Zoom/Video Conferencing

To Zoom/Video Conference or not?

Covid-19 forced litigants and mediators to use video conferencing and it appears that Zoom was the video conference of choice.

The results as to the success of Zoom in settling cases fairly is indecisive, because of the fact that with the financial problems and uncertainty created by Covid-19, less money was available to settle cases during the Zoom boom.

There are distinct advantages to using Zoom or some form of video conferencing for attorneys, mediators and parties going forward that are in addition to health considerations:

• Corporate representatives or insurance adjusters that appear in person although cloaked with “full authority” may in fact not be the best representative to have at the mediation. Since Zoom requires no travel and is less obtrusive than person to person mediations; the corporate representative that does appear, by sitting in his or her office generally is more of a decision and does have full authority.
• Rents at up to $45.00 per square foot for at least two rooms must be paid by the mediator or if the mediator is associated with a mediation firm then the mediation firm. That expense must be passed on to the parties indirectly. With Zoom there is no rental cost.
• Counsel and parties must travel to the designated office for the mediation, With Zoom there is no travel time, cost, or related inconvenience.
• Not all mediation facilities have the capacity to hold a large amount of parties and counsel, causing the necessity for outside facilities, the time to find such venues the cost and inconvenience of such venues.
• The host of the Zoom meeting by the simple expediency of turning off a participant’s mike or having the participant wait in the “waiting room” has more control over the meeting than with a person to person meeting.
• Friction between the parties is to a certain extent eliminated through the fact that the parties are not in the same physical room during the mediator’s opening statement and not in proximity to each other.

Weighing against the above advantages of Zoom and video conferencing is the value of person to person negotiating. The value of such person to person negotiating depends on the effectiveness of the mediator. It will be quite a while before counsel will be able to meaningfully opine as to whether the “old fashion way” or video conferencing is the most efficient and rewarding way to resolve litigation. The marketplace will determine the outcome.