Ken Strongman, Esq. – Mediator

Blog

  • The Mini-Trial: Executive Dispute Resolution

    The Mini-Trial: Executive Dispute Resolution

    The Mini-Trial: Bringing the C-Suite to the Settlement Table

    When a dispute involves complex technical issues and a multi-million-dollar business relationship that must survive, standard mediation can sometimes feel insufficient. Enter the mini-trial. Despite its name, this is not an adjudication; it is a highly sophisticated, highly structured mediation designed to engage the people who actually sign the checks: the senior officers and directors.

    As a mediator, I find the mini-trial to be one of the most effective ways to move a dispute out of the “legal weeds” and back into the larger commercial context. It’s expensive and time-consuming, but for the right case, it is a game-changer.

    The Power of “No Check-In Required”

    In a typical mini-trial, lawyers for both sides present facts and arguments to a panel of senior decision-makers from each company, assisted by a neutral facilitator. The genius of this method is that the senior executives—often for the first time—hear the other side’s best arguments directly.

    Because these decision-makers are personally involved, an immediate compromise is possible. There is no “checking with the home office.” The parties can look at the dispute through the lens of their ongoing business relationship rather than just a line item on a litigation budget.

    The Evaluative Edge

    In these proceedings, the neutral (often acting under AAA procedures) does more than just facilitate. They may advise on points of law and even recommend a settlement approach. This evaluative role is crucial when the primary barrier to settlement is a disagreement over legal exposure.

    However, the mini-trial is not without risk. It requires a significant time commitment from the C-suite and carries the risk of “showing your hand” if the matter doesn’t settle and proceeds to trial.

    Actionable Takeaway: Is Your Case Mini-Trial Ready?

    Consider this method if:

    • The Relationship is Vital: You need to preserve a long-term commercial partnership.
    • The Issues are Technical: You need senior management to understand the “why” behind the numbers.
    • Bargaining Power is Equal: Both sides have the resources and the incentive to resolve the matter “business-to-business.”

    A mini-trial is for those who value a business-like settlement over a pyrrhic victory. If you have a complex commercial matter that requires a high-level neutral to facilitate an executive-level resolution, let’s connect.

    This blog is adapted from my unpublished manuscript on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

    About the Author: Ken Strongman is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA, past president of The Mediation Society. and Instructor (International Mediation Institute Coach and Assessor) at UC Law San Francisco.

    © 2026-27 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or re-post without permission.

  • Navigating Conflict: Unveiling the Power of Perceptions

    Navigating Conflict: Unveiling the Power of Perceptions

    Power of Perceptions

    In the tumultuous landscape of conflicts, one-word echoes louder than the rest: Perceptions. They weave through the fabric of every disagreement, dictating our understanding, reactions, and solutions. Just as a prism refracts light into a spectrum of colors, perceptions refract reality into a myriad of interpretations, guiding our paths through the maze of discord. Let’s delve deeper into the intricate role perceptions play in the complex dynamics of conflict.

    Perceptions form the cornerstone of any conflict, serving as the lens through which individuals view the world around them. As humans, we interpret reality through the unique filter of our own experiences, beliefs, and values. Whether it’s the severity of a problem, its underlying causes, or its potential consequences, perceptions shape our understanding at every turn. From the moment a conflict arises, perceptions assert their influence, coloring our interactions and shaping the trajectory of resolution.

    Consider the scenario: two parties embroiled in a heated debate over a contentious issue. Each holds steadfast to their perspective, convinced of the righteousness of their cause. Yet, beneath the surface lies a chasm of differing perceptions, fueled by personal biases, cultural backgrounds, and past experiences. What one perceives as a minor inconvenience, the other views as a grave injustice. In this clash of perceptions, the seeds of conflict find fertile ground to take root and flourish.

    Moreover, perceptions extend beyond individual viewpoints to encompass a broader spectrum of influences. Geographic locations, historical contexts, religious beliefs—each adds another layer to the intricate tapestry of perceptions that shape our understanding of the world. As we sit at the table of conflict resolution, these diverse perspectives converge, each vying for recognition and validation.

