To Open or Not to Open: Should You Include an Opening Statement at Mediation?

Thu, Jul 31st, 2025 | by Miles Mediation and Arbitration | Article | Social Share

By Scott Zucker

Are opening statements in mediation beneficial toward reaching a settlement? There is an ongoing debate by both advocates and neutrals concerning the advantages and disadvantages of including opening statements in mediations.

Supporters contend that opening statements, when handled properly, permit each side the unique opportunity, perhaps for the first time, to personally present their stories and to hear relevant facts and law that may help to guide the parties toward the needed resolution. Opponents claim that opening statements can unnecessarily derail the settlement process at the outset, especially if the presentations are negative or overly argumentative. Here’s a closer look at the pros and cons of using opening statements in mediation and how to determine whether an opening statement is appropriate for your case.

The Case for Opening Statements

One of the strongest advantages of permitting opening statements is the opportunity for the parties, who may have simply been passive observers in the proceedings thus far, to directly participate in the process. Further, a party’s participation in opening statements allows the individuals involved to share their perspectives and feelings about the dispute, which may itself be a significant component in the settlement process. Often parties want “to be heard” or to “have their day in court”. Having the party participate in opening statements helps meet this need and may facilitate opportunities for settlement.

If handled correctly, opening statements can create a constructive and positive tone for the rest of the mediation session. If the parties establish a respectful and solution-oriented approach to the opening statements, they may restore the intended civility that should be part of such a process. If the statements are cordial and the parties can meet face to face, it may help diffuse any hostility that existed as a cause of the original dispute, as well as to ease acrimony that may have developed during the preceding litigation.

Opening statements may allow the parties to share their positions in a confidential environment and convey the evidence that may help the parties understand their respective risks of litigation. Conducting opening statements may help encourage transparency in the parties’ claims, help to resolve previously misunderstood facts, and clarify each party’s motivations and goals. Such clarity and insight can demonstrate the mutual good faith needed to reach a resolution of the parties’ conflict.

Finally, opening statements can help educate the mediator. Listening to opening statements and the recitation of the main factual and legal issues in the dispute can provide needed insight for the mediator who is charged with helping the parties reach a resolution. Equally, opening statements may educate the participants on some of the intangibles of the case, including the quality of the lawyers involved and the effectiveness of the parties as potential witnesses at trial.

The Case Against Opening Statements

Of course, there is the other side of the coin. If the opening statements are argumentative, rather than conciliatory, they may create further animosity and distance between the parties, taking what would otherwise be an opportunity for discourse and dialogue and replacing it with a situation where scorched earth becomes the goal. Aggressive opening statements can directly derail potentially successful mediations.

In certain cases, opening statements can trigger pain or distress by forcing the parties to relive or reexamine the event. This is true in certain emotionally charged or sensitive cases (such as those involving sexual harassment and sexual assault) where the impacted party could be retraumatized by presenting the case again during the opening session. Comments that address blame can lead to entrenchment and unnecessary tension in the mediation which will discourage open dialogue and negotiation.

Lastly, sometimes it’s just a matter of time. Opening statements can be time-consuming, which may reduce the remaining time otherwise available for problem-solving and negotiation within the separate caucus sessions. Moreover, sometimes, depending on the status of the case, opening statements are simply unnecessary, especially if the parties have already participated in lengthy discovery or motion practice. In such cases, opening statements may be redundant and even counter-productive to the settlement process.

Deciding Whether to Have an Opening Statement

The final choice, as to whether to allow opening statements or not, can be found in the ultimate flexibility that is inherent in the alternative dispute resolution process. Before the mediation starts, the mediator can review the type of case involved, as well as the nature and demeanor of the parties and their counsel. Because every case is different, the mediator’s analysis of that case, including the respective expectations of the parties and counsel involved, can be helpful in leading the parties to decide whether the mediation should begin with opening statements or in separate caucuses. Giving opening statements, just because they are a common part of the mediation process, without specific consideration as to the nature of the case and the parties involved, may squander the goodwill and credibility of the negotiation process.

If the parties agree to participate in joint opening statements, consider these guidelines:

• Brevity is important. Mediation can be stressful, and parties have limited attention spans. Shorter presentations may be more effective.
• Each party should express appreciation to the other party for participating in the mediation, especially if the session is voluntary.
• Visuals can often add value to a presentation, and Power Point slides can highlight key facts and issues.
• Avoid negative assertions in the presentation. Remember that tone is important and the purpose of the mediation is to find consensus. Often parties stop listening if they are being criticized.

As important as this debate might be, there remains no clear answer as to whether opening statements should or should not be used as part of the mediation process. Every case is different, as are the parties, lawyers and mediators involved.

The best approach is to consider the matter as a whole and make the decision that the parties mutually agree would be the best for that case. The mediation process is also fluid, so a mediation session that does not start with opening statements may reconsider their use during the mediation itself. Flexibility is the key.

*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.