Some solicitors may feel more comfortable with litigation than mediation. However, with the importance of mediation on the rise, solicitors need to know the new landscape. An informed and strategic approach will see solicitors better placed to assist and maximise the benefits for their clients, particularly when it comes to preparing for negotiations. This is especially true when it comes to divorce mediation. This very personal type of dispute frequently involves parties who are poorly trained to handle negotiation and who may also bring unresolved and unhelpful domestic dynamics into the mediation room.

Although the emphasis in divorce mediation is on active client engagement, solicitors' roles to date have largely been confined to referring clients to mediation and reviewing mediation agreements. Actually attending sessions would entail a significant increase in cost, not to mention the difficulty of coordinating five diaries instead of three. However, solicitors should stay close. As independent trained professionals, they are able to make rational and strategic choices in emotional situations. Being outside the set also allows solicitors to help construct a mediated solution while the mediator is in the room finding the pieces to the puzzle.

If both solicitors do attend, the question may be why bother with the mediator at all, as solicitors are already skilled at client negotiation conferences. Answer? If a client conference could have solved the issue it would have happened already. Mediation will often come later and will also often involve more emotionally entrenched clients and issues.

The Dynamics of Mediation

In most disputes, both sides pursue vindication and exoneration. People usually seek to avoid understanding, particularly of the other, as it is a threat to one's own position. But in divorce mediation, where the commitment is already to separation, it is through understanding that parties - especially parents - can craft the best personal solution available to their family within the legal framework.

To be understanding of the other side requires elements of cooperation, collaboration and compassion. Usually, these three Cs are absent between the parties in a divorce situation; are not desired by the client to be in the repertoire of their solicitor; and, given the adversarial nature of our legal system, are professionally risky strategies for a Hong Kong solicitor.

When a solicitor attempts to understand the other side, whether in client conference or in mediation, the solicitor's own client may feel betrayed by such 'consorting with the enemy'. This is where the mediator becomes useful. The solicitor may remain in the background as a gladiator, advisor and coach while understanding is facilitated by the mediator, assuring that everyone's roles are clear and images are safely maintained.

Frequently, the parties bring to mediation the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse of any relationship: stonewalling, defensiveness, criticism and contempt. Often, at least one party is stressed at meeting the other and their heart races; at about 145 beats per minute cognitive function breaks down (remember that tongue-tied feeling during your first hearing before a Master). To counter the Horsemen and ease the parties' nerves, the mediator needs to develop a level of trust between the parties. At the least, it is essential to promote trust in the mediation process. Solicitors can assist by coaching their clients in avoiding - and dealing with - the Horsemen and by prepping them in what is to come.

Managing the Interaction

After the private individual sessions, the couple comes together. Their first act is to review the agreement to mediate. This is a document they know, and performing this first step helps the parties to save face until the heart steadies, cognitive function returns and they are back on track. The rest of the first session usually involves setting the agenda and ascertaining what information is missing and what information needs to be exchanged.

The exchange of information is trust building between the parties. It could be as small as a single sheet of paper, such as a school report, or as big as the exchange of the Form E or the BATNA and WATNA (discussed below). Failure to provide the big ticket Form E is less damaging than failure to provide the small item. The failure to provide a small item, which is seen to be in the personal control of the other party, brings the Horsemen in at full charge. It is seen as stonewalling, and then both parties can become defensive, critical and contemptuous, drawing comments like: 'you can't even do that!' If the failure is deliberate, the impact often boomerangs.

The lack of a Form E, which is perceived as being under the control of the solicitor, is not personal and can even be deflected from the parties as they share a moment of frustration against solicitors. Sharing is trust building. However, it has the added cost that the party who has not provided is diminished and often feels on the back foot having to ask for understanding.

When your client comes back with a list of things requested by the other side, it is helpful to go through the list with your client and assess what can or cannot be provided within the timetable set down at the mediation. Impress upon your client the importance of delivering at least the small things, and if you are too busy to prepare some items in time, advise the mediator. The mediator can always reschedule the next meeting until a more appropriate time. Advance notice is polite and cooperative; at least 24 hours' notice allows people to make alternative arrangements without incurring booking fees for rooms and child-minders.

