October 30, 2023 • 48 mins
There are more than one type of mediation. Every mediator has his own mediation style. In this episode, The Three Wisemen of Divorce discuss four different mediation styles: transformative, facilitative, informational and evaluative. Each mediation style has its own pros and cons and it is important to consider what style will work best for your divorce case.
The Three Wisemen of Divorce are divorce experts Mark C. Hill, CFP®, CDFA®, Financial Divorce Consultant; Peter Roussos, MA, MFT, CST, psychotherapist; and Shawn Weber, CLS-F*, Family Law Mediator and Divorce Attorney.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Shawn Weber (00:03):
Welcome to the three Wiseman of divorce money
Psych and law podcast. Sit downwith the California divorce
experts financial divorceconsultant Mark Hill, marriage
and family therapist, PeteRusso's and attorney Shawn
Weber. For a frank and casualconversation about divorce,
separation, co parenting, andthe difficult decisions, real
(00:25):
people like you face duringthese tough times. We know that
if you are looking at divorce orseparation, it can be scary and
overwhelming. With combinedexperience of over 60 years of
divorce and conflict management,we are here for you and look
forward to help by sharing ourunique ideas, thoughts and
perspectives on divorce,separation, and co parenting.
Peter Roussos (00:51):
So, guys, I got an idea for a topic for today's
discussion. And actually, Shawn,something that you emailed was
was really, I thought reallypowerful and interesting. You
sent last week, the piece aboutthe different types of
mediation. And I have neverheard mediation broken down in
(01:12):
that way. I thought it wasreally instructive. And so if
you guys haven't talked aboutthat yet, on this podcast, I
think that could be a reallywonderful, useful thing to cover
today.
Shawn Weber (01:25):
Well, we could do that we could talk about that. I
mean, there are different stylesof mediation. And I think that
people out there that arelistening to our podcasts, you
know, they're mostly the peoplethat are actually maybe going to
go higher immediate it reallyimportant for them to kind of
understand well, what's themediation style of your
(01:45):
mediator? Because not everymediator is created equal?
Peter Roussos (01:49):
And I think that that I've always thought of that
as as individual differences, ifyou will, in terms of the
practitioner, as opposed to No,these are these are differences
in models, if you will, orapproaches under the mediation
umbrella.
Shawn Weber (02:03):
Yeah, and there's very little regulation about
what mediation is supposed to bein California. Zero regulation.
Yep. And so, yeah,
Mark Hill (02:15):
I mean, anybody wants to be a mediator, just hang up a
shingle, you're a mediator.
Peter Roussos (02:20):
What about the thing that you both have talked
about? Numerous times, you know,that it's a confidential
process? What are there thingsthat
Shawn Weber (02:29):
there? Yeah, there are protections in the evidence
code. In particular, section1119. I think all the mediation
Evidence Code Section startedsection 1115, as we in the biz,
say, Evidence Code section 1115at sec. And, but I 1119
(02:51):
encapsulates theconfidentiality, for mediation.
That is that anything that issaid in the course of mediation,
at least in the state ofCalifornia is absolutely
confidential. And it's one ofthe strongest confidentiality is
in the entire evidence code. Wemediators are very jealous about
protecting our confidentiality,every time the legislature tries
(03:15):
to do anything that might, youknow, impinge upon, and we, we
band together and fire offemails and letters to our
Assemblyman, and state senatorsto our assembly persons, I
should say, and state senatorsto demand that they not mess
with our confidentiality,because we know that
(03:36):
confidentiality is very usefuland helping people feel safe.
During their conversations, Idon't have to worry if I'm a
party, that something I say in amediation is gonna be used
against me later in a court oflaw. So you can be open and
frank about what's really goingdown. And it's a wonderful way
to encourage openness andcommunication during the
(03:57):
mediation. But if people areafraid that they're going to
lose that confidentiality, thenwhat happens is people ham up
and then kind of lawyer up, andthey're worried that oh, I'm
gonna be careful what I say,because it's gonna be used
against me later in aproceeding, and people could
then abuse the mediation and useit as a way to get information.
Brad Adjey, you know, and sowhat? The confidentiality is
(04:19):
really important. But But yeah,that's really the only
regulation, you know, only rulesregarding mediation and state of
California. It hinges on what isconfidential was not
confidential. But as far as whogets to be a mediator and a
Yahoo can go hang their shingle.
And say, I'm a mediator. There'ssome states where there are
rules about what you have to doto become a mediator. I'd say
(04:41):
most, most of the time, ifyou're if you're going to hire a
mediator, you may want to makesure they're trained. Minimum is
a 40 hour mediation training ora 32 hour mediation train
depending how good it is.
Mark Hill (04:55):
And that's the requirement for collaborative.
That is
Shawn Weber (04:58):
the request for yeah How to be a collaborative
practitioner. Most most groupsare requiring a 32 hour course.
In fact, I teach a 32 hourcourse specifically for that
purpose. You know, but butthere's also what we've learned
is that there's different stylesof mediators, and just how they
(05:20):
approach what their voice willbe in the mediation. And a lot
of it, I think the paradigmreally is, is it going to be a
less intervention model, likeless intervention on the part of
the mediator, or moreintervention on the part of the
mediator? And
Peter Roussos (05:36):
these are the four types that you identified
in the piece that you sent out?
Shawn Weber (05:40):
Yeah. And yeah, it's on my blog, if people are
curious, you can go to Weberdispute resolution.com and read
the blog. And it's the title ofthe post is the pros and cons of
the different styles ofmediation. I actually wrote this
for professionals. But But Ithink it's a good thing for for
consumers to read as well,because it kind of gives you an
idea of what to expect, youknow, but you know, to be really
(06:06):
clear about what mediation is,you start off with mediation is
just it's a form of conflictresolution that involves a third
party neutral thing. And thatthird party neutral doesn't get
to decide it's not like thatthird party neutral has a tie
breaking vote,
Mark Hill (06:21):
the difference between an arbitrator and
mediator, which often
Shawn Weber (06:26):
Yeah, a lot of times I'll hear people say,
well, we want to hire you forarbitration. And so then I have
to kind of ask a little bit,what do you mean by that? But so
so arbitration is I get the tiebreaking vote, if you can't
decide that I decided for youmediation, I'm just a neutral,
I'm just a third partynegotiator. But I don't decide
anything. You're in charge. AndI say to my clients, a lot of
(06:47):
times stay in charge. Because ifyou leave mediation and go to
court, then a stranger in blackrobes will decide your life. You
know, so stay in charge. But thefour different types, I'll just
kind of start where they are,you know, so we got we got a
transformative, we havefacilitative, informative and
evaluative. And you might talkto 40 Different mediators that
(07:08):
have even more different stylesin between those, you know, but
I feel like those are the fourmain ones.
Peter Roussos (07:17):
So how do they break down?
Shawn Weber (07:19):
So I mean, I'll start on the less intervention
side. And the reasonintervention is important key
word is because an importantethical point for mediators, is
this right to self determinationthat we want to afford the
parties, okay, it is considereda golden rule of mediation and
every ethical rules, set ofethical rules I've ever read on
(07:40):
mediation, the right to selfdetermination on the part of the
parties is the principal pointthat they decide is not my case,
it's your case. But, you know,to what extent can the mediator
intervene, to make sure thatthere's a process where
(08:00):
settlement is possible. Andthere's different schools of
thought now, when mediationfirst started, you know, I think
transformative mediation reallygot big, it was used by the US
Postal Service mediationmediators, it was kind of in the
early days, and it wascompletely non interventionist.
(08:21):
All the mediator would do itjust kind of sit there and and
help the people talk. And therewasn't necessarily even a
direction I kind of think of itis, what's that kind of jazz,
where you don't even know whatyou're playing, you're just
gonna start playing stuff,improvisations, improvisational
jazz is kind of like that, youkind of sit there and you kind
of let it flow or it flows. Andwhat we're hoping is that we can
(08:43):
get to a moment where there's atransformation of the
relationship between the twoparties, and then a settlement
can occur. And this occursbecause we facilitated, you
know, I want to be careful aboutusing the word facilitation,
because there's a facilitativeprocess, but we provided a forum
where people can talk freely.
But the mediator does verylittle to control the
(09:07):
conversation does not set theagenda for the meetings does not
provide any information doesn'tprovide legal information. And
you know, oftentimes, you know,the will, you'll sit down with a
transformational mediator, andthey'll be like, Okay, well,
what are we going to talk abouttoday? And that was the primary
form of mediation for a whileuntil we got well into the 80s.
(09:33):
And then what started to developwas a version of that called
facilitative, mediation. Andwhen you think of a facilitator,
that's a person that'sfacilitating the conversation,
right. And that person is morein charge of the process. I'm
going to sit here and I'm goingto control what the you know
(09:56):
what the conversation is. Iwon't necessarily identify
issues that's still up to theparties, but I'll facilitate the
clients identifying the issuesand so I have a little bit more
involvement.
