Who's Your Daddy!

In a recent post, Dan Nunley, of the Oklahoma Family Law Blog, reported on a case in an Kentucky court where a man was not permitted to be named father of a child even though DNA testing showed that he undeniably was the father. The problem was that he had not complied with a statute that did not permit an untimely challenge to a paternity presumption in favor of the man who was married to the mother at the time of the child's birth. Apparently, in Oklahoma there is a somewhat similar statute. When the mother is married in Oklahoma when the child is born, if the prospective father is not the one married to the mother, he only has two years to challenge the presumption that the husband is the father.

In most cases, that is not a problem because the husband is the father. In a few cases, however, there can be a problem if the husband is not the father, but the real father and/or the husband are not aware of the real facts. Apparently, the law would prevent the real father from belatedly establishing his paternity and building a relationship. It would also prevent the husband from possibly avoiding paying child support for a child that was not his. As a result, sometimes men are forced to pay child support for children who are not their children.

In Texas, while there is a presumption that the husband of a mother is the father of a child born during their marriage, in most cases it can be attacked as long as there has not been a court order formally stating that the husband is the father. DNA testing is an acceptable method of proving or disproving such paternity.

Not being able to prove or disprove paternity, as in the Kentucky or Oklahoma situation can lead to some problems. It could prevent a child from learning about potential hereditary health problems. It could also cut a child off from relationships with his or her rightful family and from potential inheritances.

Texas law does have another problem that can arise where there is an order finding that someone is the father of the child. Sometimes husbands just assume that they are the father when they really aren't. If they agree initially at the time of divorce that they are the father and later find out that they aren't, it is virtually impossible to undo a finding that they are the father. That's true even if DNA tests show that the ex-husband is truly not the father. The current law attempts to provide stability for children by not allowing re-litigation of paternity after it has been determined officially. That apparently outweighs, in the eye of the law, the harm done to a man required to pay child support for someone who is not his child.

The bottom line is that parents need to be careful and truthful about paternity. That is also true of men who have even brief relationships with women. There are probably many more sad stories of injustice relating to paternity.

Should I Keep the House?

Some people skip this question and jump right to, "Can I keep the house?" In many cases, it is possible to keep the house, but it is not a wise decision. I have recently had several cases where one side, or sometimes both sides, wanted to keep the house and an objective observer would have told the party or parties that they were crazy. Such a blunt assessment is often not effective in ending the quest for the house. Often, the fight continues until a judge resolves the issue. Such judicial intervention often results in a house being sold, even after a long fight by a party to keep it. It seems that not very many people are really rational in deciding what to do with their home and that is understandable. This post is for people who are able to thoughtfully consider the various factors that affect the decision about the house. The post will not help people who are operating at a purely emotional level.

To effectively analyze the situation and come up with an appropriate answer, you need to dig deep and come up with the real reason why you might want to keep the house. Here are some possible reasons.

1. You really love the house. Some people have no special feeling toward a house. Others profess undying love for their house. It may be the location, location, location, or there could be some unique features in the house that you really can't find anywhere else. Maybe it's the layout or the closet space or the garage or the storage or the yard or the pool or something else. Maybe it's your "dream house" that you searched for forever. Maybe you really love the neighbors. The truth is that there are great houses in the world, but almost all can be replaced. There can be many other great locations and neighbors. Other houses may have a whole host of wonderful features. And you can gradually create a new dream home somewhere else. If you got transferred by your job to another city, you would have to cope with the change.

It may be helpful to write down what it is about the house that you really love. You can add what unique attributes you find in the house. It's also helpful to remember that no house is perfect. Even the best of houses probably has room for improvement. Write down what you would want to change if you were able to. Those issues would help you make a more realistic evaluation. If you take the good and the bad factors together, you will have a checklist of factors to consider in looking for another house. Writing the bad factors down will give you some perspective and remind you that the house was not really perfect, and writing down all the factors will help you realize that there can be more than one house for you.

2. Financial advantages and disadvantages of the house. Whether a person wants to keep the house often relates to financial issues. If there's a low interest rate, low mortgage balance or low payments, the homeowners are often reluctant to give up the bargain they are enjoying. On the other hand, if there is a substantial equity in the house, many parties prefer to sell the house and cash in their chips. Other people face high mortgage payments which may be unaffordable for just one of the parties. Some others fear that they wouldn't qualify for a new home loan with just their income and perhaps the parties' credit rating has deteriorated over the years if they struggled financially. The owners need to realistically assess their situations for the future to decide if it makes sense to try to keep the house.