    In the realm of conflict resolution, the art of reframing emerges as a potent tool for navigating the maze of perceptions. By shifting the frame through which a problem is viewed, mediators can challenge entrenched perceptions, opening the door to new possibilities and avenues for resolution. Through thoughtful dialogue and empathetic understanding, they guide parties towards a shared reality—one where perceptions no longer divide, but unite in pursuit of common ground.

    As we reflect on the myriad conflicts that engulf our world, it becomes evident that perceptions wield immense power—power to divide or unite, to inflame passions or foster empathy. In embracing the diversity of perceptions that shape our experiences, we pave the way for meaningful dialogue and sustainable solutions.

    In conclusion, let us not underestimate the transformative potential of perceptions in the landscape of conflict. As we strive for resolution, let us heed the call to embrace empathy, understanding, and the willingness to challenge our own perceptions. Only then can we navigate the turbulent waters of conflict towards a horizon of peace and reconciliation.

    Call to Action: Are you embroiled in a conflict that seems insurmountable? Reach out to Ken Strongman, an experienced mediator, to guide you towards a resolution grounded in understanding and empathy. Your journey towards peace begins today.

    About the Author: Ken Strongman (www.kpstrongman.com) is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA: past president of The Mediation Society. and Instructor (International Mediation Institute Coach and Assessor) at UC Law San Francisco.

    #ADR #mediators #mediation #conflict #lawsuit #construction #legal #litagation #alternativedisputeresolution #negociation #dispute #finra #themediationsociety

    © 2026 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or repost without permission.

  • The ingredients of any conflict

    The ingredients of any conflict

    Conflict – yan-krukov-7640796

    All conflicts have similar ingredients.  They may vary in amount but most are present in some way.  

    Needs – Needs are physical requirements essential to our well-being. Conflicts arise when we ignore others’ needs, our own needs or the group’s needs. It is important to not to confuse needs with desires.  These are the things we would like to have but are not essential.

    Perceptions – All humans interpret reality differently. They perceive differences in the severity, causes and consequences of problems. Misperceptions or differing perceptions may come from: self-perceptions, others’ perceptions, differing perceptions of situations and perceptions of threat.  How something is framed will affect its perception.  So in conflict resolution, re-framing is an important task to get to a solution.

    Power – How people define and use power is an important influence on the number and types of conflicts that occur. This also influences how conflict is managed. Conflicts can arise when people try to make others change their actions or to gain an unfair advantage.  This is a powerful human motivation.  Everyone wants to establish or reestablish the perception of control.

    Values – Values are beliefs or principles we consider to be very important. Serious conflicts arise when people hold incompatible values or when values are not clear. Conflicts also arise when one party refuses to accept the fact that the other party holds something as a value rather than a preference.  To resolve the conflict, clarify each party’s values. 

    Feelings and emotions – Many people let their feelings and emotions become a major influence over how they deal with conflict. Conflicts can also occur because people ignore their own or others’ feelings and emotions. Other conflicts occur when feelings and emotions differ over a particular issue.

    About the Author: Ken Strongman is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA, past president of The Mediation Society. and instructor at UC Law San Francisco.

    © 2026-27 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or re-post without permission.

  • The Vital Role of an Unbiased Mediator

    The Vital Role of an Unbiased Mediator

    Ken Strongman, Esq. Mediator
    Ken Strongman, Esq. Mediator

    The Power of an Unbiased Mediator: Transforming Conflict into Resolution

    Picture this: You’re embroiled in a heated dispute. Emotions run high, and a resolution seems out of reach. Enter the unbiased mediator—a beacon of clarity and resolution in a sea of conflict.

    You might wonder: If a mediator shares an opinion during a dispute, doesn’t that make them biased?

    Absolutely not!

    Neutrality in Action: Why Opinions Matter

    As an unbiased mediator, I form opinions on numerous issues to serve as an impartial guide in your quest for resolution. Rather than taking sides, I use these insights to help both parties evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. This arms you with the clarity you need to make smart, informed decisions.

