You may be very convincing, but don’t expect reason alone to carry the day in mediation. Many settlements aren’t arrived at before there’s been something cathartic experienced.
In a recent mediation, the defendant’s attorney focused all of her joint caucus time admitting her client’s mistakes: “… though not illegal, things could have been addressed more sensitively. But the important thing is we took care of it.” Gracious, responsive, and entirely reasonable, but it left the emotional aspect unsatisfied.
By skipping over the part of addressing the personal (emotional) impact of the conflict, the defendant’s attorney made it drastically more difficult to reach resolution. Emotions must be attended to first so that the other can process being heard. The complaining party needs to register having had a connection or impact on a personal level. Indeed, that’s typically the paramount purpose in agreeing to mediate. Reasoning can effectively take place afterwards.
The moral is there’s value in the timing of concessions.