How Many Matches Does It Take to Start a Fire?

Mon, Feb 16th, 2026 | by Miles Mediation and Arbitration | Article | Social Share

By Scott Zucker

During a recent mediation, plaintiff’s counsel stressed the fact that his client’s lawsuit had multiple counts and multiple claims against the defendant, reminding the opposing counsel that his success on even one count would be financially crippling to the defendant. At the same time, defendant’s counsel outlined his numerous counterclaims, alleging that a verdict on even one of his many counts would be financially ruinous to the plaintiff.

As the bickering continued, I reflected on an expression that was attributed to the famous astronomer and scientist Carl Sagan. Sagan had been interviewed about the nuclear arms race in the 1980s between the United States and the Soviet Union. He said essentially the following: “Imagine two enemies in a room full of gasoline. One has 9,000 matches, the other has 7,000 matches, and each is threatening to light their matches without understanding or recognizing that even one lit match will destroy them both.”

The image is chilling. Both parties are so focused on presenting the strength of their relative positions they ignore the fact that the continuation of their conflict could ultimately lead to their mutual destruction. This illustration is a strong metaphor for what many neutrals often see during the heat of mediation — counsel (or even self-represented parties) focusing on the merits of their own case while ignoring the consequences of protracted litigation.

The Mediator’s Role

If it takes one match to start a fire, sometimes it is the mediator’s role to remind the parties and their counsel that they are themselves in a room full of gasoline. While constant threats that are made may momentarily suggest strength, the parties involved need to understand that an ongoing conflict will inevitably destroy both sides, whether that is from stress, the loss of time, the expense of litigation, impact on business reputation, or a myriad of other costs that impact the involved parties. It is often difficult for parties involved in a dispute, especially those in the midst of litigation, to recognize repercussions of the case itself on the individual party or the impacted company as compared to the ultimate goal of proving the other side wrong or recovering funds claimed due as a result of the alleged act or incident.

It is not the mediator’s job, as a matter of ethical limitations, to dissuade the parties involved from pursuing their claims. It is relevant however for a mediator to remind the affected parties of the consequences arising from their failure to consider reasonable settlement discussions. Not every case can potentially lead to “mutually assured destruction”, but many cases do. And it is often important to remind the parties and their counsel of the inherent risks in pursuing claims that may lead to further damage, even unintended damage.

Mediators can offer “reality testing” to parties by helping them objectively evaluate their own positions, assumptions, and alternatives. It is often helpful to include in settlement discussions the acknowledgment that litigation creates both financial and personal strife and stress for the participants. Certainly, mediators can inquire as to the emotional impact of the dispute on the parties themselves or their friends, families, and business associates. It is not inappropriate for mediators to simply ask, “How is this lawsuit affecting you?” or “Have you considered the personal value to you if you were able to reach a settlement today?”

Further, by asking probing questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the case and the potential consequences of failing to reach an agreement, a mediator can help parties gain a more realistic perspective on the outcome of their dispute. This process can encourage compromise and lead to more realistic and sustainable settlements. A mediator might ask questions such as, “What is your worst-case scenario if this doesn’t settle?” or “Is the best-case scenario you’ve imagined more likely than the potential outcome of a negotiated settlement?”

Negotiated settlements like those achieved in mediation can, and often do, bring positive closure to difficult conflicts. Stepping back to address the potential personal and financial ramifications can sometimes help lead divided parties to reach a resolution of their controversy. It is often difficult for advocates and their clients to recognize that they are in the room filled with gasoline when they are in the middle of a dispute. This is where mediation can be used to remind them that it only takes one match to start a fire.

*Originally published in the Daily Report and reprinted with permission.

About Scott Zucker

Certified mediator and arbitrator Scott Zucker focuses on business and commercial litigation with an emphasis on dispute resolution in the areas of construction, real estate, employment, insurance, and franchise law. Scott represents companies in matters relating to contract claims, loss and damage claims, delay and productivity claims, premises liability actions, and tenant dispossessory.