    My opinions draw from a holistic understanding of information from both sides of the table. While strict confidentiality limits what I disclose to whom, receiving guidance from an unbiased mediator provides invaluable direction when you need to make tough calls.

    Guiding the Conversation, Empowering Your Choices

    Rather than dictating outcomes, I actively facilitate discussions, encourage you to explore creative alternatives, and empower you to craft mutually beneficial solutions. My role extends far beyond passive neutrality; it demands active engagement, empathy, and a commitment to constructive dialogue. By leveraging my expertise and impartial perspective, I catalyze real progress toward a fair resolution while ensuring everyone feels heard and respected.

    Building Trust Through Transparency

    In dispute resolution, transparency and trust are everything. My commitment to strict confidentiality creates a safe atmosphere where you can freely express your concerns and goals.

    Rest assured, while my insights shape our discussions, they stem from an unwavering dedication to fairness. I ground every opinion in a thorough understanding of your dispute’s unique intricacies so that all perspectives receive full consideration.

    Ready to Resolve Your Dispute?

    Whether you’re grappling with a contractual dispute, a workplace conflict, or another dispute entirely, you don’t have to navigate it alone. Reach out today to schedule a consultation and discover how my expertise as an unbiased mediator can transform your conflict into an equitable solution.

    Take the first step toward resolution—claim your clarity and peace of mind today.

    About the Author: Ken Strongman is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA and past president of The Mediation Society.

    #ADR #mediators #mediation #conflict #lawsuit #construction #legal #litagation #alternativedisputeresolution #negociation #dispute #finra #themediationsociety

    © 2026 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or repost without permission.

  • Conciliation, Negotiation, Mediation, Arbitration: Do You Know Which Lever to Pull?

    Ken Strongman, Esq. Mediator
    Ken Strongman, Esq. Mediator

    The most effective litigators aren’t just great advocates; they are master proceduralists. They know that the “Primary ADR Methods” aren’t just definitions in a textbook—they are distinct tactical levers that can be pulled to secure the best outcome for a client.

    Over the last few weeks, we’ve broken down the taxonomy of choice:

    🛠 The 4 Strategic Levers

    1. Conciliation: The “olive branch” for parties who must maintain a relationship. It’s about character, salutatory gestures, and avoiding the “alligator” pitfall of appeasement.
    2. Negotiation: The sophisticated, lawyer-driven process of finding mutual satisfaction. It’s the daily bread of litigation, but it requires a strategic temperament to close.
    3. Mediation: Negotiation with an evaluative edge. It’s where the reality check happens and where California’s confidentiality codes allow for the most creative business saves.
    4. Arbitration: The consensual ceding of authority. You give up control over the outcome to gain control over the expertise and finality of the decision-maker.

    The takeaway? The “best” ADR method is the one that fits the commercial reality of your dispute.

    I specialize in helping attorneys identify the right method and providing the expert neutral services to execute it. Whether you need a facilitator for a delicate negotiation or a decider for a complex commercial arbitration, I am here to help.

    I am available for complex commercial mediation and arbitration. Let’s connect to discuss which lever we need to pull for your client’s relief.

    🔗 Read the full Taxonomy series here:

    Selecting Your Decider:  Consensual Arbitration 

    Evaluative Mediation is More Than Just “Assisted Talking” 

    Strategic Conciliation: Conciliation vs. Strategic Negotiation 

    These blogs are adapted from my unpublished manuscript on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

    About the Author: Ken Strongman is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA, past president of The Mediation Society. and instructor at UC Law San Francisco.

    © 2026-27 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or re-post without permission.

  • Selecting Your Decider: Consensual Arbitration

    In arbitration, the parties cede control over the decision to gain control over the decider.
    In arbitration, the parties cede control over the decision to gain control over the decider.

    In a trial, you are assigned a judge and a jury pool by the luck of the draw. In consensual arbitration, you choose the decider. This shift from state-imposed adjudication to consensual resolution is the primary reason arbitration remains the preferred method for complex trade and commercial disputes.