As a mediator must be neutral and impartial, spending more time with one client before or during the process is risky. It is therefore much better for the solicitor to prepare the client with basic negotiation skills. An explanation of tit-for-tat may sound childish to some, but game theory and the classic 'prisoner's dilemma' can provide a more scientific explanation of why reciprocity works.

The concept of taking turns and reciprocating is deeply embedded in all cultural psyches. Going first with something small but significant can be very powerful. On the other hand, going first will be perceived by many as a sign of weakness, unless its purpose is for anchoring (discussed below). Reluctance to go first can also be tied in to regret aversion - sometimes a person would much rather do nothing and lose than do something and lose; to 'let nature take its course' and thereby avoid personal blame. These are all simple human impulses that solicitors can highlight to their clients and provide strategies to overcome.

The Scope of Potential Agreement

It is most beneficial to take the time to interview your client to find out what is important to both sides. It is not always just money; we all know that the non-tangibles of apology, recognition and acknowledgement are frequently big sticking points. Coaching your client to be able to make a relevant statement can be helpful. A small sincere statement is more effective than a bland parroted statement.

The BATNA and the WATNA (together known as the BW) are the best/worst alternatives to a negotiated agreement. The boundaries of the BW provide a range, a ball park of possibilities that is known in mediation literature as the ZOPA: the zone of possible agreement. Reaching an agreement within the ZOPA makes both parties better off than if there were no agreement.

First and foremost, the BW is a safety net. It sets parameters within which the clients can find their feet. It helps to delineate the topics at issue and provides a zone in which the clients can feel comfortable with the concept of negotiation. The client knows which page they are on and can navigate from there. Those who arrive at a mediation without a clear idea of the field of play are at a disadvantage.

However, as negotiations tend to settle around the mid-point between the first offer and the first demand, there is a real skill in the framing of the BW. This responsibility is best borne by solicitors, who are likely to be more experienced in such matters and will be less distracted than the client is by the emotional conflict. It is also helpful if solicitors can coach clients on how to respond to the bald reply of a counter-offer or counter-demand.

Controlling the Options

Sometimes the BW is exaggerated. This happens for a variety of reasons.

First, some solicitors will want to give a very high or very low BW range - depending which side they are acting for - because they know about anchoring. People work on a relative basis and not on an absolute, discrete basis. The first number they hear is an anchoring number, a reference point, and figures are then offered relative to that first number. A statement that 'I want $20 million' anchors that figure and puts discussions in that region. The counter to an exaggerated high figure is an exaggerated low figure, which returns the eventual solution to a mid-point. The longer the first exaggeration is not responded to, the more strongly it becomes an anchor.

Second, if the solicitors are not well enough prepared, the given BW may be so wide as to be meaningless. In that case, the boundaries can be so far apart that the client flounders, and in floundering the client will regress and become defensive. Sometimes the solicitor has not been given enough information from the other side to prepare a realistic BW; the option then is either to delay the next mediation session until the information is available or to provide a variety of BWs based on various scenarios - eg if the pot is $1 million, $10 million or $20 million.

The 'variety of scenarios' approach is often successful in quickly producing the missing information from the other side, as they will want to avoid the endowment effect. People form strong value attachments to things perceived as 'owned' and 'theirs' even if the thing is imaginary. And once owned, loss aversion becomes the next sticky hurdle. Loss aversion is a technical way of saying 'losers cry louder than winners sing'. A win of $150 dollars does not make us as happy as a loss of $100 makes us sad.

Recent developments in fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) have led to the new field of neuro-economics. Brain scanning techniques in this discipline show that loss aversion lights up the emotional limbic part of the brain more than the rational pre-frontal cortex area lights up. This explains why people intimately involved in situations unconsciously make more subjective emotional decisions than they do rational objective ones. People have always known this, hence the proverb: 'he who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client'.

This phenomenon was recently illustrated when Citigroup, after receiving tax payer funds to stay afloat, attempted to continue with plans to buy a US$50 million executive jet as cancellation of the order would have cost US$4 million and the loss of a jet already perceived as owned. It took an independent professional who was outside the set - in this case, the new US Treasury Secretary - to prevail with the view that it was inappropriate to continue to spend the remaining US$46 million.

