that allows them to flourish.

Most settlement discussions in similar cases start with a sky-high demand and a nuisance-value offer, if any.  Where it goes from there depends on the lawyers and the mediator.  But contract disputes have the potential of becoming much more than just a compromise around the dollars.

Pink Floyd’s lawyer wants a finding determining what the contract says.  If every contract in the industry was written the same and a court ruling would set precedent, perhaps litigation is necessary.  But in the case of this unique contract, I submit that it’s not a verdict that is needed as much as a few creative minds.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Share