    Arbitration is more formal than mediation—it is a process where the disputants voluntarily cede to a neutral third party the authority to decide the case. But while you lose the ability to control the outcome, you gain the ability to control the expert.

    Pre-Dispute vs. Submission Agreements

    Most commercial arbitration is triggered by a pre-dispute clause in a contract. However, savvy litigators know that they can also enter into a written submission agreement after a dispute has occurred. This allows you to tailor the arbitration process (the scope of discovery, the timeline, the expertise of the arbitrator) to the specific needs of that case.

    Finality and Enforcement

    The greatest asset of an arbitrator’s decision is its path to finality. Unlike a trial judgment that can be tied up in years of appeals, an arbitration award can be entered as a court judgment, making it immediately enforceable.

    When you select an arbitrator who is a subject-matter expert—whether in construction, software, or real estate—you are ensuring that the person rendering the decision understands the nuances of the “trade” in a way a generalist judge might not. This expertise reduces the “risk of the ridiculous”—the fear of a jury award that makes no commercial sense.

    Actionable Takeaway: The Consensual Arbitration Strategy

    • Vet the Decider: Spend significant time researching the arbitrator’s past awards and their reputation for fairness within the specific industry.
    • Customize the Process: If you are using a submission agreement, negotiate the rules of evidence and discovery to fit the value of the case.
    • Focus on Finality: Remind your client that while they are giving up their “day in court,” they are gaining an enforceable end to the dispute, allowing them to return to their core business.

    Consensual Arbitration is the professional’s choice for definitive resolution. I provide expert mediation services that respect the commercial realities of your clients’ businesses. Let’s connect for your next commercial dispute.

    This blog is adapted from my unpublished manuscript on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

    About the Author: Ken Strongman is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA, past president of The Mediation Society. and instructor at UC Law San Francisco.

    © 2026-27 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or re-post without permission.

     

  • Evaluative Mediation is More Than Just “Assisted Talking”

    A mediator serves as the bridge between entrenched positions and creative solutions.
    A mediator serves as the bridge between entrenched positions and creative solutions.

    Most litigators know that mediation is an informal process involving a neutral third party. But the most effective attorneys understand that mediation is fundamentally negotiation in the presence of another person and evaluative mediation.

    The mediator’s role isn’t just to “facilitate” or keep the parties talking. In complex commercial disputes, the mediator provides the one thing most litigants lack: a reality check. This is the moment where an expert neutral points out the risks of not achieving a compromise, allowing parties to finally separate facts from emotion and wants from needs.

    The Shield of Confidentiality

    One of the greatest advantages of mediation in California is the statutory protection provided by Evidence Code 703.5 and 1152. Everything said in mediation—the offers, the admissions, the “weaknesses” shared in confidence—is generally inadmissible in subsequent litigation.

    This confidentiality allows for a level of candor that is impossible in a courtroom. As a mediator, I use this shield to explore settlement options that the parties would be too afraid to mention in a formal deposition. This “safe space” is where the most creative, business-saving compromises are born.

    Facilitator vs. Evaluator

    A great mediator wears two hats. As a facilitator, I help the parties communicate their underlying needs. As an evaluator, I provide the objective analysis of the litigation’s risks. This dual role is what allows a mediated settlement agreement to become as binding and enforceable as any contract, but with significantly less “blood on the floor” than a trial.

    Actionable Takeaway: Getting the Most from Mediation

    • Demand a Reality Check: Don’t just look for a mediator who “keeps people talking.” Look for one who can evaluate the subject matter and point out the holes in both sides’ arguments.
    • Leverage the Code: Use the confidentiality of Evidence Code 1152 to test out-of-the-box settlement structures without fear of them being used against you later.
    • Separate Needs from Wants: Before the session, help your client identify their “must-haves” versus their “nice-to-haves.” The mediator can help you bridge the gap between the two.