3. Punishing the spouse. Some parties will want to have the house sold out from under the spouse to get back at the spouse for real or imagined slights or to be controlling. If one spouse knows the other spouse really wants to keep the house, the first spouse may threaten to have the house sold in order to frighten and control the other party. Some parties may try to keep the house to keep the house away from the other spouse or to try to tie up their soon-to-be-ex-spouse's credit.

4. Keeping the house for the kids. This reason is often a subterfuge for the parent with the kids. While there can be many factors that make a house enjoyable for kids (similar to #1 above), houses and schools can be replaced. Some parents will argue that they need to house to maintain stability. That can have some effect, but there will be change in the kids' lives no matter what and kids are generally pretty resilient. There will be a visitation order that shares time between the parents and the kids will probably be spending considerable time in two separate households. One parent is really trying to blackmail the other if they are saying they need to keep the house for the kids. The adults are entitled to at least equal consideration on the house issue.

5. Party owned the house before marriage. In Texas, that makes the house the separate property of the owner and the court will not ordinarily have the ability to take away the separate property from the owner, assuming the owner can provide sufficient proof of the prior ownership. There are a few ways for the other spouse to get some money out of the house, but they probably can't become the owner or force the owner to sell it. In Texas, however, either spouse can claim a homestead right to possession of the house, and that would enable them to continue to live in the separate property house of their ex-spouse for a while. The homestead right does not create ownership, however.

6. Inability to sell the house. There are often reasons why the house can't be sold, even without legal impediments. The house may be in such bad condition that it can't realistically be sold at all, or it could only bring a small amount of net equity. The housing market could be really down in certain areas with the result that houses aren't selling or they're selling for very low prices. Some areas have had a lot of new house building currently or recently which makes it virtually impossible to sell a pre-owned home, much less make anything on the sale, in that area. Some parties are upside down with their mortgages and owe more than the house is worth. They would have to pay off the balance of the mortgage in order to complete the sale, and it's hard to get people to do that.

There's something about a house that seems to make people behave irrationally. If you think you want to keep the house after your divorce is final, look at the above considerations before deciding for sure that you want to either sell it or keep it. There's often a lot of money at stake, so the decision should be made rationally, rather than just emotionally. And it's a good idea to consult with your attorney about this decision before you make it.

Why You Should Wait to Date -- Part 2

Many months ago, I wrote a post about the advisability of waiting until after the divorce is final to start dating. That post is still frequently being read because it is a perennial issue. Lately, another good reason has come up reinforcing the point that you should wait to date until you are divorced. Two words: public humiliation.

In a recent series of events, a politician running for public office in South Carolina apparently got involved with a woman who was going through a divorce. Ben Stevens, in his South Carolina Family Law Blog, wrote about a Spartanburg City Council candidate who has an angry man driving around town with a big sign on his pickup truck naming names and accusing the candidate of adultery. The candidate denies the claim, but he has to be very embarrassed and probably will be hurt when the votes are totaled. If the angry man's wife had waited until she was divorced before she started dating, that trouble might have been completely avoided.

Although dating was not the triggering event, the recent You Tube rant by an angry New York wife shows another possible venue for embarrassing a wandering spouse. She will surely not be the last spouse to utilize the internet for revenge.

In the Information Age, there are more and more ways to hurt and embarrass someone, so people going through a divorce should be very careful with their behavior. As much as people hate to hear this, it is still advisable not to date until the divorce is final. There can be legal consequences that may affect the outcome of the case,but the results of emotional reactions can be even worse.

Don't Try This at Home, Folks!

Lots of Dos and Don'ts are posted in blogs on various topics. A recent incident provides an illustration of yet another action to avoid. In case you haven't heard about this yet, please remember to not record and post a video on YouTube complaining about your spouse or ex-spouse or in-laws or anyone else you may be mad about. (I'm sure you're not thinking of criticising the judge -- right?) This is worse than a public spectacle -- it's a world-wide spectacle.

The incident in question is a video prepared by Tricia Walsh-Smith, who is married to a Broadway executive who had the foresight to have her sign a prenuptial agreement before their marriage. A former actress, she shows a range of emotion and impulsiveness that is impressive, in a bad way. If you haven't seen her video, you can see it here.

