If it is true that first impressions are so important, it is also true that each word chosen by the mediator during the opening statement – to explain the purpose of mediation, his or her role, and how mediation works – may have a lasting (positive or negative) impact on the parties. As a result, depending of whether the parties like or dislike what they just heard by the mediator in the first 5 minutes, their mediation is likely to start off on the right or wrong foot.

For that reason, in my practice I prefer to tailor the opening statement, depending on the parties' case, background, and experience.

For example, when mediating commercial cases with attorneys, I use words like mediation, negotiation or settlement. But when mediating with individual parties (e.g. in a family case), I prefer to avoid those words. Why? I figure that:

>> Most people who have never participated in mediation before associate the word “mediation” with “compromise” or “giving in” - nothing to be particularly proud of.

>> Unlike attorneys, sales reps or managers, most people don't consider themselves as negotiators. And therefore, as soon as the mediator says the word “negotiation”, they fear to end up with a bad agreement, and wonder whether they should have come to mediation with an attorney.

Thus, during my opening statement in a case only with attorneys, I might say: “We are here to give you the opportunity to talk, hear what's on your mind, listen what's on the other person's mind – and find out if there is any chance that you can negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement”.

On the contrary, in a case with just husband and wife I prefer to say “We are here to give you the opportunity to talk, hear what's on your mind, listen what's on the other person's mind – and then we'll take it from there.”

Which words do you prefer to use - or leave out - in your opening statement?