Bryan E. Meyerson's interest in mediation began when I was a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals. After attending a judicial conference where appellate mediation was discussed, he immediately saw the benefits of mediation and brought that idea back to our court. He joined the then-nascent State Bar ADR Committee and became the second chair. Because there was no real utilization of mediation occurring in Arizona at that time, he invited plaintiffs’ counsel, defense counsel, and insurance adjusters to meet at the court to explore how we might begin using mediation. That meeting led to what we called the Maricopa County Personal Injury Mediation Project. It was the first formal project to promote, on an organized basis, mediation in Arizona. It had a short life, however, after the local superior court presiding judge pointed out the acronym was MCPIMP! But of course, mediation took hold and began, albeit slowly at that time, to grow in utilization.
Read on as Meyerson discusses his approach to mediation.
Q: What motivated you to pursue mediation, and were there personal influences or professional experiences that shaped your path to joining the AAA?
Meyerson: After my experience on the Court of Appeals, and after serving as General Counsel of Arizona State University, where I initiated a number of programs drawing upon my interest in, and knowledge of, mediation, I developed a passion for creative problem-solving of disputes instead of resorting to lengthy, stressful, and expensive litigation. I decided to slowly build a practice as a neutral, while working as a litigator. Those early years here in mediation were particularly satisfying, as I was able to demonstrate to lawyers the value of the process. Arbitration was, and continues to be, a significant part of my practice, and working with the AAA created an opportunity for me to build that part of my practice.
Q: What do you value most about serving as a mediator with the AAA, and what aspects of the work do you find most meaningful for the parties you serve?
Meyerson: Of course, some cases must be litigated. But for the majority of disputes, resolution through a settlement has enormous benefits, particularly where the parties can find a business solution, or where they are able to maintain, or restore, a relationship. Those cases, and those that resolve with creative solutions, are the most satisfying.
Q: How has your previous experience as an attorney, arbitrator, judge, or in another professional role shaped your approach to mediation?
Meyerson: I have been lucky to have had diverse experiences as a lawyer. I was a public interest lawyer, an appellate court judge, a university general counsel, and civil litigator, before I refocused my practice on conflict resolution. I also have taught, and continue to teach, mediation and arbitration at the Sandra Day O’Connor ASU College of Law. The exposure I have had to so many different issues, and roles in the law, has given me a unique perspective as I approach problem-solving during mediation.
Q: How do you approach the mediation process, and what strategies do you use to help parties move from conflict toward resolution?
Meyerson: Of course, every case is different. But in general, I first make sure the parties have the opportunity to tell their story and explain to me, in their words, their perspective on the dispute. That is the first step in building the trust and rapport that is so important in a mediation. As the mediation process proceeds, I begin to explore in depth the impediments to settlement and offer my perspective in a nonjudgmental way. I necessarily become more evaluative as the day proceeds, but in a way that maintains the trust and rapport I have already established. I prepare carefully for each mediation, not only reviewing the material the lawyers provide to me, but scheduling preparatory calls with all counsel separately to further understand the case and the impediments that have stymied resolution.
Q: Without breaching confidentiality, can you share a moment or case in your mediation work that was especially rewarding or that highlighted the strengths of the process
Meyerson: The cases that are most rewarding are when, after settlement, the parties do not merely express their appreciation for my effort, but explain they never expected that resolution could be achieved. That makes the work totally worthwhile. The parties appreciate my persistence and follow-up efforts where necessary. Recently, with the consent of the lawyer, I actually went to the plaintiff’s home to talk more about the benefits of settlement and, because it was important to the plaintiff, to make sure the spouse also understood the risks and uncertainties of going forward in the litigation and the benefits of resolution.
Q: What advice would you give to advocates or parties preparing for mediation—whether in terms of mindset, process, or practical preparation?
Meyerson: In addition to phone calls with counsel to prepare for each mediation, I have prepared an article I ask the lawyers to share with the clients. This article explains how the lawyer’s role in mediation is different from the lawyer’s role in court, emphasizes that the parties should be prepared to be full participants in the process, and explains suggestions on how to approach negotiation. Importantly, it cautions against setting a firm bottom line in advance of the mediation and emphasizes the importance of keeping an open mind and thinking in terms of negotiating ranges rather than a bottom line.
Q: Have you noticed any trends or shifts in the use of mediation, the types of disputes, or in parties’ expectations in recent years?
Meyerson: When I started my career in mediation, the lawyers were reluctant participants, believing they did not want to give “free discovery.” That thinking has totally changed. Now lawyers see the value of sharing information in mediation, as a short-cut to expensive discovery, and as a means of learning early on the perspective of the opposing party and what limitations there may be in their case.
Q: Which skills or qualities do you believe are most essential for a successful mediator, and how have you cultivated them?
Meyerson: Preparation is certainly essential. Today, the parties expect the mediator to be prepared and to know the case as well as can be expected. They do not want to spend much time in the mediation educating the mediator about the law and facts that were shared in the pre-mediation memos. Persistence is essential. Many cases do not settle the day of the mediation. My practice is to be tenacious about follow-up, and I do not charge for continuing with the negotiation over email and the telephone, where the parties wish to continue their settlement efforts.
Q: Outside of your professional work, what activities, causes, or passions are important to you?
Meyerson: We have two grandchildren: a grandson, age 5, and a granddaughter, age 8. They live a few minutes from our house and go to school one block from our house. Spending time with them, their parents (my daughter and son-in-law), and our other daughter are the priorities, along with regular games of tennis. I am engaged in a number of public service activities I greatly enjoy. I am the Chairperson of the AAA-ICDR Foundation and one of the original Board members. The Foundation makes grants to support innovative uses of conflict resolution skills, particularly mediation. I am also the Chairperson of Phoenix Sister Cities. The sister cities program is a worldwide program designed to bring together, through “citizen diplomacy,” people from diverse cultures and backgrounds. Phoenix has eleven “sister cities” in Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Asia. I continue to enjoy teaching at the ASU College of Law. I teach one course each semester: an ADR Survey course, ADR and Employment Law, and Arbitration.