Third and lastly, while the solicitor may have made the effort to prepare a reasoned BW, clients may double or halve the numbers before them off their own bat once in the room. In this situation, a mediator who also has a copy of the BWs will know that the exaggerated offer is a client ploy and can privately discuss the matter with that party. They may be exaggerating due to naive negotiating skills - which means they need more solicitor/mediator help - or because they want to start a fight or avoid a solution - which means they need more counselling help.

One problem with exaggerated BWs is that they often create a lack of overlap in the two positions. There is no zone of possible agreement. If the lack of overlap has been caused by a client ploy that is one thing, but if the lack of overlap has been caused by the solicitors' BW ranges, it is useful for the clients to know that they are on different pages and that, despite their earnest best efforts, they will be unlikely to agree and it is not necessarily an issue caused by them.

For these reasons it is essential that the mediator see each side's BWs and, without getting into their specifics, which are normally confidential, can initiate a discussion that explores the significance of the lack of common ground and what to do about it. It can become a valuable experience for the clients to work together to promote understanding and solve the problem. Getting the parties to work together on the common problem of assisting their solicitors to give better advice shows them that they can still collaborate, even if they prefer not to. If the clients can help the mediation process by contributing to the formulation of realistic BWs, they will be helping themselves to get a realistic agreement.

Managing Your Client

Some solicitors provide the BATNA and WATNA in a letter; paragraph format. The letter may double as the original advice to the client, or it may be a separate letter for the purposes of mediation only. The paragraph format is useful in giving context to the advice, such when explaining various permutations, but it can also turn into an impenetrable wodge of words to an emotionally aroused client in the middle of a mediation session trying to read what had earlier made sense. In that situation the table format is preferred as it is easier to quickly see the parameters.

Skilled and experienced family law solicitors are also able to put a risk/chance assessment against the BW; for example, there is a 70%/30% B/W chance of the court finding X. This is useful not only because things like this are never 100% certain, but also because the more we can stay away from certainty, the more room there is to manoeuvre within the mediation.

It has recently been found that the feeling of knowing, of which the feeling of certainty is a sub-set, is an involuntary mental sensation rather than evidence of fact, caused by the release of the feel-good hormone dopamine. The dopamine fix is no indicator of accuracy of fact; it is the reward factor in addictions, and it has been postulated that the 'know-it-all' personality - the person that needs to be right (even if they are wrong) - is actually addicted to the feeling of knowing and the associated dopamine release. Once such a client has reached a state of certainty, information that cannot be rationally discounted will simply be ignored. Once the mind is made up or a decision reached, brain activity increases in the emotional limbic area associated with reward and the rational pre-frontal cortex goes on holiday. Changing one's mind is difficult because it means a reduction of pleasure.

Given such a psychologically- and neurologically-charged environment, it is easy to see the importance of the solicitor. Professional experience and skill can offset or at least help to navigate through the subjective emotional world of the client who thinks he/she is being rational and reasonable. Even the most rational client sitting before you in conference may not be able to behave the same way in mediation.

If solicitors do not physically attend the mediation, some clients prefer them to remain available 'on tap' on the other end of a phone while the session is in progress. This may be comforting for the client, but in practice it is rarely used. Mediation sessions typically last around two hours, and it is usually convenient enough for clients to take the draft papers back to the solicitors?office to discuss in person.

The Mediation Agreement

The mediation agreement is prepared in the mediation room on a draft 'without prejudice' basis. It can be very brief, comprising only the heads of agreement, or it can be quite detailed. The amount of detail is a reflection of the amount of discussion. Much of the content may not be appropriate on the face of a court order and may be included only in the form of attached undertakings.

It is necessary for solicitors to review the agreement mainly from the point of view of omissions. If something must be inserted, the new material should be in a form similar to the language already used in the document. Some clients prefer formal legalese; others prefer more a personal style. A change in style, particularly to dense legalese, is often seen as a 'fast one' by the other side. The more aggressive a solicitor has been in earlier correspondence, the more distrusted his or her amendments will be. This is to be expected.
Some mediation agreements will go through several drafts before everyone can live with the contents. Once the final draft has been agreed, it becomes an open document and is signed in that capacity. The clients will then choose which solicitor prepares the documentation for court.

