Let’s say that two kids are arguing over an orange. One wants to eat it, whereas the other wants to use it to bake a pie. Neither kid is necessarily “wrong” for wanting what they want, so I ask you — who should get the orange?
I ask this question not to start some grand philosophical conversation, but to illustrate the practicality of mediation. You see, most people’s instinct is to pick a side and fight for a definitive, “one side wins it all” kind of conclusion. But not me. I prefer to find the middle ground that will allow both parties to walk away feeling pleased with the result. In this scenario, for example, I’d recommend giving one kid the orange peel for their pie and allowing the other to eat the fruit within.
In law — and really, in life — nothing is ever as black-and-white as we might wish it were. I got a master’s degree in dispute resolution and became a Wisconsin-Certified Mediator for that very reason. Where others see conflict and dead-ends, I see opportunities for collaboration, compromise, and forward momentum.
Throughout the course of my career, this compromise-centric perspective has served my clients well. Driven by a desire to resolve their legal concerns as quickly and painlessly as possible, I’ve come to possess an incredibly high success rate in mediating disputes centered around employment law, business law, family law, and property law.
More often than not, finding the right solution requires a new perspective. That’s what I offer to my clients.