When Numbers Matter More Than Emotions: A Lesson in Strategic Mediation
- Raymond Niblock
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
By Raymond L. Niblock, Founder & Principal Mediator, Niblock Mediation Services
Not every mediation turns on emotion.
Recently, I mediated a dispute involving alleged damage to a commercial building and the resulting loss of business income. At its core, the case was about numbers—specifically, how to interpret financial data tied to lost net profits.
The gap between the parties was significant. Each side viewed the same data through a different lens, and both were headed toward a costly battle of experts if the case proceeded. Economists, accountants, and rebuttal experts would ensure the expenses would mount quickly, with no guarantee of a better outcome.
The plaintiff, a highly educated business owner, had already worked with multiple attorneys. He was understandably frustrated. But as the mediation unfolded, something important became clear: this was not a case that required emotional ventilation to move forward.
The Value of Co-Mediation
In this mediation, a colleague—Van Thomas Currell—joined me. His background spans decades in high-level real estate development and project management, along with formal training in counseling and mediation. Although he was technically in a shadow role, his contribution proved decisive.
At a key moment, he helped me see something I had not yet fully appreciated: the plaintiff did not need to vent. He was not driven by emotion in the way many parties are. He was driven by the numbers and his attachment to his financial model and what he believed those numbers proved.
The insight Van provided me counseled a change of course. Instead of continuing down a path that would have taken more time, we shifted directly into cognitive engagement by testing assumptions, examining how a jury might receive competing interpretations, and working closely with counsel to recalibrate expectations.
Without that intervention, we likely would have spent another hour or more trying to unlock movement through a method that did not fit the party.
This is where co-mediation shows its value. Even when one mediator is not leading the room, the additional perspective from a focused observer can accelerate understanding, sharpen strategy, and create efficiencies that materially affect the outcome.
In this case, that perspective was strengthened by a long personal and professional history. Van and I have known each other for nearly four decades. We have worked together before, and there is a level of trust and communication that allows for quick, candid course correction. At the same time, our differing backgrounds, his in industrial/organizational psychology, mine in trial law, bring distinct lenses to the same problem.
That combination proved powerful, and with co-mediation, the dynamic between co-mediators is a vital ingredient in bringing value and efficiency to the process.
Managing Risk on Both Sides
On the defense side, the insurance carrier had placed substantial trust in its counsel to resolve the matter within a defined authority range—a practice that, while less common today, can be highly effective when done correctly.
Their position was evidence-driven, as expected. But, as in many cases involving financial projections, the evidence was not as one-dimensional as it first appeared.
Part of the mediator’s role is to ensure that both sides have a clear-eyed view of risk.
Here, that meant helping the defense recognize that the plaintiff’s interpretation, while disputable, had potential traction with a jury. There was more than one way to frame the numbers, and that ambiguity carried real exposure.
Using Brackets Strategically
Because the parties were so far apart, traditional offer-and-demand exchanges were unlikely to gain traction early.
In this case, I made a deliberate decision to introduce bracketed negotiations sooner than I typically would.
Lawyers, and even mediators, can misunderstand brackets. Used poorly, they can become a substitute for meaningful negotiation. Used thoughtfully, they can communicate range, intent, and movement, especially when the gap is wide.
Here, they served their purpose.
Rather than anchoring the discussion to unrealistic opening positions, the brackets conveyed actionable information. Each side began to understand not just where the other stood, but where they might realistically land.
From there, the distance narrowed quickly.
Empowering Counsel During the Process
Another important feature of this mediation was the role of counsel.
At several points, I pulled the lawyers aside to test positions before presenting them in the room. This served two purposes. First, it allowed counsel to evaluate strategy without being locked into a position prematurely before their client. Second, it preserved and, in some instances, strengthened the lawyer-client dynamic.
Mediation works best when lawyers are empowered rather than sidelined.
By giving counsel space to think, adjust, and choose how to present movement, they were able either to lean on the mediator when needed or to take the reins themselves to maintain credibility with their clients. That flexibility often makes the difference between resistance and progress.
Efficiency Through Adaptation
The result was a resolution in half a day.
Absent the shift in approach—recognizing what the plaintiff actually needed, incorporating the co-mediator’s insight, and deploying brackets at the right time—this mediation could easily have stretched into a full day or ended in impasse.
Instead, it moved with purpose.
Takeaway
Mediation is not a one-size-fits-all process, and it shouldn’t be.
Some cases require space for emotion. Others require disciplined engagement with data. The key is recognizing which is which and adapting in real time.
This case reinforced three points:
Co-mediation, even in a supporting role, can create real efficiency and better outcomes
Strategic flexibility, especially in how and when tools like brackets are used, matters
Empowering counsel strengthens the process and improves the likelihood of resolution
Not every case settles. But when the process is tailored to the people and the problem, the odds improve significantly.
An Afterthought about Co-Mediation in Complex Cases
Not every case requires co-mediation. Most probably do not. But cases with high-acuity emotions, financial modeling, technical evidence, or entrenched positions often benefit from a co-mediation approach that brings multiple professional perspectives to the table.
Complex cases often benefit from a carefully structured mediation process. If you’re evaluating timing or approach, I’m always available for a confidential pre-mediation consultation.
Contact me: ray@niblockmediationservices.com | 479-346-7719
Learn more about our NMS team and approach:👉 https://www.niblockmediationservices.com/meettheteam
Learn more about Van Thomas Currell:👉HOME | Inure
Comments