Checklist

• Do prepare a BW for your client. If it cannot be available before the scheduled mediation meeting, have the meeting postponed.
• Do coach your client through at least the opening scenario of how to negotiate and how to respond to the first reply. It is the beginning moves that
  are the most stressful. Give them a practice session and have them role-play presenting to you until they are past being tongue-tied.
• Do explain to your client the strategic benefits of reciprocity, of giving to get and how to behave if they do not receive.
• Do offer to be available at the end of the phone during the mediation session.
• Do be available in your office as soon as possible after the mediation session.
• Do give the mediator reasonable forewarning of when sessions should be cancelled. This allows the other party time to reschedule their days off or
  child-minding activities. 
• Do review the draft mediation agreement but try to avoid rewriting it unless absolutely necessary. Always modify your standard
  precedent clauses for each client’s situation. Mediations are about that personal level of tailoring.
  

 
Maureen Mueller
Family Mediator
maureenmueller@netvigator.com

Maureen Mueller is a member of the Law Society of Hong Kong and a former practising solicitor. She is currently a member of numerous ADR and mediation organisations including the Law Society ADR Committee.

律師：有效調解的關鍵參與者
Maureen Mueller概述了律師透過調解程序並運用專業技巧來協助其當事人的方法，尤其著重在離婚的調解方面。

有些律師可能更習慣於訴訟而非調解。然而，由於調解的重要性不斷上升，律師必須瞭解這個新的範疇。律師若熟悉調解實務並採取策略性步驟，便能更好地協助當事人，並盡量為他們爭取最大的利益，尤其是當要準備進行談判時，而離婚調解案件尤為如此。這種非常個人化的糾紛涉及的各方往往缺乏必要訓練，不懂得如何處理談判，他們還可能將於事無補、尚待解決的複雜家庭因素帶到調解過程中。

雖然離婚調解的重點在於積極的當事人參與，但律師的角色到目前為止，基本上僅限於轉介當事人接受調解，和審核調解協議。實質參與調解過程會使成本大幅上升，更遑論需要協調五份記錄（而非三份）的難度。然而，律師應當始終貼近當事人。作為訓練有素的獨立專業人士，律師能夠在情緒化的境況中，作出理性和策略性的抉擇。律師所具備的獨立性，還令其能夠幫助構建調解方案，而調解員的職能，則是尋求具體的解決方法。

如果雙方律師均參與調解，那麼就可能產生一個疑問：既然律師已經能夠熟練地主持當事人的談判會議，那麼為何還需有要調解員在場？答案是：如果當事人可以透過會談解決問題，那會談早就進行了。其實調解往往在較後期才進行，並往往涉及在情感上糾纏更深的當事人與問題。

調解的動態

在大多數糾紛中，雙方均力求辯白和開脫。人們往往尋求避免體諒，尤其是對對方的體諒，因為這會威脅到自身的地位。但在離婚調解中，雙方已決意分手，只有通過體諒，雙方（尤其是父母雙方）才能在法律框架範圍內，營建對各自家庭而言乃屬於最佳的個人解決方案。

體諒對方需要合作、協作及同情三項元素。通常，處於離婚情形中的雙方均缺乏這三項元素；當事人並不期望律師能熟練運用這三項元素；而且，基於香港的對抗性法律制度，故對於香港律師來說，採取這種策略具有專業方面的風險。

倘律師試圖在當事人會談或調解中體諒對方，該律師的當事人可能會覺得受到自身律師的這種「通敵」行為的背叛。在這種情況下，調解員可發揮作用。律師可以在幕後充當辯士、顧問和教練，而由調解員促進雙方的諒解，確保各方職責分明，並保持各方的形象。

雙方往往會將關係中的啟示錄「四騎士」帶到調解過程中，即：阻礙、防衛、批評和蔑視。通常至少有一方與對方會面時會顯得緊張，雙方心跳加速；每分鐘約145次的心跳之下，認知能力會崩潰（還記得你在聆案官席前第一次出庭時的張口結舌情況嗎？）為了對抗「騎士」，平息雙方的緊張情緒，調解員必須在雙方之間建立一定程度的信任，至少必須促進對調解過程的信任。律師可以起到的作用是指導當事人避開（並應對）「騎士」，為即將發生的事情作好準備。