Peter Roussos (10:11):
Is it is it accurate for me to think of this
as being dynamic driven at theimage of guardrails? You know,
transformative mediation,there's a lot of room in the
guardrails and and then if thedynamics between the parties are
such that they need morestructure, the ground the
guardrails, if you will move ina little bit closer and that the
(10:32):
mediators is
Mark Hill (10:33):
manual. So it's really I think there's an
additional thing, Peters, thoseguardrails continue to come in,
which is the skills and thetraining of the mediator in a
specific field. So when I'mdoing mediation, my trainings in
the financial area where they'reseeking that information from
me, and so my role is to kind ofinterrupt him if they don't
(10:54):
understand something about thefinances. Well,
Shawn Weber (10:57):
that brings me to the next step in the paradigm
and that is the informationalmediator, or informative
mediation as it's called. And Ithink that's you and I do a lot
of that Mark. Yeah. And that iswhere we're, they come in, we're
facilitating, but we're alsowe're taking a step further,
we're providing information. I'mtelling people what the law is,
(11:19):
you're talking to them aboutfinancial principles. Now, you
wouldn't do that necessarily, ina purely facilitated mediation,
you certainly wouldn't do it ina transformative mediation. You
know, and there's pros and consto each model. Right. So, you
know, going back to thetransformative mediation, you
know, the pros are the partieshave all the power, that's kind
(11:41):
of cool for parties, right tohave control. They can
experience personal growth. It'sinteresting when I teach this,
you know, I teach mediation, itseems that the mental health
professionals seem to beattracted to transformative,
because growth component isthere, you know, they learn to
(12:02):
communicate more effectively.
Peter Roussos (12:04):
It's interesting that I literally 30 seconds ago,
was thinking about myinvolvement in collaborative
cases. And my services are wayless way less needed in a
transformative process, when I'mthinking in terms of the
dynamics between the partieswhere they're able to work
collaboratively enough on theirown, that maybe there's offline
(12:28):
need for, you know, mentalhealth services. But there's a
process.
Shawn Weber (12:33):
I think, collaborative practice, this
offshoot of the ADR movementdeveloped in the 80s, right with
our friends do Webb, who's beenon this podcast before, that you
have this agreement thatattorneys working together, and
then a professional team workingtogether to include mental
health professionals andfinancial professionals, that
(12:55):
they sign an agreement that saysthey will never go to court. But
in essence, what they are is aninformational mediation team.
Yeah, yeah. You know, they'reproviding information, and
they're actually very rigid, Ifind collaborative processes to
be very rigid in terms ofcontrol of the process. More so
than what I see in any othermediation model. I think that's
(13:19):
just kind of a special way. Imean, it's a pro and a con, it's
a pro, because the rigidity, youknow, your your positive might
be my negative the rigidity canbe anything because it helps
people stay on track, thenegative to the rigidity is
that, well, people aren't rigid,necessarily. And they sometimes
don't react well to that kindof, you know, so. So it's
(13:43):
interesting for me coming intocollaborative having a mediation
background, it was hard for meto kind of feel comfortable with
a process with very strictprotocols like what you have in
a collaborative process. Youknow, but, you know, that's that
kind of goes to my point isthese mediators, when they're
learning how to mediate one ofthe things we teach them that
(14:05):
will find your voice, where doyou feel comfortable? And maybe
that's the type of mediator youwill become. So you know, I
mentioned the pros oftransformative is that
flexibility, right? Well, thecon is the process can take a
long time, because nobody'sreally in charge of what we're
doing. Not even the mediator,and they may not resolve the
specific disputes, it may just,you know, you can go down all
(14:27):
kinds of rabbit holes. The othercon is that it may not be very
effective when you're talkingabout cases where you have power
imbalances. If you have asituation where somebody is,
Mark Hill (14:39):
and I would add that it's not just power, but it's
knowledge, because knowledge ispower. So a lot of the time
someone will come in knowingeverything about the children,
what they do every day and theother spouse has not been
involved and that really createsa power imbalance when it comes
to talking about how your childsharing should occur.
(14:59):
afterwards. Same thing withfinance, it's obviously too
Shawn Weber (15:04):
sure, you know, so then you move on to the
facilitative. And one of thepros of the facilitated Well,
the party still have a lot ofcontrol over the outcome. Right.
But the focus is very much oninterests and needs. You know,
it becomes interest basednegotiation. And I think that
the most common model formediators who start in the
(15:24):
facilitative process is theGetting to Yes, hmm. Books,
those are wonderful books. Oh,gosh, the authors are eluding
me. Fisher and urate. Getting toYes, if you ever want to read a
really good book on how tonegotiate from an interest base
(15:46):
point of view, those are mustread for any, any good
negotiator and their light read.
I mean, the books are prettythin. But the seminal book on
negotiation, I think, is gettingto yes. And facilitated
mediators tend to use that kindof thinking around focusing on
interests, not necessarily thisis what the law says, right? But
(16:08):
on what is it that the partiesneed, or want. The negative is
your The other thing isfacilitated mediation is less
expensive than a lot of theother models, because there's
fewer resources brought to bear.
You know, it's just one persontalking in a group, you know,
(16:30):
mediating, but the con is thatit may not be effective for
cases where you have the powersituation, the power imbalance,
although I would argue that agood facilitator knows how to
balance the brim. You know, sopart of that is if you've got
somebody as a facilitativemediator, and you're worried
about a power imbalance, askthem well, how good are you on
(16:50):
high conflict cases? How goodare you on balancing? People's,
you know, participation. Andthen the other thing is, you
know, in facilitative,mediation, you wouldn't give
legal information or financialinformation. And so if you want
a mediator that can provide thatextra piece of information, then
you might want to look totowards a more informative
(17:12):
mediation than a facilitativemediation. You know, and then if
we move on to the informativemediation, I think that's where
Mark and I primarily live. Youknow, that's where the mediator
can provide legal informationabout legal rights, and
responsibilities. And that kindof helps the parties know what
(17:35):
to know what their choices are,we kind of describe, here's the
backdrop of the court. This iswhat you could expect from a
court situation,
Peter Roussos (17:44):
I imagined that I imagined that I'm curious if for
the two of you, that seems likea more challenging dance, if you
will, in terms of maintainingthe neutrality.
Shawn Weber (17:59):
Yes, yeah, I think that's true. I find myself
sometimes having to make ajudgment call. Do I want to, in
my sharing what the law says onthis particular issue, or what
people's experiences are, too, Iwill share that like, hey, some
people do this, and it doesn'twork. So well. Yeah. That mean,
(18:20):
putting my finger on the scaleand then no longer being
neutral? I mean, what's yourexperience mark with? Yeah, I
Mark Hill (18:25):
mean, this happens, I mean, will I you doing a case,
you're reaching an agreement,and then suddenly, I see, hmm,
if they do that this has afinancial consequence that we
haven't discussed, I feel I havea fiduciary responsibility to
bring that up. But then on theother hand, I don't want to blow
it up. So we do make valuejudgments. If it's a rounding
(18:48):
error financially, in the case,and it is something that has
caused conflict in the past, orthere has been a lot of conflict
in the case, you make a valuejudgment, you know, it's not
going to really change anybody'slife. And, yes, you're playing
God to some degree. But, again,our goal is to reach a
settlement that is fair andinformed. That's the way I think
(19:11):
about it. And so the default isto share the information. But
there are times when you do makea decision to perhaps hold back
on it or even share it in a in acaucus situation rather than an
A, and say, What do you think,you know, you're the one
affected by this. I do want tobring it up. And
Shawn Weber (19:34):
it's interesting when I first started my work as
an attorney, I immediately wasmediating fact, I was mediating
before I passed the bar exam. Itook some mediation courses in
law school and my I worked forsomebody that was good enough to
let me do some mediations onsome divorce cases, and I got
some experience. And I wasallowed to do that. Because in
(19:55):
California, anybody can be amediator, right? But I wasn't
Much more transformative andfacilitative. Back then, because
I frankly didn't know the lawvery well. I was new. I was a
baby attorney, as I've developedas a practitioner, and now I'm a
20 plus year veteran. I do knowwhat happens in a courtroom, you
(20:16):
know, and so I feel like whenpeople are paying my rate, and
you know, my rates commensuratewith my experience, they want
and expect me to be able toopine on this is what the law
is, or this is the kind of thingthat we're I had somebody asked
me, well, we're thinking aboutnesting. What do you think of
that? Nesting meaning the kidslive in the house, and the
(20:40):
parents are the ones that moveback and forth, and just come do
their parenting in the housewhile the well then the other
parent goes to an apartmentsomewhere else, and then they
switch off. And I had to say,you know, based on my
experience, it can bechallenging to manifest unless
the parties are very highfunctioning. And the dynamic
(21:02):
between the parties is verystrong. Can you be a part of our
partnership? Otherwise, Iwouldn't try it. Well, that's
some information almost pushingon putting a finger on the
scale, right? In reality, I'veonly seen maybe in my career,
one nesting arrangement thatever really worked. Mark, I'm
sure you've come across plentyof situations where you had to
(21:25):
help people figure out aunrealistic financial situation,
Mark Hill (21:29):
spouse is determined to keep the house no matter
what. And they've, and you know,nothing can dissuade them from
the fact that they must have thehouse. Well, I can share
information that show that fiveyears down the road, when the
kids go off to college andhouse, the one spouse is still
(21:50):
remaining in it. There's nomoney, they don't have enough
income to pay the mortgage. Do Ishare that? I think I have. I
think I have a fiduciaryresponsibility to share that,
frankly. Because, yes, we'retrying to get to settlement. And
we're trying to do it in a waythat is equitable. However,
things have consequences downthe road, and I don't want to
(22:12):
bump into that person in thegrocery store five years down
the road, and they tell methey're living on the street, or
they had to go to an apartmentin a bar neighborhood. You know,
those are the kinds of thingswhere, again, is it putting
finger on the scale? Yes. Butit's doing it in a way from I
would say for the from the verybest mo tips. Because if I don't
(22:35):
share it, what is theconsequence?
Shawn Weber (22:38):
Well, I go ahead, Pete. Sorry.
