During a mediation three weeks ago, I asked counsel for plaintiff whether there was any interest in converting the matter to Baseball Mediation™. Without hesitation, he responded “It’s too risky.”

His reaction hardly came as a surprise — I’ve heard it before from both sides. But the numbers tell a different story, which is why the issue merits a closer look.

Baseball Mediation™ was designed with safety top of mind. My purpose was to create a process that better managed risk while guaranteeing a mutually acceptable resolution.

The decision to stipulate to Baseball Mediation™ eliminates the two riskiest paths in civil litigation: trial and arbitration. In their place, two options remain — a negotiated resolution or a final impasse. The latter triggers a built-in impasse-breaking mechanism that is fundamental to the process.

A negotiated resolution is the preferred path — it is the epitome of risk management because it removes all risk. Baseball Mediation™ recognizes a negotiated resolution cannot always be assured — which is why the impasse-breaking mechanism exists.

When the parties are unable to reach a negotiated resolution in Baseball Mediation™, they alone define the risk they are willing to assume — through settlement negotiations that continually narrow the gap between them. And when a final impasse is reached, the outcome is limited to the parties’ own final numbers, or the midpoint between the two.

The parties therefore share a known, quantified, and identical risk. Neither side faces an outcome worse than the other side’s final number. And that risk is determined and accepted by the parties themselves — not imposed by a judge, arbitrator, jury, or mediator.

Absent a negotiated resolution, Baseball Mediation™ represents the pinnacle of risk management — as the numbers themselves confirm. In cases in which the impasse-breaking mechanism has been triggered (42% of which involved six- and seven-figure claims):

  • The gap between the parties’ final demand and offer has never exceeded $70,000
  • The average final gap is $28,012
  • In half the cases, the final gap is $15,950 or less

The only risk either party faces in Baseball Mediation™ is knowingly and willingly assumed. Reduced to an algebraic equation: RISK = FINAL GAP.

That is why the concept has been increasingly embraced in high-stakes matters. In the last three months alone, two Fortune 500 companies and a corporation valued in the hundreds of millions chose to resolve six- and seven-figure claims by converting their matters to Baseball Mediation™.

These are not entities that are inclined to gamble. They agreed to the process because they recognized that doing so would fully and effectively manage their risk — eliminating any chance of an unwelcome verdict.

When they examined the numbers, what they found was safety.

For those interested in a deeper dive, the complete statistical record appears on The Scoreboard— a running tally, updated regularly, that reflects real-world outcomes across an array of cases.

A FINAL NOTE

Last Tuesday, after this newsletter had been completed, I conducted my final mediation of 2025. The plaintiff was represented by Andy Bryman — the same attorney who, two weeks earlier, had said Baseball Mediation™ was “too risky.”

This time, I decided to ask him what it was about the process that led him to that conclusion, and we discussed it at some length. Following our conversation, he told me that he had reconsidered his position and would be open to trying the process in a future case. He also told me I was welcome to share his response publicly, with attribution.

As always, it would be my pleasure to assist you and your clients in the dispute resolution process. I’d welcome the opportunity to be of service.

Best regards,

Floyd J. Siegal