管理互動

私下的個人會談之後，夫妻將會碰面。他們首先要做的就是審核需要調解的協議。這是一份他們瞭解的文件，實施這個首要步驟有助雙方保住面子，直到心情穩定，認知能力恢復，雙方回到正確的軌道上。第一個步驟的其餘部分通常包括設定議程，確認缺少哪些資訊，以及需要交流哪些資訊。

交流資訊是雙方建立信任的過程。可以小至單張文件（譬如學校成績報告），亦可以大至交流「E表格」或BATNA及WATNA（下文討論）。未能提供大件的「E表格」所造成的損害，要小於不提供小件物品的損害。未能提供小件物品（若該物品被視為在對方個人控制之內）會讓「騎士」全速回歸。這種行為被視為「阻礙」，雙方隨後都會變得互相防禦、挑剔和蔑視，發表「你連這個都做不到！」之類的評論。如果是故意不做，便往往會產生意想不到的惡果。

未能提供「E表格」（該表格被視為在律師掌控之中），並非是由於對方的疏忽，並且甚至可以減少雙方的互相敵視，因為他們此時都共同對律師感到不滿。分享是為了建立信任。然而，分享資訊需要付出的另一個代價是，未提供資訊的一方地位會弱化，並往往會覺得自己處於不利境地而要求諒解。

假如當事人帶來對方要求提供的物件清單，較佳的做法是與當事人一起通覽該清單，分析在調解設定的時間表中可以（或不可以）提供哪些物件。要讓當事人切實瞭解至少提交小件物品的重要性，如果律師自身過於忙碌而無法及時準備某些物件，可告知調解員。調解員通常可以將會談延期，並安排在適當時間再進行會談。預先通知可表示禮貌與合作；至少提前24小時通知，讓人們可以作出其他安排，而無須招致房間預訂和兒童看護人員的費用。

由於調解員必須中立無偏，在流程之前或之中與某位當事人共處是危險的做法。因此，律師的更佳做法，是讓當事人具備基本的談判技巧。解釋「針鋒相對」，對某些人來說，可能會覺得份屬小兒科，而博弈論和經典的「囚徒困境」可以更科學地解釋為何互惠更具成效。

「以恩報恩，以怨報怨」的觀念深刻根植於所有文化心理中。從小處著手，然後擴大的做法非常有效。另一方面，首先採取行動一方被許多人視為是表現軟弱，除非其目的是「錨定」（下文討論）。不願意首先行動還可能與「厭惡後悔」有關。有時候，人們寧可什麼也不做而失敗，也不願意在做事之後才失敗；他們寧可「聽天由命」，從而避免個人受到指責。這些都是律師可以向當事人說明的簡單人性本能，而律師還可以提供克服本能的策略。

潛在協議的範圍

把握時間會見當事人以瞭解雙方看重什麼，是個非常有效的做法。雙方看重的不一定總是金錢；我們都知道，道歉、表揚、認可等非物質手段經常是關鍵所在。指導當事人，使之能夠作出適當的言論，是非常有用的做法。簡單真誠的言論比空洞的人云亦云更有效。

BATNA和WATNA（合稱為BW）指「談判協議的最佳／最差替代方案」。BW的邊界內部是一系列形形色色的可行方案，調解理論中將其稱為ZOPA：可能協議區域。在ZOPA的範圍內達成協議使雙方都得到比不達成協議更好的結果。

首先最重要的是，BW是安全網，設定了當事人可以行動的參數。它有助於描繪爭議的話題，並提供當事人對談判的概念覺得自在的區域。當事人知道自己的現狀，可以從現狀出發採取適當的行動。不清楚整個局面而開展調解的人士會身處劣勢。

然而，由於談判通常是圍繞首個提議與首個要求之間的中間點達成協議，確定BW的框架需要高超的技巧。因此，最好由律師承擔這項職責，他們很可能更有經驗處理此類事務，並且與當事人相比，他們較少受情感衝突的困擾。如果律師可以指導當事人如何就反要約或反索求所作的率直答覆作出回應，也會有所幫助。