Needless to say, the video has been by millions around the world and it seems to create the opposite of sympathy for her. While a few people have posted favorable comments, the great majority of comments are highly critical. She went way out of bounds in disclosing personal, intimate details about their relationship. Some people might have felt sorry for her because of the way her husband appears to be forcing her out of their apartment, but even those people are likely to end up disliking her because of what she said.

More importantly, the judge for the divorce will undoubtedly see the video and it will probably unfavorably affect the outcome of the case for her. It's hard to put a good spin on the video. It removes sympathy for her and might give the judge grounds (at least in Texas and probably other states) to give her less in the property division. Any possibility that the husband might have wanted to try to be nice or help her out has disappeared.

Remember: Think before you speak and think twice before you consider making a video and publishing it somewhere.

Thanks to J. Benjamin Stevens of the South Carolina Family Law Blog and Stephen M. Worrall in the Georgia Family Law Blog for the previous posts on the video.

What Once Was Ethan Allen Is Now Just Sticks N Stuff

James J. Gross, in the Maryland Legal Crier blog, has another of his fine, common-sense posts about a topic most attorneys discuss often with their clients. While some items of personal property are worth fighting over, most things are not worth as much as the attorneys' fees incurred in the fight. I recommend that you read his following post and take it to heart.

"Dividing up the furniture and furnishings can be a difficult task in a divorce. But this is the tail wagging the dog. Most of the value of the marital estate is in the house and the pension. Furnishing and furniture might account for 5% or less.

Sometimes when everything else is agreed upon, folks get stuck on dividing the china, crystal, silverware, jewelry or the frequent flyer miles. Whenever this happens, and it is not logical or profitable, I usually think that they are hanging on to the marriage or the fight instead of the property.

If you want a reality check, jewelry is worth one third of what you paid for it, the minute you walk out of the store. Look at the classifieds and you can find used diamonds, which in truth are not one molecule different from new diamonds, going for as little as $500 a carrot. Gold may be selling for more than $800 an ounce, but your jewelry is measured in grams, and the pawn shop will give you around five dollars or so a gram for it.

Furniture depreciates around 20% a year, so if it is five or more years old, it is essentially worthless until it becomes an antique. And if you don’t believe me, go to an auction or a used furniture store.

The Kelley Blue Book is online to tell you what your automobile is worth. Don’t forget to subtract the car loan.

Each spouse can hire an appraiser to value the real estate at $400 or $500 each, then if they disagree they can appoint a third appraiser. Or you can ask a realtor. Or you can simply agree on the value of the house. Zillow.Com will give you a value for free. If you still want to fight about it, Zillow also gives you a range of values or you can fiddle with the assumptions and comparables to get a new value.

I mention all this so that you can weigh the value of what you are fighting for, against the legal fees that it is going to cost to get it."

It's easy to get caught up in the fight or to stand on principle or to seek "fairness", but we need to keep in mind the big picture and make intelligent decisions. It is often wise to skip some battles and instead try to balance the benefit with the cost of fighting or negotiating. You'll later be thankful you did.

Alimony from Wives: It's No April Fool Joke

In a recent post, Dan Nunley, of the excellent Oklahoma Family Law Blog, discussed a recent trend that appears to be slowly building. He cited and reprinted an April 1, 2008, Wall Street Journal article about men receiving alimony from their ex-wives. It appears that in about one in three marriages, the wife earns more than the husband does. If those couples divorce, the wife has a possibility of being ordered to help support her husband after the divorce and that apparently does not sit well with some of the wives who are in that situation. Interestingly, the comments and complaints of some wives paying alimony sound just like comments and complaints some men make when they pay alimony.

As you may know, after a long history of no court-ordered alimony, Texas does permit alimony to be ordered. It has long been possible for the parties to agree upon alimony as part of an overall divorce settlement. There are a number of reasons why parties may reach an agreement for the payment of alimony and it is becoming a more prevalent tool to help reach an out-of-court settlement in marriages which have either a high wage earner or significant assets or both.