Peter Roussos (22:40):
No, I was just thinking that I think for for me
in my work. And this includesthe work that I do in support of
mediation, one of I think one ofthe most important questions
that I ask clients, andsometimes I asked it before
their clients, I asked them whenthey're prospective clients. But
certainly early early on in myprocess is I asked people
(23:03):
directly, how honest Do you wantme to be with you? And I think
that the reality is that we arepaid for our judgments we are,
that's part of the expertise.
That's part of the experience.
Mark Hill (23:16):
Here, I really liked that question. Because you know,
there was a time in every casewhere you have to be brutally
honest about something, youknow, or be it whether it's
about making a decision aroundsomething or how you even how
you approach something. I wasworking this morning on a on a
proposal that one lawyer isworking on one side for on
(23:38):
short, and I impact neutrals inthis case. And I spoke to the
lawyer and suggested some justsome, some change of wording
here and there to make it landbetter on the other side,
because I know how sensitive theother side is on some issues.
Yeah, but again, we are weputting our finger on the scale,
(23:59):
perhaps a little bit, but again,from the right motives.
Shawn Weber (24:02):
And a lot of this has to do with the skill of the
mediator, a well trainedmediator will be a master of the
reframe where they will take aproblem and reframe it in a way
that the other person can hearit from a neutral perspective.
No. And sometimes that alsoinvolves reframing. Well, this
(24:27):
is what would happen if he wentin front of the court and saying
that in a way that does not looklike Well, yeah, I'm putting my
finger on the scale, but I'mbeing very neutral here. And I'm
just telling you, this is whatthe code says. And then being
willing to say when it'sambiguous and we have those
cases don't we were where peopleare like they want to cut and
dry bright letter law you know,bright line rule on something
(24:51):
and and that doesn't alwayshappen in court. Yeah, it's a
court of equity and marks alwaysvery happy to point out that
provision in the in the spousalsupport revision and where, you
know, it lists all these factorsA through H and at the very end,
they throw in anything thatjumps. Thanks, man.
Mark Hill (25:09):
I always tell people that because they just want to
know the rules, just tell me thedamn number I write the check
I've had that said to be morethan once. And I'm sorry, there
is no number.
Shawn Weber (25:22):
I tend to say, well, this is what the law says
on this particular issue. Now,what do you want to do? You can
do whatever you want. Becauseyou know, the judges are
thrilled if people figure outthings on their own. And with
only a few exceptions, the judgewill let people do whatever they
want. Yeah, and as long as theyboth agree, that's the key. And
(25:44):
so I come back with as long asyou both agree, you can do
whatever you want. So you'veheard now this is what Family
Code Section blah, blah, blah,says, Now, what do you want to
do? And always put it back onthem.
Peter Roussos (25:57):
You both you said a few minutes ago, Shawn, that
what you and Mark do is reallylargely in this informational
mediation model. What are thepros and cons from both of your
perspectives?
Shawn Weber (26:12):
Well, I mean, the Pro to information is that you
can actually give people expertknowledge. So they can form
decisions that at toinformational. Legal
complexities can be addressedwithout them having to go to a
formal legal process, becausethey're hearing from somebody
who's neutral who doesn't have astake in the game, this is what
(26:33):
would happen, or what they thinkmight happen, or people Vegas
odds. The negative is thatpeople, if they hear something
like this is what let me run thesupport calculation, I run the
support calculation, and thenpeople anchor on the support
number that the software spitsout. And that may not be the
(26:58):
best number for their family.
Mark Hill (27:00):
And the other challenge we've had, Shawn is
when people go outside of theprocess, which is fine, you can
get information outside and comeback and say, Well, I spoke to a
lawyer who said I would get a, band c. And it's like, how this I
mean, it's easy for me, becauseto some degree, I don't care if
(27:21):
I offend a lawyer, but you're apart of the legal community
here. And it's important for youto, you know, have some, shall
we say, be a little cautiousaround how you talk about other
lawyers opinions?
Shawn Weber (27:36):
I have had, I've only thrown a few lawyers under
the bus. In my career, therehave been a couple where I've
been like, no, that's nonsense.
You know, that's happened. Youmight want to get a second
opinion on that one. I've triedto be very neutral about it. You
know, it's, I love it when theattorneys are there. And I'm
concerned about, is this goingthe right direction? Because
(28:01):
then I can question theattorney. Well, did you think
about this? Did you think aboutthat? Well, what about this
case, you know, and make themforce them to kind of defend
themselves in front of theirclient. It's interesting, when
you see an attorney, kind ofstammer backtrack, when you ask
them a question, I kind of do itlike a judge would do in oral
arguments. But what about this,you know, not because I want to
(28:24):
make the attorney look bad, butbecause I want the attorney to
be able to send what they'resaying so that the client can
hear that. And the other thingis, sometimes I will say to the
client, okay, well, yourattorney has made a very strong
case, and is doing a good joband taking care of you and
making sure that your interestsare met. But what do you want to
do? Now? Maybe you have a verystrong case on this. But what's
(28:48):
the benefit to you if you goahead and agree to what this
other person is asking for?
What's the benefit to you tojust getting an agreement today,
as opposed to Yeah, yourattorney could probably go to
court and do a bang up job onthis. You know, and I'll ask the
attorney, well, how much is thatgoing to cost for you to do
(29:08):
that? They always underestimateit.
Mark Hill (29:11):
The other thing is that I've done this with
attorneys where I broughtattorneys to the table, and I
often will say to them, if youwere on the other side, how
would you argue this? And if youwere on the other side, because
I want the I want the theclients to understand the range
(29:34):
of outcomes range ofpossibilities, as opposed to
it's either a or it's B, youknow, because you get a very
slightly you get a slightlydifferent take on it when you
ask that question.
Shawn Weber (29:47):
Yeah, and just kind of understanding that there's
risk and this goes back to theprinciples of that book Getting
to the guests I was telling youabout what getting to yes is
teaching negotiators to do is tobe very conscious of what is
your best alternative tonegotiated agreement. And the
short form of that is bought ina bat and a best alternatives
(30:09):
negotiated green or what's yourwhat's your worst alternative to
a negotiated agreement. Andoftentimes people get that
wrong. Because they've beenliving with the case, and so
they may have a rosier bottomand a rosier wad than they
really ought to be having. Andthen when they actually hear
(30:30):
what the other person's view ofthe case is, of what their
button is, and wanton, bizarre,it starts to make people think,
Oh, wait, I've been hearing fromthis attorney, that it's this
but really, that this guy's wentto law school, or this gal did.
Why is that I got two smartattorneys here that are
disagreeing.
Mark Hill (30:50):
And that's powerful for the clients to see. Because
it, it goes back to what Shawnwas saying about wrist. You
know, and and you literally donot know what a judge will do.
You really don't know how
Peter Roussos (31:03):
often do clients turn to you guys and say, Well,
what would you do?
Shawn Weber (31:10):
Like if I was, if I was them? What would I do? Yeah.
They asked me that. And I trynot to allow them to pull me
there. Because, yeah, the way Idifferentiate legal advice from
legal information is legaladvices, that should piece which
I do, or ought I do, whereas anAsian is? This is just what the
(31:31):
law says? Or what financialprinciples are, this is one of
them. That's right. Or this isfrom if you were doing it from a
mental health standpoint, thisis what the research says on
parenting plans for a two yearold. But when it gets to be
like, what would I do? If I werethem? I tend to be careful about
(31:53):
that. Because I don't want thatto then become an advice
situation.
Peter Roussos (31:57):
Well, imagine there, that you guys are often
asked some form of the questionthat what would you do? Or what
do you think I should do?
Shawn Weber (32:08):
I usually turn it into a question for them. So if
you agreed to this, and thatwere, let's say, you went to
court, and you fought over this,and then you lost in the other
side's position one, what wouldthat mean for you? Oh, that'd be
awful. I don't know what I woulddo. That'd be terrible. I'd be
(32:30):
ruined, you know, or whatever itis. And let them think about
that, and kind of masseur rate.
And the possibility that theythey may be looking at it the
case, from a perspective, thatwas too much in their favor. And
that's what happens. I mean, youget this this information bias
when you get in your silo. Seeit an Adi, right. Fox News has
(32:51):
one information bias, MSNBC hasanother one. You know, and if
you don't listen to differentperspectives, you're gonna get
more and more in your corner.
And it may or may not besomething that leads to
something that's actually usefulfor them. It's not good to to
(33:12):
underestimate your risk, which Ithink people routinely do.
Mark Hill (33:17):
Yes, I agree. And, and they, they also come into
this with the sort of, rememberthe Al Pacino movie justice for
all. It's like, if I could justtell my story, everything, I'll
get everything, once I get infront of a judge or in front of
a neutral, even if I just tellthis person how awful my spouse
(33:38):
was, I'm sure that they're goingto see things my way and give me
everything. I mean, I'mexaggerating, but there is that
the people come into there withthat concept that we're here to
pass judgment as opposed to whatShawn's been talking about
providing information so thatclients can make decisions
(33:59):
jointly. Now, the
Shawn Weber (34:00):
fourth version of mediation that we didn't talk
about yet, but it's neverthelessimportant is the evaluative
mediation. And this is the onethat I would say, is the most
intervention on the part of themediator. And this is the
favorite for the judges, theprivate judges, the retired
judges that go into mediation.
And what you would do if youwould hire a judge in this
(34:21):
situation, what you're lookingfor is, what would you do if
this case were in yourcourtroom? So they're evaluating
your case, and so they will tellyou this is what would happen if
it was in front of me. And ittends to be really useful for
really complex cases where theremay be complex legal questions
(34:42):
that require a lot of analysis.