控制選項

有時，BW會被誇大，出現這種情況有多種原因。

首先，有些律師希望設定非常寬泛或狹窄的BW範圍（視乎他們代表哪一方行事），因為他們瞭解「錨定」技巧。人們乃從相對角度，而非絕對、個別的角度行事。他們聽到的第一個數字便是「錨定」數字，即參照點，隨後提出的數字都與首個數字相比較。「我希望得到2000萬美元」的陳述錨定了該數字，使討論圍繞它而進行。應對虛誇高額數字的辦法是提出虛誇低額數字，這樣會使最終的方案回到中間點。首個虛誇數字未得到應答的時間越長，便會越牢固地成為錨定點。

其次，如果律師準備不夠充分，提出的BW可能會過於寬泛而毫無意義。在這種情況下，邊界可能相距過遠，致使當事人難以行動。在這種情況下，當事人會退縮，並且產生戒心。有時候，律師並未得到來自對方的足夠資訊而難以制定切合實際的BW；那麼，可選方案是：要麼將下一次調解的時間推遲，直到獲得資訊；要麼根據多種情景提供不同的BW—例如，假設金額為100萬、1000萬或2000萬美元。

「多種情景」法往往能成功地快速產生來自對方的缺失資訊，因為他們想避免「天賦效應」。人們會對認為是「屬於自己」的事物產生強烈的價值情結，即使該事物僅屬想像。一旦擁有，「損失厭惡」便成為下一個難以逾越的障礙。「損失厭惡」是技術用語，就是俗話所說的「輸家的哭聲大過贏家的歌聲」。贏得150美元所帶給我們的快樂，抵償不了損失100美元所帶給我們的悲傷。

fMRI（功能性核磁共振成像）的近期發展產生了新的神經經濟學課題。這個領域中的大腦掃描技術顯示，「損失厭惡」刺激大腦情感邊緣部分產生的興奮，超過理性前額皮層區的興奮。這解釋了為何深切陷入某些情形的人們，會無意中作出更多主觀、情感性的決定，而非理性、客觀的決定。人們早就知道這一點，因此有諺語稱：「給自己當律師的人，傻瓜才會成為他的當事人」。

近期的一宗事件說明了這個現象。花旗集團在得到來自納稅人的資金苟延殘喘後，試圖依然按原計劃購買5000萬美元的商務客機，因為取消訂單會帶來400萬美元的損失，並損失一架他們心目中認為已經擁有的客機。需要有獨立的局外專業人士（本案中為新任美國財政部長）才能堅持這樣的觀點：繼續花費剩餘的4600萬美元，是不恰當的做法。

最後第三點是，雖然律師可能作出努力準備合理的BW，但在調解過程中，當事人可能加倍或減半數額，然後才會提出自己的條件。在這種情形中，調解員亦擁有BW副本，因此知道虛誇的提議只是當事人的策略，並可以私下與該方討論事宜。虛誇的原因可能是談判技巧稚嫩（這意味著他們需要律師／調解員的更多幫助），亦可能是他們希望引起爭鬥或逃避解決方案（這意味著他們需要更多輔導方面的幫助）。

提出虛誇BW的一個問題在於，往往會導致雙方的立場無法交匯，可行協議的區域不復存在。如果缺乏交匯是當事人的策略所導致，那是另一個問題，但是如果缺乏交匯是由律師設下的BW範圍所造成，當事人便需要明白雙方的立場差異巨大，儘管各自作出了真誠的最佳努力，仍難以達成一致，而這不一定是雙方自己造成的問題。

出於上述原因，調解員必須瞭解雙方的BW，在不涉及具體細節（通常保密）的情況下，可以展開討論，探討缺乏共同立場的嚴重性以及應對辦法。這種討論可成為寶貴的經歷，促使當事人彼此協作，增進諒解，解決問題。如果能讓雙方一道解決共同問題，協助其律師提供更好的建議，會讓他們看到雙方仍可以協作，即使他們不希望如此。如果當事人可以幫助制定切實的BW，從而協助有關的調解程序，他們其實是在幫助自己獲取一個切合實際的協議。