Where the parties cannot agree on alimony, a party (wife or husband) can ask a judge to order alimony, but the law is very restrictive in qualifying someone to receive alimony and usually permits it only for a short period of time. There are few situations in Texas where significant court-ordered (and not agreed to by one of the parties) alimony can be ordered, so the situations described in the Wall Street Journal article don't occur in Texas to any degree. Here, court-ordered alimony requires more than just a difference in income or fault in the break-up. Basically, if the party is able to support herself or himself or has assets that can provide the means to support the person, a court is generally not going to order alimony. Also, if alimony is court-imposed (not by agreement),
it will generally be no more than $2,500.00 per month and last for up to three years.

Nevertheless, it should not be surprising in the next few years to see more husbands seek alimony from their spouse for the same reasons wives have traditionally given when they have sought alimony. And we can probably expect the same responses from wives that we have gotten from husbands over the years as they protest the awards. In the end, the same reasons that support alimony from husband to wife can support alimony from wife to husband. A more significant trend will probably be the use of alimony as a tool to help settle substantial property or income divorces in a way that benefits both parties.

What is a Rule 11 Agreement?

You may have noticed that sometimes lawyers tend to slip into legalese in court or when talking with clients or others. To be charitable, using legal terms may be an attempt to be precise, but it still tends to hamper communication with laypeople. A phrase that often comes up in family law cases, but which is often not explained, is "Rule 11 Agreement".

A Rule 11 Agreement is an agreement which is made in compliance with Rule 11 (no big surprise there) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 says that an agreement between the attorneys or parties involved in a law suit can be made enforceable and binding in one of two ways:
(1) if it is in writing, the agreement must be signed by the attorneys or parties making the agreement and it must be filed with the papers of the Court; or
(2) if it is not in writing, the agreement must be made (stated) in open court (while court is in session) and made part of the official record of the case.

The Rule 11 Agreement must be clear and complete. Written agreements can be typed or hand-written. If oral, the record must show that all parties consented to the agreement.

Rule 11 Agreements are used for many different issues when agreements are made during the course of a case. For example, there might be agreements on the amount of child support, a visitation schedule, when documents will be exchanged, how bills will be paid, who gets to claim the tax exemptions, and so on. They can save time for everyone and the requirements of clarity and specificity help ensure that everyone knows and understands the agreement. Done properly, the agreements are binding and can prevent a party from trying to back out of an agreement. They are frequently used when the parties are negotiating at the courthouse and operate to preserve agreements made in the course of settlement talks.

Rule 11 Agreements are a common, ordinary device to help resolve legal issues outside of court. If you are involved in a family law case, you should not be surprised to see the terms of various agreements preserved as a Rule 11 Agreement.

Tips to Help You Get a *Fair* Divorce

Yesterday, J. Benjamin Stevens, in one of my favorite blogs, the South Carolina Family Law Blog, had an interesting post with some good ideas to help you attain a good result from a divorce. There are some differences between Texas and other states' laws, but many of the points are very appropriate for anyone facing a divorce. Here is what he wrote, along with a few comments of mine

"The following tips can help you get a fair divorce and save you a great deal of time, stress, and money:

• "Once you have made the difficult decision to end your marriage, begin to focus on the financial issues as soon as possible." That's excellent advice. It may take a while to gather the records you need and the finances are very important both immediately and in the long run.

• "Get a good attorney to ensure you receive an equitable settlement, and get the best attorney that you can afford." That is very important. I have previously written about how to choose an attorney. You should make sure you have one who is qualified for the type of issues in your case. Experience and local knowledge are very important. Usually, a Board Certified Specialist in Family Law is a very experienced and knowledgeable attorney in that field.

• "Remember that most states determine the value of the marital assets (including retirement accounts) based on the date the case is filed with the Court." That is not correct in Texas. Here, the value is determined at the date of division. If there are losses or gains in value (for example, stocks or retirement accounts) after the date of separation or the date of filing, they are taken into account when the value is determined by a judge on the trial date. If a case is settled in negotiation, the attorneys usually try to use the most recent values of assets and debts.

• "Consider when to file your case and whether it might be worthwhile to file sooner or later if you know when significant financial events will occur, such as receiving a bonus at work." Usually, that is not a factor in Texas since the value of the estate is determined at the time of division and there is a 60 day waiting period, beginning with the filing date, until the divorce can be granted. Occasionally, the date of filing can be significant, but most often timing can be affected by health, safety, emotional stability, financial need, or some other factors which can come into play. Sometimes filing is delayed so that the other party can adjust to the idea of divorce. Someone about to file for divorce should consider the whole situation before jumping into the process.