And it may result in fasterresolutions compared to some
other styles because you know,you got the expert that kind of
opines the negative to it isthat well, you're giving up some
Your self determination byhaving a judge say, Well, this
(35:03):
is what I would do. And so theytend to anchor on what the judge
is thinking. Even though thatjudge, you know, we've said this
before, you can show the sameargument on spousal support, for
example, and show it to fivedifferent judges, you know,
video day but and show it tofive different judges and get
five different results.
Peter Roussos (35:23):
Well, I think, Shawn, that there are those
cases where they may move frominformative to evaluative to try
to settle it right.
Shawn Weber (35:33):
And sometimes I've had to do that. And so there's
there is a tool that mediatorshave called the mediators
proposal. And this is when we'vebeen working with a couple, or
parties to parties in a case andthey're just not able to reach a
resolution, then what themediator will do is it's kind of
this is my take it or leave itmediator proposal. This is the
last ditch effort. This is whatI think you should do with your
(35:56):
case. Here's my proposal. Ifthis isn't good enough for you,
then you're done. Go toattorneys and fight it out. Kind
of a last ditch effort with withthe value of mediation, you're
kind of starting there. Youknow, and that has its its pros.
I think it's really attorneyslike that mode. Like whenever
I'm doing a mandatory settlementconference at the courts. The
(36:19):
attorneys want to know, whatwould I do? I'm looking at this
from 40,000 feet. I haven't beenliving with this, like the
attorneys have, and theyactually call me a judge when
I'm settlement conference. WhenI'm facilitating a settlement
conference, I'm called IT ProTem judge. But what I'm doing is
I am giving them a very strongevaluation. Now I I can't help
(36:41):
myself, I still facilitate.
There was another formerjudicial officer here in town.
Who, who I really liked going tohim because he would he would
kind of hide the ball. Hewouldn't opine yet. And then
when we got to that point wherewe really it was really obvious
that he needed his opinion. He'dsay, Okay, do you want me to
give my opinion now? Becauseonce I give my opinion, it's out
(37:03):
there. Do you want that? Youreally want it? Yes, we want it.
Okay. Well, here's my opinion.
And then I'm like, Oh, dang,that just ruined my case. Or,
Hey, that's my that's why Iwanted, you know, and then
people tend to anchor it doestake some self determination,
self determination away, becausepeople tend to anchor on the
(37:24):
judges, evaluation. But it canbe useful. I mean, we got this
case Mark, where we're talkingabout a prenup. And we've been
talking frequently about we'renot sure how the prenup would be
handled. And it's a key issue.
And the thought was, well, whatif we go to a private judge? To
have that judge simply opine onthe issue of the prenup? And
give an opinion on what wouldhappen with that prenuptial
(37:47):
agreement. And then once theyknow, then we can come back to
mediation and have them usetheir interests in light of how
the prenup would be handled sothat we can move forward, but
they actually ended up figuringit out. But not doing that.
Peter Roussos (38:05):
Shawn, would you would you you clarify something
for me, please aboutconfidentiality? And this is the
question that I have. Myunderstanding is that if a case
falls out of mediation, and andpeople leave it to go into
litigation, they own their casefile, is that correct? And what
(38:26):
does that mean in the context ofmediation or confidentiality.
Shawn Weber (38:31):
So mediation, it's a little bit different. So in a
legal situation, they own theircase file. They're entitled to
everything in your file. Andwhen the case is over, it's
actually their property. And ifthey request their file, you
have to give it back to them.
And most of us jump through thego through these backflips.
(38:53):
Because Does that mean I'm goingto have to store things ad
infinitum? In the end of time?
Yeah. And so most of us havelike a time limit? Well, I'll
hold your stuff for five years.
And then after five years, readyour file, if we haven't heard
from you. Otherwise, I have toaffirmatively ask permission to
destroy a file. Oh, interesting.
(39:14):
Okay. And if they request thefile, we have to give it to them
that comes up sometimes incollaborative cases, because you
have this attorney and they'veagreed to this confidentiality
within the collaborativeprocess. Yeah. And then the case
goes to court and new attorneythat's gonna litigate this case.
They're like, Okay, give me thefile. I want the file. And then
the collaborative attorneyslike, well, I don't want to give
(39:34):
you all the file because weagreed that some of that would
be confidential. And I haven'tever seen it tested, but I think
if it were tested, the attorneywould have to give it to the
attorney. I think it would haveto be turned over.
Peter Roussos (39:46):
So what does that mean in terms of
confidentiality? Well, it
Shawn Weber (39:50):
doesn't mean that it then gets put into evidence
at court. Okay. What it means isthe attorneys entitled to the
information. But then anythingthat is considered confidential
can't be brought up. And we'recareful in collaborative cases
to sign a stipulation that saysthat we're using Levin 19 of the
(40:13):
evidence code, which is theconfidentiality section for
mediation, minded to ourcollaborative. And we're saying
you can't use anything we saidduring our conversations and
discussions in court. Butthere's still work product that
the client is entitled to. Youknow, and I think that may be
true in mediation as well.
Except I don't turn my notesover, I have it in my agreement
(40:37):
that I don't turn my notes over.
My notes are mine. They'rethere. They're kept
confidential. And what issomething that survives the
process, and this is accordingto case law is their financial
disclosures that they prepare,that are required by the courts,
the California there's an incomeand expense declaration as
(41:00):
scheduled assets and debts, andthen the backup information, the
evidence to support what's inthose declarations, those
survived the process and can beused by the new attorney, but
everything else is strictlyconfidential. Okay.
Mark Hill (41:14):
And my rules, I think, is slightly different. I
mean, I say very clearly in myretainer agreement that if the
case falls out, all my workproduct is confidential. They
can agree to use it, but oneside can't use it. So if they've
(41:36):
sent me anything, I that isshared. So any information that
the client send me around thefinances that shared, any work
product that I've produced,though, is not cost sharing, and
less they both choose to do it.
So sometimes, in a case, we'llget deep into it. And we've
agreed some things and we've gotsome work product that we
(41:57):
provided to them, there's partof that agreement, but now
they're going on, they're stuckon other things. They could
choose to do that. But if onesize has either side has a veto,
they can say no, that cannot beused, because I don't agree to
it being used.
Shawn Weber (42:16):
Well, in an interesting way that 1119 of the
evidence code is used is thatnot all you nothing that is
discussed in mediation can everbe used in court, unless
everybody agrees to it, allparties, and the courts are
interpreting all parties to meanand that means the mediator to.
(42:37):
And so you know, I've been I'vehad people like I want you to
testify in court about whathappened in this mediation
session. I'm like, lb, Sam, andthen they're like, Well, we're
going to send you a subpoena.
No, I'm not going to do it.
Well, we both sides agree thatthey want you to come into court
and testify about what happenedhere. I'm not doing it. And so
then, you know, they tried topush it and I can show them the
(42:57):
case law on that. No, look, I ama person that counts. I don't
approve of this being disclosedin court, because I really want
to protect what was discussed.
And so it's a very strongconfidentiality, like even if
both parties agree that theinformation can be used in
court, the mediator can object.
Peter Roussos (43:18):
And just to reiterate, Shawn, that's how it
is in California, it may bedifferent in other states,
Shawn Weber (43:24):
it may be different other states, but what I'm, most
states have a very similarapproach. I'd say the majority
of the jurisdictions will willdo that. But you know, check
your local jurisdiction ifyou're not in the state of
California and make sure onthat. Yeah, well, it just
Peter Roussos (43:41):
to the audience.
I really want to if this hasbeen interesting, I want to
encourage you to go to Shawn'swebsite and look up the article,
I found it very helpful andfascinating.
Shawn Weber (43:52):
Well, I'm glad that somebody's reading my stuff and
finds it worthwhile.
Peter Roussos (43:58):
Yeah, as I say, I have never heard it. And it made
so much sense to me. I've neverheard mediation broken down in
that way. So well done. Reallywell done.
Shawn Weber (44:11):
Well, good. Well, we've been talking a long time.
Yeah. I think maybe we can stopnow. Yeah.
Mark Hill (44:22):
I think our audience might might appreciate that.
Shawn Weber (44:29):
So So Pete, if if people wanted to talk to you
about mediation or aboutservices you provide what what
should they do?
Peter Roussos (44:37):
Best way to reach me is my website, which is Peter
Russo's dot com. That's P E T ER R O U. S. S. O s.com. And you
can contact me through thecontact me page.
Shawn Weber (44:53):
And Mark, what would they do if they needed to
talk to you about some financialstuff,
Mark Hill (44:57):
same approach go to my The company website which is
PAC divorce.com PAC di vorce.com. There's a contact page
there and there's also our phonenumbers.
Shawn Weber (45:12):
And if people want to get a hold of me to find out
how to resolve their dispute, wewill match them with a mediator
to resolve their dispute. It'sWeber dispute resolution.com
That's a Weber with one Bdispute like we had a fight and
resolution like we solved it.comAnd you can go there and find
(45:32):
all kinds of things, including,according to Pete, very good and
interesting blog posts. And thispodcast is on there as well. So
look forward to people checkingit out. Thanks for listening to
another episode of the threeWiseman of divorce, money,
Psych, and law. If you likedwhat you heard, be sure to
(45:53):
subscribe, leave us a review andshare with others who may be in
a similar place. Until nexttime, stay safe, healthy and
focused on a positive brightfuture. This podcast is for
informational purposes only.
Every family law case is unique.
So no legal, financial or mentalhealth advice is intended during
(46:15):
this podcast. If you need helpwith your specific situation,
feel free to schedule a time tospeak with one of us for a
personal consultation.
(47:30):
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of the three Wiseman of
divorce, money, Psych and law.