管理當事人

有些律師在函件中以段落格式提供BATNA和WATNA。該函件既可以同時作為向當事人提供的初始意見，亦可以是單獨的函件而僅用於調解。段落格式便於提供意見的背景（例如在解釋多種方案情形時），但如果當事人身處調解過程當中，情緒激動，希望讀到原先可以理解的內容，段落格式便可能變成一大堆令人費解的詞句。在這種情況中，最好採取列表格式，因為這樣更容易迅速地理清條理。

富有技巧與經驗的家事法律師還能夠針對BW進行風險／機會評估；例如，法院有70%/30%的B/W可能性會作出X裁定。這樣做較為有用，不僅是因為此類問題從來就沒有百分百的把握，也是因為我們越遠離確定性，便越有餘地在調解中採用靈活手法。

近來人們發現，知情感（確定感亦屬其中）是無意的心理感受而非事實證據，它是由釋放欣快感荷爾蒙多巴胺引起的。多巴胺解決法並不表明事實的準確性，而只是成癮症中的獎勵因素；有人聲稱，「全知型」人格（這種人一定要認為自己是對的，即使他們是錯的）其實對知情感和相關的多巴胺釋放上癮。此類當事人一旦達到確定狀態，無法理性回避的資訊便會完全受到忽視。一旦下定決心或作出決定，情感邊緣區與獎勵相關的大腦活動便會增加，而理性的前額皮層停止工作。轉變思維並不容易，因為這意味著減少快樂。

在如此心理及精神壓力巨大的環境中，律師的重要性顯而易見。專業經驗與技能可以抵消或至少有助於走出當事人的主觀情感世界，後者自認為理性、合理。就是在會談中坐在你面前最理性的當事人，亦可能無法在調解中表現出相同的理性行為。

即使律師不能親身出席調解，有些當事人也希望在調解進行過程中，律師能在電話另一端隨時「待命」。這種做法可能給當事人帶來撫慰，但實務中卻很少採用。調解進程通常持續約兩小時，更為方便的做法是當事人將草案帶回律師辦公室，親自和他討論問題。

調解協議

調解協議是可以在調解室中，按「不損害權利」的原則起草。協議可以非常簡短，僅包含協議標題，亦可以相當詳盡，其程度乃反映了討論內容的多寡。許多內容可能不適於以法院命令的形式出現，僅可以藉連附承諾的形式包含在內。

律師必須主要從查遺補缺的角度審核協議。如果必須插入某些內容，新材料採取的形式，應當類似於文件中已經使用的措辭風格。有些當事人喜歡拘謹的法律術語，而有些當事人則喜歡較為人性化的風格。改變風格，尤其是大量採用法律術語，往往會被對方視為「有企圖」。律師在早前的信函中越是咄咄逼人，修訂便越難以獲得信任，這是人之常情。

有些調解協議經過若干草案修訂後，才會令所有人對內容滿意。最終版本一旦敲定，便成為開放式文件，並以該身份簽署，當事人然後會確定由哪一位律師負責製備文件並將其呈交法院。

核查清單

• 務必為當事人準備BW。如果無法在預定的調解會談前準備好，則須延後會談。
• 務必至少通過開場情景指導當事人如何談判，並對首項回答作出回應。開始的若干步驟最令人緊張。要讓當事人有演練機會，請當事人通過角色扮演向你表達意見，直至他們克服張口結舌的毛病。
• 務必向當事人講解互利互惠、有捨有得的策略益處，以及在沒有得到的情況下如何行事。
• 務必主動提議在調解會面的過程中隨時聽候電話。
• 調解會面完結後，務必盡快返回辦公室以便能夠聯繫得到。
• 假如需要取消調解會面，務必給予調解員合理的預先通知。這樣，可讓對方有時間重新安排休假或照料孩子的工作。
• 務必審核草擬的調解協議，但要盡量避免推倒重來，除非絕對必要。始終要針對每位當事人的情況修改標準格式條款。調解便是這種針對個人的調整。

Maureen Mueller
家事調解員

Maureen Mueller是香港律師會的會員，以前亦為一名執業律師。她現時是多個替代性爭議解決及調解組織的成員，包括香港律師會以協商方式解決爭議委員會。