    Evaluative Mediation is where facts meet the bottom line. I specialize in providing the evaluative edge that helps litigating attorneys find closure for their clients. Connect with me today for your next commercial mediation.

    This blog is adapted from my unpublished manuscript on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

    About the Author: Ken Strongman is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA, past president of The Mediation Society. and instructor at UC Law San Francisco.

    © 2026-27 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or re-post without permission.

     

  • Strategic Conciliation: Conciliation vs. Strategic Negotiation

    True resolution often begins with a single, strategic gesture of good faith.
    True resolution often begins with a single, strategic gesture of good faith.

    In the adversarial world of trial law, we are trained to view concessions as a sign of a weak hand. But as a commercial mediator, I often see cases settle not because of a brilliant legal argument, but because one party had the character to offer a “friendly, un-antagonistic” adjustment. This is the art of strategic conciliation.

    While conciliation is the least complicated ADR method, it is often the most difficult to execute. It requires traits that are rare in the heat of litigation: mercy, humility, and compassion. Yet, for attorneys, understanding the difference between conciliation and negotiation is the key to avoiding the “appeasement pitfall.”

    The “Alligator” Pitfall

    In my years of practice, I’ve seen what your book describes as the “feeding babies to alligators” technique. This is the danger of conciliation without strategy—the idea that if you just feed the alligator enough, it will eventually stop trying to eat you. In reality, appeasing a bad-faith actor often only entices more aggression.

    Strategic conciliation is different. Its goal is not to assign blame, but to resolve a problem through face-to-face discussion and unilateral concessions when they serve a broader business goal. If you are dealing with parties who must continue to work together—neighbors, long-term vendors, or family-owned businesses—conciliation is a tactical necessity, not a surrender.

    Negotiation: The Sophisticated Sibling

    While conciliation depends on custom and character, negotiation is the more sophisticated, regulated form of this interaction. Negotiation utilizes the professional services of lawyers to reach a settlement that is mutually satisfying—emotionally, economically, and legally. While conciliation attempts to mitigate conflict by one side “giving in,” negotiation seeks a balance where both sides feel they have secured a win.

    Actionable Takeaway: The Negotiator’s Character Check

    To become a more effective closer, cultivate these “conciliatory” habits:

    • The Salutatory Gesture: Small, non-legal concessions (an apology for a delay, a gesture of respect) can lower the temperature enough to allow for a multi-million dollar negotiation to begin.
    • Avoid the Appeasement Trap: Distinguish between a “crazy uncle” who needs a handshake and a bad-faith actor who views kindness as a target.
    • Start Conciliatory: It is always easier to get angrier later than it is to “eat crow” after you’ve accused your opponent of every vile deed in the book.

    Successful resolution requires more than a strong case; it requires a strategic temperament. If you’re looking for a mediator who can help your clients navigate the human and economic nuances of negotiation, let’s connect.

    This blog is adapted from my unpublished manuscript on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

    About the Author: Ken Strongman is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA, past president of The Mediation Society. and instructor at UC Law San Francisco.

    © 2026-27 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or re-post without permission.

     

  • The Long Game: Why the History of ADR is the Key to Your Future Litigation Strategy

    Ken Strongman, Esq
    Ken Strongman, Esq.

    Over the last few weeks, we’ve journeyed from the harmony-oriented teachings of Ancient China to the high-pressure dockets of 1970s America. The conclusion is inescapable: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is not a new legal experiment. It is a fundamental pillar of civilization stability.

    For the modern litigator, understanding this history isn’t just an academic exercise—it’s a strategic advantage.

    1. ADR is the Historical Default

    From the Pope’s arbitration of the “New World” to the chukai-sha in Japan, societies have always known that trial is a blunt instrument. When you suggest mediation, you are following a 2,000-year-old blueprint for successful resolution.

    1. The Mandate is Systematic

    The modern ADR framework didn’t happen by accident. It was a deliberate pivot in 1976 to save the civil justice system from the “Four Horsemen”: cost, delay, access, and overcrowding. ADR is the fulfillment of the federal mandate for a “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution.