If you liked what you heard, besure to subscribe. Leave us a
review and share with others whomay be in a similar place. Until
next time, stay safe, healthyand focused on a positive bright
future. This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
(47:52):
Every family law case is unique.
So no legal, financial or mentalhealth advice is intended during
this podcast. If you need helpwith your specific situation,
feel free to schedule a time tospeak with one of us for a
personal consultation.
Welcome to the three Wiseman of divorce money
Psych and law podcast. Sit downwith the California divorce
experts financial divorceconsultant Mark Hill, marriage
and family therapist, PeteRusso's and attorney Shawn
Weber. For a frank and casualconversation about divorce,
separation, co parenting, andthe difficult decisions, real
(00:25):
people like you face duringthese tough times. We know that
if you are looking at divorce orseparation, it can be scary and
overwhelming. With combinedexperience of over 60 years of
divorce and conflict management,we are here for you and look
forward to help by sharing ourunique ideas, thoughts and
perspectives on divorce,separation, and co parenting.
Peter Roussos (00:51):
So, guys, I got an idea for a topic for today's
discussion. And actually, Shawn,something that you emailed was
was really, I thought reallypowerful and interesting. You
sent last week, the piece aboutthe different types of
mediation. And I have neverheard mediation broken down in
(01:12):
that way. I thought it wasreally instructive. And so if
you guys haven't talked aboutthat yet, on this podcast, I
think that could be a reallywonderful, useful thing to cover
today.
Shawn Weber (01:25):
Well, we could do that we could talk about that. I
mean, there are different stylesof mediation. And I think that
people out there that arelistening to our podcasts, you
know, they're mostly the peoplethat are actually maybe going to
go higher immediate it reallyimportant for them to kind of
understand well, what's themediation style of your
(01:45):
mediator? Because not everymediator is created equal?
Peter Roussos (01:49):
And I think that that I've always thought of that
as as individual differences, ifyou will, in terms of the
practitioner, as opposed to No,these are these are differences
in models, if you will, orapproaches under the mediation
umbrella.
Shawn Weber (02:03):
Yeah, and there's very little regulation about
what mediation is supposed to bein California. Zero regulation.
Yep. And so, yeah,
Mark Hill (02:15):
I mean, anybody wants to be a mediator, just hang up a
shingle, you're a mediator.
Peter Roussos (02:20):
What about the thing that you both have talked
about? Numerous times, you know,that it's a confidential
process? What are there thingsthat
Shawn Weber (02:29):
there? Yeah, there are protections in the evidence
code. In particular, section1119. I think all the mediation
Evidence Code Section startedsection 1115, as we in the biz,
say, Evidence Code section 1115at sec. And, but I 1119
(02:51):
encapsulates theconfidentiality, for mediation.
That is that anything that issaid in the course of mediation,
at least in the state ofCalifornia is absolutely
confidential. And it's one ofthe strongest confidentiality is
in the entire evidence code. Wemediators are very jealous about
protecting our confidentiality,every time the legislature tries
(03:15):
to do anything that might, youknow, impinge upon, and we, we
band together and fire offemails and letters to our
Assemblyman, and state senatorsto our assembly persons, I
should say, and state senatorsto demand that they not mess
with our confidentiality,because we know that
(03:36):
confidentiality is very usefuland helping people feel safe.
During their conversations, Idon't have to worry if I'm a
party, that something I say in amediation is gonna be used
against me later in a court oflaw. So you can be open and
frank about what's really goingdown. And it's a wonderful way
to encourage openness andcommunication during the
(03:57):
mediation. But if people areafraid that they're going to
lose that confidentiality, thenwhat happens is people ham up
and then kind of lawyer up, andthey're worried that oh, I'm
gonna be careful what I say,because it's gonna be used
against me later in aproceeding, and people could
then abuse the mediation and useit as a way to get information.
Brad Adjey, you know, and sowhat? The confidentiality is
(04:19):
really important. But But yeah,that's really the only
regulation, you know, only rulesregarding mediation and state of
California. It hinges on what isconfidential was not
confidential. But as far as whogets to be a mediator and a
Yahoo can go hang their shingle.
And say, I'm a mediator. There'ssome states where there are
rules about what you have to doto become a mediator. I'd say
(04:41):
most, most of the time, ifyou're if you're going to hire a
mediator, you may want to makesure they're trained. Minimum is
a 40 hour mediation training ora 32 hour mediation train
depending how good it is.
Mark Hill (04:55):
And that's the requirement for collaborative.
That is
Shawn Weber (04:58):
the request for yeah How to be a collaborative
practitioner. Most most groupsare requiring a 32 hour course.
In fact, I teach a 32 hourcourse specifically for that
purpose. You know, but butthere's also what we've learned
is that there's different stylesof mediators, and just how they
(05:20):
approach what their voice willbe in the mediation. And a lot
of it, I think the paradigmreally is, is it going to be a
less intervention model, likeless intervention on the part of
the mediator, or moreintervention on the part of the
mediator? And
Peter Roussos (05:36):
these are the four types that you identified
in the piece that you sent out?
Shawn Weber (05:40):
Yeah. And yeah, it's on my blog, if people are
curious, you can go to Weberdispute resolution.com and read
the blog. And it's the title ofthe post is the pros and cons of
the different styles ofmediation. I actually wrote this
for professionals. But But Ithink it's a good thing for for
consumers to read as well,because it kind of gives you an
idea of what to expect, youknow, but you know, to be really
(06:06):
clear about what mediation is,you start off with mediation is
just it's a form of conflictresolution that involves a third
party neutral thing. And thatthird party neutral doesn't get
to decide it's not like thatthird party neutral has a tie
breaking vote,
Mark Hill (06:21):
the difference between an arbitrator and
mediator, which often
Shawn Weber (06:26):
Yeah, a lot of times I'll hear people say,
well, we want to hire you forarbitration. And so then I have
to kind of ask a little bit,what do you mean by that? But so
so arbitration is I get the tiebreaking vote, if you can't
decide that I decided for youmediation, I'm just a neutral,
I'm just a third partynegotiator. But I don't decide
anything. You're in charge. AndI say to my clients, a lot of
(06:47):
times stay in charge. Because ifyou leave mediation and go to
court, then a stranger in blackrobes will decide your life. You
know, so stay in charge. But thefour different types, I'll just
kind of start where they are,you know, so we got we got a
transformative, we havefacilitative, informative and
evaluative. And you might talkto 40 Different mediators that
(07:08):
have even more different stylesin between those, you know, but
I feel like those are the fourmain ones.
Peter Roussos (07:17):
So how do they break down?
Shawn Weber (07:19):
So I mean, I'll start on the less intervention
side. And the reasonintervention is important key
word is because an importantethical point for mediators, is
this right to self determinationthat we want to afford the
parties, okay, it is considereda golden rule of mediation and
every ethical rules, set ofethical rules I've ever read on
(07:40):
mediation, the right to selfdetermination on the part of the
parties is the principal pointthat they decide is not my case,
it's your case. But, you know,to what extent can the mediator
intervene, to make sure thatthere's a process where
(08:00):
settlement is possible. Andthere's different schools of
thought now, when mediationfirst started, you know, I think
transformative mediation reallygot big, it was used by the US
Postal Service mediationmediators, it was kind of in the
early days, and it wascompletely non interventionist.
(08:21):
All the mediator would do itjust kind of sit there and and
help the people talk. And therewasn't necessarily even a
direction I kind of think of itis, what's that kind of jazz,
where you don't even know whatyou're playing, you're just
gonna start playing stuff,improvisations, improvisational
jazz is kind of like that, youkind of sit there and you kind
of let it flow or it flows. Andwhat we're hoping is that we can
(08:43):
get to a moment where there's atransformation of the
relationship between the twoparties, and then a settlement
can occur. And this occursbecause we facilitated, you
know, I want to be careful aboutusing the word facilitation,
because there's a facilitativeprocess, but we provided a forum
where people can talk freely.
But the mediator does verylittle to control the
(09:07):
conversation does not set theagenda for the meetings does not
provide any information doesn'tprovide legal information. And
you know, oftentimes, you know,the will, you'll sit down with a
transformational mediator, andthey'll be like, Okay, well,
what are we going to talk abouttoday? And that was the primary
form of mediation for a whileuntil we got well into the 80s.
(09:33):
And then what started to developwas a version of that called
facilitative, mediation. Andwhen you think of a facilitator,
that's a person that'sfacilitating the conversation,
right. And that person is morein charge of the process. I'm
going to sit here and I'm goingto control what the you know
(09:56):
what the conversation is. Iwon't necessarily identify
issues that's still up to theparties, but I'll facilitate the
clients identifying the issuesand so I have a little bit more
involvement.
Peter Roussos (10:11):
Is it is it accurate for me to think of this
as being dynamic driven at theimage of guardrails? You know,
transformative mediation,there's a lot of room in the
guardrails and and then if thedynamics between the parties are
such that they need morestructure, the ground the
guardrails, if you will move ina little bit closer and that the
(10:32):
mediators is
Mark Hill (10:33):
manual. So it's really I think there's an
additional thing, Peters, thoseguardrails continue to come in,
which is the skills and thetraining of the mediator in a
specific field. So when I'mdoing mediation, my trainings in
the financial area where they'reseeking that information from
me, and so my role is to kind ofinterrupt him if they don't
(10:54):
understand something about thefinances. Well,
Shawn Weber (10:57):
that brings me to the next step in the paradigm
and that is the informationalmediator, or informative
mediation as it's called. And Ithink that's you and I do a lot
of that Mark. Yeah. And that iswhere we're, they come in, we're
facilitating, but we're alsowe're taking a step further,
we're providing information. I'mtelling people what the law is,
(11:19):
you're talking to them aboutfinancial principles. Now, you
wouldn't do that necessarily, ina purely facilitated mediation,
you certainly wouldn't do it ina transformative mediation. You
know, and there's pros and consto each model. Right. So, you
know, going back to thetransformative mediation, you
know, the pros are the partieshave all the power, that's kind
(11:41):
of cool for parties, right tohave control. They can
experience personal growth. It'sinteresting when I teach this,
you know, I teach mediation, itseems that the mental health
professionals seem to beattracted to transformative,
because growth component isthere, you know, they learn to
(12:02):
communicate more effectively.