• "If the mortgage is listed in your name (or both names) and your spouse will receive the house, insist that he/she refinance to remove your name from the mortgage as soon as possible." That is a good way to protect your credit. Leaving the house in both names without changing the mortgage is really dangerous.


• "Make copies of all recent financial statements, so that your attorney will have an accurate listing of the accounts, balances, etc." I would include virtually all financial documents, including all credit cards, bank records, stock information, retirement account records, and any other financial records. Gather up for your attorney all the records you can find and let the attorney decide what is needed and useful.

Original "Source: "Parting Ways? Your Guide to a Fair Divorce" published in the Erie Times-News."

Bonus Comment: I recommend that you avoid using the word *fair* in discussing anything to do with divorce. Aside from the fact that fair is vague and impossible to pin down, courts just don't spend a lot of time evaluating fairness. Most importantly, what's fair to you is not likely to be considered fair by your spouse, and what your spouse thinks is fair would probably not pass a fairness test for you. It's really more useful and practical to figure out what your needs and goals are and try to meet them. That gives you a more specific target and you will know if you came out well.

Why Does Mediation Work?

Mediation is a settlement process in which two parties meet with a neutral third party (the mediator) to resolve issues in a private meeting or meetings. In Texas, the most common type of mediation is the caucus method which usually consists of one session (sometimes two), with each party having an attorney present and the sides usually in separate rooms. The mediator shuffles back and forth between rooms, conveying offers, questions and suggestions. The parties rarely see each other in the caucus approach. In other states, there may or may not be attorneys involved and the parties usually meet and discuss the issues face-to-face in mediation sessions.

Mediation began to be widely utilized in Texas to help settle litigation in the mid- to late-1980s. Since then, it has become very popular, especially with judges. It has proven effective, reasonably priced and safe for the parties. Nevertheless, I still have clients express doubts and frustration when they are ordered to go to mediation before they can go to final trial. They sincerely believe that there is no hope of settlement, usually because the other party is stubborn, crazy, stupid, angry, unrealistic, etc. I always explain (after mentioning that we have no choice if it is ordered by a court) that I have had a large number of "impossible" cases settle through the use of mediation. Let me briefly explain why mediation works.

1. Mediation brings into a dispute a neutral third party with an objective approach to the case whose purpose is to get an agreement. Whatever the mediator does is seen as an effort to reach an acceptable agreement, not to advance the interests of one party at the expense of the other party. Because of the neutrality, a mediator can make tough suggestions and criticisms which will be heard very differently than they would be if made by the opposing attorney. The mediator can also make statements that a party's attorney should (and may want to) make, but which could undermine the client's faith in his or her attorney's commitment to the client's side. It is a way for a party to receive important information, even if it is not what the party wants to hear.

2. A good mediator can de-personalize the negotiations. Again, the neutrality is helpful. A mediator will usually emphasize the value of reaching an agreement outside of court and will try to shape the sessions into more of a business decision rather than something more personal.

3. The mediator usually helps each party understand the range of options, including the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Often in a divorce, a party starts out with a set of ideas of what he or she wants and the party is unwilling or unable to conceive of other options or any reasons to consider other options. It is difficult for the attorney for such a party to bring up other options in some cases where the party is emotionally committed to a particular outcome. Because of the neutral role of the mediator, it is possible to explain and explore other options. A mediator can also help a party come up with new ideas by brainstorming with the party.

4. An important factor for the success of mediation is that it carries a sense of finality, a feeling that the end of a nightmare may be in sight. In Texas, mediation usually occurs fairly late in the process and after information is exchanged between the parties in "Discovery". The parties are often really ready to end the litigation. One of the factors that often comes into play is that parties become more willing to compromise if they see the reward of wrapping up the divorce.

5. On a related point, when mediation occurs late in the litigation process, a settlement may be achieved because the parties may be worn down or worn out from fighting and arguing. They may be spent emotionally and so is their money. They just are not up to fighting as much as they were originally. Sometimes, they have already collected their pound of flesh and they are ready to end the divorce.

6. Mediation is usually cheaper than a trial and in many areas is a required step before trial. Stable and reasonable parties (there actually are quite a few in the world) recognize the savings they can make by compromising in mediation instead of going to trial.