    1. Resolution is a Survival Strategy

    From Colonial Puritans to modern trade associations, the most successful market participants prioritize commercial comity over total legal war. They know that a “business-like compromise” protects the bottom line better than a pyrrhic victory in court.

    The takeaway for litigators? ADR is where history meets the future. If you want to move your cases forward using a process that is both historically grounded and commercially sophisticated, I can help. I bring a deep understanding of both the litigation lifecycle and the business-focused needs of your clients to every mediation.

    I am available for complex commercial mediation and arbitration. Let’s connect to discuss how I can help your clients find the relief history has always promised.

    🔗 Read the full historical series here: 

    Ancient ADR Roots: ADR is Older Than Your Law School

    1976: How the “Four Horsemen” of Litigation Birthed Modern ADR

    Survival of the Fittest: Choose Resolution Over War

    These blogs are adapted from my unpublished manuscript on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

    About the Author: Ken Strongman is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA, past president of The Mediation Society. and instructor at UC Law San Francisco.

    © 2026 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or re-post without permission.

    #LegalHistory #LitigationStrategy #CommercialMediation #ADR #LegalInnovation

  • Survival of the Fittest: Choose Resolution Over War

    Commercial Comity
    When survival and efficiency are at stake, resolution is the only logical choice.

    In the early American colonies, the Puritans and Quakers didn’t use mediation because they were idealistic; they used it because they were pragmatic. In small, isolated communities facing “hostile natives, foreign armies, and unpredictable natural forces,” a long-drawn-out lawsuit was a luxury no one could afford. Conflict was a threat to survival.medi

    Disputes had to be resolved quickly to preserve the community. This wasn’t just a social philosophy—it was a market philosophy. It turns out that what was true for a 17th-century village is equally true for 21st-century global commerce: Commercial comity is the bedrock of profit.

    The Evolution of the “Business-Like Compromise”

    ADR is not a recent invention of “learned judges.” It has developed contemporaneously with our social and market institutions. Consider the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which set up voluntary submission for railroad labor disputes. Why? Because the nation’s economy couldn’t survive a complete halt in the rail system.

    Today, market leaders in construction, securities, and software service providers don’t litigate by default—they mediate by contract. They recognize that a “business-like compromise” is often more lucrative than a total legal “victory” that leaves the parties (and their industry) in ruins.

    The Role of the Expert Neutral

    Perhaps the most significant development in modern ADR is the rise of the specialized neutral. A mediator, for instance, is in a unique position to evaluate a party’s litigation position and recommend a compromise that makes business sense.

    ADR has moved from the playground (where peer mediation helps children) to the boardroom and even the internet. Whether it was the “Y2k glitch” protocols or today’s complex international trade disputes, the goal remains: speedy, non-violent, and economically sound resolution.

    Actionable Takeaway: The Commercial Comity Checklist

    To determine if your case is a candidate for a “survival-based” resolution:

    • The Relationship Factor: Does your client need to do business with the opposing party (or their industry) again? If so, mediation is the only way to preserve that market access.
    • The Economic Reality: Is the dispute a “distraction” from core business goals? Like the Colonial Puritans, your client’s “survival” may depend on clearing this hurdle quickly.
    • The Neutral Advantage: Are you using a mediator who understands the specific “trade rules” of your client’s industry?

    History shows that the most successful communities and businesses choose resolution over war. I provide the expert mediation services necessary to maintain your client’s commercial comity. Connect with me to discuss your next business-critical dispute.

    This blog is adapted from my unpublished manuscript on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

    About the Author: Ken Strongman is a private commercial mediator/arbitrator of complex, high risk litigated cases since 2004. Disputes addressed include business, securities, construction defects, real estate, intellectual property, employment, environment, energy, and trusts & estates. He is also a Mediator and Arbitrator for FINRA, past president of The Mediation Society. and instructor at UC Law San Francisco. 

    © 2026-27 Ken Strongman. All Rights Reserved. Please do not copy or repost without permission.