Peter Roussos (12:04):
It's interesting that I literally 30 seconds ago,
was thinking about myinvolvement in collaborative
cases. And my services are wayless way less needed in a
transformative process, when I'mthinking in terms of the
dynamics between the partieswhere they're able to work
collaboratively enough on theirown, that maybe there's offline
(12:28):
need for, you know, mentalhealth services. But there's a
process.
Shawn Weber (12:33):
I think, collaborative practice, this
offshoot of the ADR movementdeveloped in the 80s, right with
our friends do Webb, who's beenon this podcast before, that you
have this agreement thatattorneys working together, and
then a professional team workingtogether to include mental
health professionals andfinancial professionals, that
(12:55):
they sign an agreement that saysthey will never go to court. But
in essence, what they are is aninformational mediation team.
Yeah, yeah. You know, they'reproviding information, and
they're actually very rigid, Ifind collaborative processes to
be very rigid in terms ofcontrol of the process. More so
than what I see in any othermediation model. I think that's
(13:19):
just kind of a special way. Imean, it's a pro and a con, it's
a pro, because the rigidity, youknow, your your positive might
be my negative the rigidity canbe anything because it helps
people stay on track, thenegative to the rigidity is
that, well, people aren't rigid,necessarily. And they sometimes
don't react well to that kindof, you know, so. So it's
(13:43):
interesting for me coming intocollaborative having a mediation
background, it was hard for meto kind of feel comfortable with
a process with very strictprotocols like what you have in
a collaborative process. Youknow, but, you know, that's that
kind of goes to my point isthese mediators, when they're
learning how to mediate one ofthe things we teach them that
(14:05):
will find your voice, where doyou feel comfortable? And maybe
that's the type of mediator youwill become. So you know, I
mentioned the pros oftransformative is that
flexibility, right? Well, thecon is the process can take a
long time, because nobody'sreally in charge of what we're
doing. Not even the mediator,and they may not resolve the
specific disputes, it may just,you know, you can go down all
(14:27):
kinds of rabbit holes. The othercon is that it may not be very
effective when you're talkingabout cases where you have power
imbalances. If you have asituation where somebody is,
Mark Hill (14:39):
and I would add that it's not just power, but it's
knowledge, because knowledge ispower. So a lot of the time
someone will come in knowingeverything about the children,
what they do every day and theother spouse has not been
involved and that really createsa power imbalance when it comes
to talking about how your childsharing should occur.
(14:59):
afterwards. Same thing withfinance, it's obviously too
Shawn Weber (15:04):
sure, you know, so then you move on to the
facilitative. And one of thepros of the facilitated Well,
the party still have a lot ofcontrol over the outcome. Right.
But the focus is very much oninterests and needs. You know,
it becomes interest basednegotiation. And I think that
the most common model formediators who start in the
(15:24):
facilitative process is theGetting to Yes, hmm. Books,
those are wonderful books. Oh,gosh, the authors are eluding
me. Fisher and urate. Getting toYes, if you ever want to read a
really good book on how tonegotiate from an interest base
(15:46):
point of view, those are mustread for any, any good
negotiator and their light read.
I mean, the books are prettythin. But the seminal book on
negotiation, I think, is gettingto yes. And facilitated
mediators tend to use that kindof thinking around focusing on
interests, not necessarily thisis what the law says, right? But
(16:08):
on what is it that the partiesneed, or want. The negative is
your The other thing isfacilitated mediation is less
expensive than a lot of theother models, because there's
fewer resources brought to bear.
You know, it's just one persontalking in a group, you know,
(16:30):
mediating, but the con is thatit may not be effective for
cases where you have the powersituation, the power imbalance,
although I would argue that agood facilitator knows how to
balance the brim. You know, sopart of that is if you've got
somebody as a facilitativemediator, and you're worried
about a power imbalance, askthem well, how good are you on
(16:50):
high conflict cases? How goodare you on balancing? People's,
you know, participation. Andthen the other thing is, you
know, in facilitative,mediation, you wouldn't give
legal information or financialinformation. And so if you want
a mediator that can provide thatextra piece of information, then
you might want to look totowards a more informative
(17:12):
mediation than a facilitativemediation. You know, and then if
we move on to the informativemediation, I think that's where
Mark and I primarily live. Youknow, that's where the mediator
can provide legal informationabout legal rights, and
responsibilities. And that kindof helps the parties know what
(17:35):
to know what their choices are,we kind of describe, here's the
backdrop of the court. This iswhat you could expect from a
court situation,
Peter Roussos (17:44):
I imagined that I imagined that I'm curious if for
the two of you, that seems likea more challenging dance, if you
will, in terms of maintainingthe neutrality.
Shawn Weber (17:59):
Yes, yeah, I think that's true. I find myself
sometimes having to make ajudgment call. Do I want to, in
my sharing what the law says onthis particular issue, or what
people's experiences are, too, Iwill share that like, hey, some
people do this, and it doesn'twork. So well. Yeah. That mean,
(18:20):
putting my finger on the scaleand then no longer being
neutral? I mean, what's yourexperience mark with? Yeah, I
Mark Hill (18:25):
mean, this happens, I mean, will I you doing a case,
you're reaching an agreement,and then suddenly, I see, hmm,
if they do that this has afinancial consequence that we
haven't discussed, I feel I havea fiduciary responsibility to
bring that up. But then on theother hand, I don't want to blow
it up. So we do make valuejudgments. If it's a rounding
(18:48):
error financially, in the case,and it is something that has
caused conflict in the past, orthere has been a lot of conflict
in the case, you make a valuejudgment, you know, it's not
going to really change anybody'slife. And, yes, you're playing
God to some degree. But, again,our goal is to reach a
settlement that is fair andinformed. That's the way I think
(19:11):
about it. And so the default isto share the information. But
there are times when you do makea decision to perhaps hold back
on it or even share it in a in acaucus situation rather than an
A, and say, What do you think,you know, you're the one
affected by this. I do want tobring it up. And
Shawn Weber (19:34):
it's interesting when I first started my work as
an attorney, I immediately wasmediating fact, I was mediating
before I passed the bar exam. Itook some mediation courses in
law school and my I worked forsomebody that was good enough to
let me do some mediations onsome divorce cases, and I got
some experience. And I wasallowed to do that. Because in
(19:55):
California, anybody can be amediator, right? But I wasn't
Much more transformative andfacilitative. Back then, because
I frankly didn't know the lawvery well. I was new. I was a
baby attorney, as I've developedas a practitioner, and now I'm a
20 plus year veteran. I do knowwhat happens in a courtroom, you
(20:16):
know, and so I feel like whenpeople are paying my rate, and
you know, my rates commensuratewith my experience, they want
and expect me to be able toopine on this is what the law
is, or this is the kind of thingthat we're I had somebody asked
me, well, we're thinking aboutnesting. What do you think of
that? Nesting meaning the kidslive in the house, and the
(20:40):
parents are the ones that moveback and forth, and just come do
their parenting in the housewhile the well then the other
parent goes to an apartmentsomewhere else, and then they
switch off. And I had to say,you know, based on my
experience, it can bechallenging to manifest unless
the parties are very highfunctioning. And the dynamic
(21:02):
between the parties is verystrong. Can you be a part of our
partnership? Otherwise, Iwouldn't try it. Well, that's
some information almost pushingon putting a finger on the
scale, right? In reality, I'veonly seen maybe in my career,
one nesting arrangement thatever really worked. Mark, I'm
sure you've come across plentyof situations where you had to
(21:25):
help people figure out aunrealistic financial situation,
Mark Hill (21:29):
spouse is determined to keep the house no matter
what. And they've, and you know,nothing can dissuade them from
the fact that they must have thehouse. Well, I can share
information that show that fiveyears down the road, when the
kids go off to college andhouse, the one spouse is still
(21:50):
remaining in it. There's nomoney, they don't have enough
income to pay the mortgage. Do Ishare that? I think I have. I
think I have a fiduciaryresponsibility to share that,
frankly. Because, yes, we'retrying to get to settlement. And
we're trying to do it in a waythat is equitable. However,
things have consequences downthe road, and I don't want to
(22:12):
bump into that person in thegrocery store five years down
the road, and they tell methey're living on the street, or
they had to go to an apartmentin a bar neighborhood. You know,
those are the kinds of thingswhere, again, is it putting
finger on the scale? Yes. Butit's doing it in a way from I
would say for the from the verybest mo tips. Because if I don't
(22:35):
share it, what is theconsequence?
Shawn Weber (22:38):
Well, I go ahead, Pete. Sorry.
Peter Roussos (22:40):
No, I was just thinking that I think for for me
in my work. And this includesthe work that I do in support of
mediation, one of I think one ofthe most important questions
that I ask clients, andsometimes I asked it before
their clients, I asked them whenthey're prospective clients. But
certainly early early on in myprocess is I asked people
(23:03):
directly, how honest Do you wantme to be with you? And I think
that the reality is that we arepaid for our judgments we are,
that's part of the expertise.
That's part of the experience.