7. The mediator can play devil's advocate for both parties and educate each party about possible problems with his/her approach. Creating a little uncertainty, or reality, can make the parties more open to adjusting their demands, positions and solutions. Sometimes, a party hears a contrary view for the first time from the mediator since some attorneys are uncomfortable or unwilling to disagree with their clients. Or a party may have just ignored differing opinions or suggestions.

Mediation creates an opportunity for parties to become educated about a number of things that impact of their willingness and ability to settle a case. Experience shows that amazing results can occur with a skilled mediator, even in the most difficult cases. Every litigant should strongly consider, and even look forward to, getting into mediation so they can get the right result that is acceptable to both parties, work in a less stressful, private setting and save time and money.

7 Roadblocks to Successful Mediation

Mediation is a very popular and widespread process used to resolve disputes, especially in divorce cases. In many places in Texas and probably most other states, mediation is virtually a requirement before a case can go to trial. The reason is obvious -- it works! My observation is that mediated cases settle about 90% of the time, or more.

For mediation to be successful, it takes a good, well-trained mediator. In Texas, we normally have attorneys present and participating with the parties in the mediation; some other states often have the parties attend mediation without attorneys. Both systems obviously can be effective. Success, however, is not guaranteed and should not be taken for granted. Here are seven problems that can prevent a successful outcome from mediation.

1. Lack of preparation by one or both sides. The parties need to have all the information and records at hand so they can make intelligent decisions. It's also very helpful for both parties to have thought through their personal goals, needs and interests so they know what they should try to accomplish in the negotiations.

2. Unrealistic expectations. If one party has goals or ideas that are very unrealistic, agreement would be unlikely. It is normal for the parties to disagree about things, but sometimes there is no way to accomplish what one of the parties wants. An attorney should work with the client to help them reasonably define and describe what they want to end up with. If a party demands 80% of all the assets because the spouse has had an affair or drank too much or abandoned the family, usually the case is very unlikely to settle. As the Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you want." The parties need to be realistic and keep in mind the costs of not settling.

3. Lack of commitment by a party. If one party or both don't take the process seriously or don't want to settle, there won't be an agreement. Both parties need to see and feel the advantages to themselves from a settlement. Without commitment, the parties won't stay in the compromise mode long enough to settle. They can easily become discouraged if there is not a quick, painless settlement.

4. Inability of a party to make a decision. I have seen situations where we have waited two hours or more for the other party to respond to a changed settlement proposal that wasn't particularly complex. Some people don't handle stress well and some don't like to make quick decisions. The parties should learn in advance how the mediation process works and how decisions are made. They need to learn to approach the process as if it were an impersonal business deal. Participants should expect to face choices and they need to understand that they probably won't be happy with everything that happens at mediation. Even highly educated people used to making tough decisions affecting others sometimes have hard times making decisions in mediation.

5. Positional bargaining. People who begin negotiations without clearly defining their goals and needs will usually begin by staking out a territory or percentage as a starting point and leave themselves room to compromise. Sometimes, both parties figure out a middle ground for a target and figuratively both take ten paces backward before negotiating. Some people want a percentage of the property, regardless of what their needs are. For example, many husbands will insist on a 50-50 split and some wives will choose a starting point of 70% or 65% of the assets, when it may be that certain assets would be preferable for one party, such as cash in the bank (with no tax consequences) versus funds in a retirement plan (with penalties for early withdrawal plus income taxes for the amount paid). Positional bargaining can make for easier negotiations, but the results may not be very helpful to either party.

6. A mentally ill participant. There are, of course, varying degrees of impairment from mental illnesses. Medication and counseling are often helpful for a patient. Sometimes having a close family member or friend present during the mediation can help the party be in a frame of mind to negotiate effectively. Without extra support and/or meds, a mentally ill party can scuttle the effort to settle.

7. A mediator perceived as biased for one side. Unless both parties have confidence in the quality and neutrality of the mediator, it is unlikely that the mediation will be successful. Some parties don't trust a mediator who is a male or one who is a female. The location of the mediation or the mediator's office may produce distrust by a party. If the mediator is seen as a friend of the other attorney or party, the mediator will probably not be acceptable. Attorneys should make sure that the mediator is someone who will be acceptable to both parties.

There are other potential pitfalls for mediation, but these are some of the major ones. If you are planning to go to mediation, you should work diligently in advance to be prepared, committed and ready to decide. Keep an open mind throughout the process so you have the best chance for success.