I'm not sure I even understand the ploy. I believe more details are necessary.

Since Bob Eglet was not a party to the matter, even though it was mediated by his wife, what was the relevance of her trumpeting her husband's jury verdicts? Perhaps if they were her own jury verdicts, and the point she was making is that she well knows the value of a case, so the participants had better accept her settlement suggestions.

I'm just not sure that it's an effective method for voluntary, non-binding, mediation. A better approach is to laser focus on the facts and law of the specific dispute before the mediator, and note the strong points as well as the risks, and indicate the time and costs associated with proceeding to trial, the percentage likelihood of a successful verdict, the probable monetary range of such successful verdict, and what additional likely costs which would come off the top along with the attorney fees if the matter did in fact resolve successfully in the predicted range.

When that analysis is presented(an opinion of likelihood of success, and then if successful what is the likely range of amounts and the additional likely costs to get to that point)that can be the starting point of a useful discussion, with each side weighing in as to their view as to each of those points stressed by the mediator.

And other factors should be discussed–such as the particular judge and the predilections they have as to certain evidentiary disputes, etc.

I'm not indicating that my above suggestions constitute the best proper method to conduct such a mediation, but I think it is at least a method of viable merit, along with other and better methods that hopefully someone will suggest.

But I bet none of these methods include waving around a paper documenting how great the mediator's spouse is.

Now that all being said, only the poster knows the entirety of what occurred in that room. Some people are pre-conditioned to believe the worst of the Eglets on account of their incredible success, what appears at times to be a somewhat ostentatious marketing and p.r. approach, etc.

Without taking up for Tracy Eglet could it be that the following is a more accurate picture of what occurred? She analyzed the facts and liability issues surrounding the dispute in question, offered her views of the likelihood of success, value range of the case if ultimately successful, and then offered and urged a settlement amount.
She then became frustrated with extensive argument about her views, and finally reminded everyone of her firm's success, which strongly suggests they can rely on her valuation of the case.

If that was demonstrated by waving around her husband's jury verdicts, agreed that such is a bit heavy-handed, possibly quite insulting to at least one participant, and such approach should really be avoided. Agree 100%. But the poster makes it sound that she did not really discuss or analyze the case before her, but merely jumped to the conclusion that they should accept whatever she suggests because look how great her husband's verdicts have been.

So, I ask again, is that REALLY how it played out, or is the poster cherry picking out one brief excerpt toward the end of the mediation.

I have never met or dealt with Tracy Eglet, so I can't answer that, and don't know what to believe, but the above poster can fill us in with the details if they wish.

As 11:06 suggests, it can be safely assumed that she did attempt to mediate and analyze the case, and offer her views, before resorting to waving around her husband's verdicts.

But if she did in fact wave a piece of paper boasting of his verdicts, as an attempt to intimidate and railroad through a settlement, it should not have been done even if it was toward the conclusion of the mediation.

So, obviously 9:19 did not discuss everything that happened in the room, but only one occurrence, but if in fact it occurred, it should not have–regardless of where in the process it occurred, even if it was saved for the end.

Agree with 11:06 that if it occurred it could have been toward the end of the conference and a manifestation of frustration, but still no real excuse for this tactic, in my view.

No matter how frustrating a mediation can be, it is important not to resort to tactics that smack of arrogance, or puts the focus on how great the mediator's firm is, as opposed to the needs and problems of the parties.

Now that all said, this all assumes this actually happened the way it is portrayed. But if it did, it's a definite No No, IMO

@9:19 – are you saying Tracy was on the other side, or that Tracy was the mediator?

If she's on the other side, waving the verdicts around is still tacky, but at least it has some relevance. "We are going to win at trial – look at our record."

If she is the mediator, who gives a shit what her husband has done at trial.

To:11:44–But the approach advocated by 11:06 actually has hallmarks of what you suggest. For example, in your third paragraph, where you discuss a risk avoidance feature, that seems to be fleshing out a lot of what 11:06 mentions, as opposed to being an entirely different approach. 11:06 discusses risk and likelihood of success, and if successful the likely financial range, as well as additional costs that need to be sunk into it all. So, the two approaches seem to have some of the same features.

I do understand that your approach more dramatically personalizes matters for the attorneys, and forces them to more effectively reflect on the long-term financial consequences and risks of their decisions.

Many attorneys are notoriously bad at analyzing future risks and expenses. They are simply convinced that their case is worth $125,000. or whatever, and they want to take no less. They have no concept that a case may have a potential likely value if it proceeds to trial and a wining verdict is obtained, but that it is worth substantially less for settlement purposes. For one thing, when sitting at the settlement table, many of the costs have not yet been shelled out. Plus, the somewhat lesser amount offered is guaranteed money, while the $125,000 they believe the case is worth, may not in fact be awarded by the jury(and, again, even if it is, those costs eat you alive).

As some excellent Plaintiff's trial lawyers will tell you, before deciding to take a case to trial, estimate what you believe the verdict should and would be and then divide that number in half. Then estimate what you initially believe the costs will be, and multiply that by three. Those adjusted numbers should then guide one more validly as to risk assessment.

To:3:52. If you truly read what you are condemning, you never would have condemned it. True, that there were a few snippy, short posts about the Eglets. But the lengthy analytical posts you are condemning as being motivated by anti-Eglet envy, are almost exclusively devoted to discussing mediation techniques. And when they do make reference to a tactic T.Eglet supposedly used at a settlement, they fully acknowledge that we may not have been provided an accurate or complete picture of what occurred. Plus, the posts point out that the criticism of T.Eglet is likely motivated by jealousy and envy over the firm's great success.

So, you re essentially condemning those who agree with you and are making the same points–that the anti-Eglet approach is largely motivated by envy of those far less successful.

So, either you didn't really read the posts before condemning them(which is certainly an understandable oversight) or you are programmed to condemn and disagree with those who actually share your views(which is not understandable, and which is harmful).

So, how well do you perform in court if a judge, after pointing out the strengths of your case and argument, you tell the judge how wrong they are?

And the reason I am being harsh with you is because you could have merely pointed out that the anti-Eglet group is motivated by jealousy. That would be a point well-taken. But instead you made it very personal(far more personal than any remarks made about the Eglets on this thread)and you were very snide in your condemnation of such folks.