Mark Hill (23:16):
Here, I really liked that question. Because you know,
there was a time in every casewhere you have to be brutally
honest about something, youknow, or be it whether it's
about making a decision aroundsomething or how you even how
you approach something. I wasworking this morning on a on a
proposal that one lawyer isworking on one side for on
(23:38):
short, and I impact neutrals inthis case. And I spoke to the
lawyer and suggested some justsome, some change of wording
here and there to make it landbetter on the other side,
because I know how sensitive theother side is on some issues.
Yeah, but again, we are weputting our finger on the scale,
(23:59):
perhaps a little bit, but again,from the right motives.
Shawn Weber (24:02):
And a lot of this has to do with the skill of the
mediator, a well trainedmediator will be a master of the
reframe where they will take aproblem and reframe it in a way
that the other person can hearit from a neutral perspective.
No. And sometimes that alsoinvolves reframing. Well, this
(24:27):
is what would happen if he wentin front of the court and saying
that in a way that does not looklike Well, yeah, I'm putting my
finger on the scale, but I'mbeing very neutral here. And I'm
just telling you, this is whatthe code says. And then being
willing to say when it'sambiguous and we have those
cases don't we were where peopleare like they want to cut and
dry bright letter law you know,bright line rule on something
(24:51):
and and that doesn't alwayshappen in court. Yeah, it's a
court of equity and marks alwaysvery happy to point out that
provision in the in the spousalsupport revision and where, you
know, it lists all these factorsA through H and at the very end,
they throw in anything thatjumps. Thanks, man.
Mark Hill (25:09):
I always tell people that because they just want to
know the rules, just tell me thedamn number I write the check
I've had that said to be morethan once. And I'm sorry, there
is no number.
Shawn Weber (25:22):
I tend to say, well, this is what the law says
on this particular issue. Now,what do you want to do? You can
do whatever you want. Becauseyou know, the judges are
thrilled if people figure outthings on their own. And with
only a few exceptions, the judgewill let people do whatever they
want. Yeah, and as long as theyboth agree, that's the key. And
(25:44):
so I come back with as long asyou both agree, you can do
whatever you want. So you'veheard now this is what Family
Code Section blah, blah, blah,says, Now, what do you want to
do? And always put it back onthem.
Peter Roussos (25:57):
You both you said a few minutes ago, Shawn, that
what you and Mark do is reallylargely in this informational
mediation model. What are thepros and cons from both of your
perspectives?
Shawn Weber (26:12):
Well, I mean, the Pro to information is that you
can actually give people expertknowledge. So they can form
decisions that at toinformational. Legal
complexities can be addressedwithout them having to go to a
formal legal process, becausethey're hearing from somebody
who's neutral who doesn't have astake in the game, this is what
(26:33):
would happen, or what they thinkmight happen, or people Vegas
odds. The negative is thatpeople, if they hear something
like this is what let me run thesupport calculation, I run the
support calculation, and thenpeople anchor on the support
number that the software spitsout. And that may not be the
(26:58):
best number for their family.
Mark Hill (27:00):
And the other challenge we've had, Shawn is
when people go outside of theprocess, which is fine, you can
get information outside and comeback and say, Well, I spoke to a
lawyer who said I would get a, band c. And it's like, how this I
mean, it's easy for me, becauseto some degree, I don't care if
(27:21):
I offend a lawyer, but you're apart of the legal community
here. And it's important for youto, you know, have some, shall
we say, be a little cautiousaround how you talk about other
lawyers opinions?
Shawn Weber (27:36):
I have had, I've only thrown a few lawyers under
the bus. In my career, therehave been a couple where I've
been like, no, that's nonsense.
You know, that's happened. Youmight want to get a second
opinion on that one. I've triedto be very neutral about it. You
know, it's, I love it when theattorneys are there. And I'm
concerned about, is this goingthe right direction? Because
(28:01):
then I can question theattorney. Well, did you think
about this? Did you think aboutthat? Well, what about this
case, you know, and make themforce them to kind of defend
themselves in front of theirclient. It's interesting, when
you see an attorney, kind ofstammer backtrack, when you ask
them a question, I kind of do itlike a judge would do in oral
arguments. But what about this,you know, not because I want to
(28:24):
make the attorney look bad, butbecause I want the attorney to
be able to send what they'resaying so that the client can
hear that. And the other thingis, sometimes I will say to the
client, okay, well, yourattorney has made a very strong
case, and is doing a good joband taking care of you and
making sure that your interestsare met. But what do you want to
do? Now? Maybe you have a verystrong case on this. But what's
(28:48):
the benefit to you if you goahead and agree to what this
other person is asking for?
What's the benefit to you tojust getting an agreement today,
as opposed to Yeah, yourattorney could probably go to
court and do a bang up job onthis. You know, and I'll ask the
attorney, well, how much is thatgoing to cost for you to do
(29:08):
that? They always underestimateit.
Mark Hill (29:11):
The other thing is that I've done this with
attorneys where I broughtattorneys to the table, and I
often will say to them, if youwere on the other side, how
would you argue this? And if youwere on the other side, because
I want the I want the theclients to understand the range
(29:34):
of outcomes range ofpossibilities, as opposed to
it's either a or it's B, youknow, because you get a very
slightly you get a slightlydifferent take on it when you
ask that question.
Shawn Weber (29:47):
Yeah, and just kind of understanding that there's
risk and this goes back to theprinciples of that book Getting
to the guests I was telling youabout what getting to yes is
teaching negotiators to do is tobe very conscious of what is
your best alternative tonegotiated agreement. And the
short form of that is bought ina bat and a best alternatives
(30:09):
negotiated green or what's yourwhat's your worst alternative to
a negotiated agreement. Andoftentimes people get that
wrong. Because they've beenliving with the case, and so
they may have a rosier bottomand a rosier wad than they
really ought to be having. Andthen when they actually hear
(30:30):
what the other person's view ofthe case is, of what their
button is, and wanton, bizarre,it starts to make people think,
Oh, wait, I've been hearing fromthis attorney, that it's this
but really, that this guy's wentto law school, or this gal did.
Why is that I got two smartattorneys here that are
disagreeing.
Mark Hill (30:50):
And that's powerful for the clients to see. Because
it, it goes back to what Shawnwas saying about wrist. You
know, and and you literally donot know what a judge will do.
You really don't know how
Peter Roussos (31:03):
often do clients turn to you guys and say, Well,
what would you do?
Shawn Weber (31:10):
Like if I was, if I was them? What would I do? Yeah.
They asked me that. And I trynot to allow them to pull me
there. Because, yeah, the way Idifferentiate legal advice from
legal information is legaladvices, that should piece which
I do, or ought I do, whereas anAsian is? This is just what the
(31:31):
law says? Or what financialprinciples are, this is one of
them. That's right. Or this isfrom if you were doing it from a
mental health standpoint, thisis what the research says on
parenting plans for a two yearold. But when it gets to be
like, what would I do? If I werethem? I tend to be careful about
(31:53):
that. Because I don't want thatto then become an advice
situation.
Peter Roussos (31:57):
Well, imagine there, that you guys are often
asked some form of the questionthat what would you do? Or what
do you think I should do?
Shawn Weber (32:08):
I usually turn it into a question for them. So if
you agreed to this, and thatwere, let's say, you went to
court, and you fought over this,and then you lost in the other
side's position one, what wouldthat mean for you? Oh, that'd be
awful. I don't know what I woulddo. That'd be terrible. I'd be
(32:30):
ruined, you know, or whatever itis. And let them think about
that, and kind of masseur rate.
And the possibility that theythey may be looking at it the
case, from a perspective, thatwas too much in their favor. And
that's what happens. I mean, youget this this information bias
when you get in your silo. Seeit an Adi, right. Fox News has
(32:51):
one information bias, MSNBC hasanother one. You know, and if
you don't listen to differentperspectives, you're gonna get
more and more in your corner.
And it may or may not besomething that leads to
something that's actually usefulfor them. It's not good to to
(33:12):
underestimate your risk, which Ithink people routinely do.
Mark Hill (33:17):
Yes, I agree. And, and they, they also come into
this with the sort of, rememberthe Al Pacino movie justice for
all. It's like, if I could justtell my story, everything, I'll
get everything, once I get infront of a judge or in front of
a neutral, even if I just tellthis person how awful my spouse
(33:38):
was, I'm sure that they're goingto see things my way and give me
everything. I mean, I'mexaggerating, but there is that
the people come into there withthat concept that we're here to
pass judgment as opposed to whatShawn's been talking about
providing information so thatclients can make decisions
(33:59):
jointly. Now, the
Shawn Weber (34:00):
fourth version of mediation that we didn't talk
about yet, but it's neverthelessimportant is the evaluative
mediation. And this is the onethat I would say, is the most
intervention on the part of themediator. And this is the
favorite for the judges, theprivate judges, the retired
judges that go into mediation.
And what you would do if youwould hire a judge in this
(34:21):
situation, what you're lookingfor is, what would you do if
this case were in yourcourtroom? So they're evaluating
your case, and so they will tellyou this is what would happen if
it was in front of me. And ittends to be really useful for
really complex cases where theremay be complex legal questions
(34:42):
that require a lot of analysis.
And it may result in fasterresolutions compared to some
other styles because you know,you got the expert that kind of
opines the negative to it isthat well, you're giving up some
Your self determination byhaving a judge say, Well, this
(35:03):
is what I would do. And so theytend to anchor on what the judge
is thinking. Even though thatjudge, you know, we've said this
before, you can show the sameargument on spousal support, for
example, and show it to fivedifferent judges, you know,
video day but and show it tofive different judges and get
five different results.
