There are several types of mediation in which practitioners engage. The principal ones are facilitative, evaluative, and transformative mediation.

In facilitative mediation, the mediator acts as a facilitator of negotiation between the parties. In doing so, the mediator works to encourage the parties to reach a voluntary resolution of their dispute by focusing on their respective interests. The mediator does not share his or her own views of the dispute.

Evaluative mediation on the other hand involves the mediator taking a more active role is expressing his/her view of the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ respective positions and making recommendations and suggestions as to how the parties might settled their case. Evaluative mediators are frequently attorneys with expertise in the law applicable to the dispute and can assist the parties in assessing the legal merits of their respective positions.

Transformative mediation is a more esoteric form of dispute resolution. It encourages the parties to recognize each other’s needs and interests and attempts to transform the parties’ interpersonal relationship and the interactions between them. The objective is to improve communication, build trust and strengthen relationships for long-term benefits. Transformative mediation has limited application in cases where there is a distinct legal dispute between parties for whom a continuing relationship is not a critical factor.

Michael’s style of mediation is principally facilitative in which he works to assist the parties in fashioning their own acceptable resolution of their dispute. However, in cases involving areas of the law in which Michael has a comfortable degree of subject matter expertise, he will frequently combine both facilitative and evaluative approaches to the negotiation. Although not being directive in the evaluative approach, Michael is likely to address legal issues which the parties may not have spoken to by asking questions such as those which start with: “Have you considered the following . . .?, or “What do you think is the impact, if any, of the following . . .?”

By employing a combined style technique, Michael attempts to assist both sides in recognizing factors that should logically be considered as a basis for compromising their respective positions. The objective is to help the conflicting parties understand that a “good settlement” is not a zero-sum game where the result is an advantage for one side

and an equivalent loss for the other, but an outcome where each party can swallow hard and say, “This outcome may not be everything I had hoped for, but I can live comfortably with it.”