"Fairly Legal": Fairly Accurate?

Thanks to USA's new TV series about a San Francisco mediator, mediation as a profession is getting some unusual attention. But how realistic is the show's, and in particular, Kate Reed's (the main character) portrayal of everyone's favorite form of alternative dispute resolution?

Kate found her way to mediation the way many of us do - attorneys who no longer wish to engage in the often-trying world of litigation. We seek a new path where we can still use our legal knowledge, but in the spirit of collaboration rather than competition. So far, so good.

But Kate's mediation style is what some might call directive, if not downright unethical. She lies to her clients, misleads them, and bullies them into 'solutions' using threats of legal action and blackmail. She utilizes force, swears, and is perennially late for meetings. She visibly chooses sides, and works towards her own envisioned resolution (irrespective of what her clients want). Suffice it to say, this mediator thinks Kate Reed lacks a mediation style worthy of emulation. I would be loathe to employ virtually all of her, um, techniques.

Despite stock cliché phrases, usually preceded by "mediation is where/when/how....," the show has very little to do with mediation in practice. USA has succeeded in making a show that is perhaps most interesting for its brief glimpses of San Francisco (most of which, unfortunately, is stock footage), and for the farcical interpretation of the life of a professional mediator. Personally, I rely much more on my active listening skills in the mediation room, and I believe in maintaing an atmosphere of civility and collaboration. But then again, I'm not trying to market a television show, I'm working to build a longterm practice. The less drama, the better, from my perspective. Not so with cable TV.

Nonetheless, with a show about a San Francisco-based mediator on the air weekly, the odds are good I'll still be sucked into watching the occasional episode.