Peter Roussos (35:23):
Well, I think, Shawn, that there are those
cases where they may move frominformative to evaluative to try
to settle it right.
Shawn Weber (35:33):
And sometimes I've had to do that. And so there's
there is a tool that mediatorshave called the mediators
proposal. And this is when we'vebeen working with a couple, or
parties to parties in a case andthey're just not able to reach a
resolution, then what themediator will do is it's kind of
this is my take it or leave itmediator proposal. This is the
last ditch effort. This is whatI think you should do with your
(35:56):
case. Here's my proposal. Ifthis isn't good enough for you,
then you're done. Go toattorneys and fight it out. Kind
of a last ditch effort with withthe value of mediation, you're
kind of starting there. Youknow, and that has its its pros.
I think it's really attorneyslike that mode. Like whenever
I'm doing a mandatory settlementconference at the courts. The
(36:19):
attorneys want to know, whatwould I do? I'm looking at this
from 40,000 feet. I haven't beenliving with this, like the
attorneys have, and theyactually call me a judge when
I'm settlement conference. WhenI'm facilitating a settlement
conference, I'm called IT ProTem judge. But what I'm doing is
I am giving them a very strongevaluation. Now I I can't help
(36:41):
myself, I still facilitate.
There was another formerjudicial officer here in town.
Who, who I really liked going tohim because he would he would
kind of hide the ball. Hewouldn't opine yet. And then
when we got to that point wherewe really it was really obvious
that he needed his opinion. He'dsay, Okay, do you want me to
give my opinion now? Becauseonce I give my opinion, it's out
(37:03):
there. Do you want that? Youreally want it? Yes, we want it.
Okay. Well, here's my opinion.
And then I'm like, Oh, dang,that just ruined my case. Or,
Hey, that's my that's why Iwanted, you know, and then
people tend to anchor it doestake some self determination,
self determination away, becausepeople tend to anchor on the
(37:24):
judges, evaluation. But it canbe useful. I mean, we got this
case Mark, where we're talkingabout a prenup. And we've been
talking frequently about we'renot sure how the prenup would be
handled. And it's a key issue.
And the thought was, well, whatif we go to a private judge? To
have that judge simply opine onthe issue of the prenup? And
give an opinion on what wouldhappen with that prenuptial
(37:47):
agreement. And then once theyknow, then we can come back to
mediation and have them usetheir interests in light of how
the prenup would be handled sothat we can move forward, but
they actually ended up figuringit out. But not doing that.
Peter Roussos (38:05):
Shawn, would you would you you clarify something
for me, please aboutconfidentiality? And this is the
question that I have. Myunderstanding is that if a case
falls out of mediation, and andpeople leave it to go into
litigation, they own their casefile, is that correct? And what
(38:26):
does that mean in the context ofmediation or confidentiality.
Shawn Weber (38:31):
So mediation, it's a little bit different. So in a
legal situation, they own theircase file. They're entitled to
everything in your file. Andwhen the case is over, it's
actually their property. And ifthey request their file, you
have to give it back to them.
And most of us jump through thego through these backflips.
(38:53):
Because Does that mean I'm goingto have to store things ad
infinitum? In the end of time?
Yeah. And so most of us havelike a time limit? Well, I'll
hold your stuff for five years.
And then after five years, readyour file, if we haven't heard
from you. Otherwise, I have toaffirmatively ask permission to
destroy a file. Oh, interesting.
(39:14):
Okay. And if they request thefile, we have to give it to them
that comes up sometimes incollaborative cases, because you
have this attorney and they'veagreed to this confidentiality
within the collaborativeprocess. Yeah. And then the case
goes to court and new attorneythat's gonna litigate this case.
They're like, Okay, give me thefile. I want the file. And then
the collaborative attorneyslike, well, I don't want to give
(39:34):
you all the file because weagreed that some of that would
be confidential. And I haven'tever seen it tested, but I think
if it were tested, the attorneywould have to give it to the
attorney. I think it would haveto be turned over.
Peter Roussos (39:46):
So what does that mean in terms of
confidentiality? Well, it
Shawn Weber (39:50):
doesn't mean that it then gets put into evidence
at court. Okay. What it means isthe attorneys entitled to the
information. But then anythingthat is considered confidential
can't be brought up. And we'recareful in collaborative cases
to sign a stipulation that saysthat we're using Levin 19 of the
(40:13):
evidence code, which is theconfidentiality section for
mediation, minded to ourcollaborative. And we're saying
you can't use anything we saidduring our conversations and
discussions in court. Butthere's still work product that
the client is entitled to. Youknow, and I think that may be
true in mediation as well.
Except I don't turn my notesover, I have it in my agreement
(40:37):
that I don't turn my notes over.
My notes are mine. They'rethere. They're kept
confidential. And what issomething that survives the
process, and this is accordingto case law is their financial
disclosures that they prepare,that are required by the courts,
the California there's an incomeand expense declaration as
(41:00):
scheduled assets and debts, andthen the backup information, the
evidence to support what's inthose declarations, those
survived the process and can beused by the new attorney, but
everything else is strictlyconfidential. Okay.
Mark Hill (41:14):
And my rules, I think, is slightly different. I
mean, I say very clearly in myretainer agreement that if the
case falls out, all my workproduct is confidential. They
can agree to use it, but oneside can't use it. So if they've
(41:36):
sent me anything, I that isshared. So any information that
the client send me around thefinances that shared, any work
product that I've produced,though, is not cost sharing, and
less they both choose to do it.
So sometimes, in a case, we'llget deep into it. And we've
agreed some things and we've gotsome work product that we
(41:57):
provided to them, there's partof that agreement, but now
they're going on, they're stuckon other things. They could
choose to do that. But if onesize has either side has a veto,
they can say no, that cannot beused, because I don't agree to
it being used.
Shawn Weber (42:16):
Well, in an interesting way that 1119 of the
evidence code is used is thatnot all you nothing that is
discussed in mediation can everbe used in court, unless
everybody agrees to it, allparties, and the courts are
interpreting all parties to meanand that means the mediator to.
(42:37):
And so you know, I've been I'vehad people like I want you to
testify in court about whathappened in this mediation
session. I'm like, lb, Sam, andthen they're like, Well, we're
going to send you a subpoena.
No, I'm not going to do it.
Well, we both sides agree thatthey want you to come into court
and testify about what happenedhere. I'm not doing it. And so
then, you know, they tried topush it and I can show them the
(42:57):
case law on that. No, look, I ama person that counts. I don't
approve of this being disclosedin court, because I really want
to protect what was discussed.
And so it's a very strongconfidentiality, like even if
both parties agree that theinformation can be used in
court, the mediator can object.
Peter Roussos (43:18):
And just to reiterate, Shawn, that's how it
is in California, it may bedifferent in other states,
Shawn Weber (43:24):
it may be different other states, but what I'm, most
states have a very similarapproach. I'd say the majority
of the jurisdictions will willdo that. But you know, check
your local jurisdiction ifyou're not in the state of
California and make sure onthat. Yeah, well, it just
Peter Roussos (43:41):
to the audience.
I really want to if this hasbeen interesting, I want to
encourage you to go to Shawn'swebsite and look up the article,
I found it very helpful andfascinating.
Shawn Weber (43:52):
Well, I'm glad that somebody's reading my stuff and
finds it worthwhile.
Peter Roussos (43:58):
Yeah, as I say, I have never heard it. And it made
so much sense to me. I've neverheard mediation broken down in
that way. So well done. Reallywell done.
Shawn Weber (44:11):
Well, good. Well, we've been talking a long time.
Yeah. I think maybe we can stopnow. Yeah.
Mark Hill (44:22):
I think our audience might might appreciate that.
Shawn Weber (44:29):
So So Pete, if if people wanted to talk to you
about mediation or aboutservices you provide what what
should they do?
Peter Roussos (44:37):
Best way to reach me is my website, which is Peter
Russo's dot com. That's P E T ER R O U. S. S. O s.com. And you
can contact me through thecontact me page.
Shawn Weber (44:53):
And Mark, what would they do if they needed to
talk to you about some financialstuff,
Mark Hill (44:57):
same approach go to my The company website which is
PAC divorce.com PAC di vorce.com. There's a contact page
there and there's also our phonenumbers.
Shawn Weber (45:12):
And if people want to get a hold of me to find out
how to resolve their dispute, wewill match them with a mediator
to resolve their dispute. It'sWeber dispute resolution.com
That's a Weber with one Bdispute like we had a fight and
resolution like we solved it.comAnd you can go there and find
(45:32):
all kinds of things, including,according to Pete, very good and
interesting blog posts. And thispodcast is on there as well. So
look forward to people checkingit out. Thanks for listening to
another episode of the threeWiseman of divorce, money,
Psych, and law. If you likedwhat you heard, be sure to
(45:53):
subscribe, leave us a review andshare with others who may be in
a similar place. Until nexttime, stay safe, healthy and
focused on a positive brightfuture. This podcast is for
informational purposes only.
Every family law case is unique.
So no legal, financial or mentalhealth advice is intended during
(46:15):
this podcast. If you need helpwith your specific situation,
feel free to schedule a time tospeak with one of us for a
personal consultation.
(47:30):
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of the three Wiseman of
divorce, money, Psych and law.
If you liked what you heard, besure to subscribe. Leave us a
review and share with others whomay be in a similar place. Until
next time, stay safe, healthyand focused on a positive bright
future. This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
(47:52):
Every family law case is unique.
So no legal, financial or mentalhealth advice is intended during
this podcast. If you need helpwith your specific situation,
feel free to schedule a time tospeak with one of us for a
personal consultation.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.