The real goal of case management is to economically conclude the case with the best outcome you could realistically expect. Yet, litigators spend a lot of time spinning their wheels on activities that don’t yield significant progress toward that goal.

Teddy Snyder

Chances are, you follow a protocol. That’s how you were taught to manage a case. That’s the way you and your firm have always done it.

Is there someone in your organization who closes cases quickly? What is that person doing differently? This star performer may not even realize that she has a different approach. With permission, spend some time looking through some of the star’s files. Maybe sit in on a hearing, mediation or meeting.

Then review one of your own recent cases. How well do you think you managed it on a scale of 1-10? What would it take for it to be have gone better? Did all your activity provide real value to the client? The answer isn’t in what others do; look for answers in the actions you control.

Pull out a closed file where things went really well. What was different? Did you periodically evaluate the case and timely communicate that evaluation to your client? Did you cultivate a collegial relationship with your opponent who can help you work through information, or did you view that person as an enemy?

Create a miracle

Find the main obstacle to getting to your goal. Then focus your attention on resolving that one thing. In his book "Reset: How to Change What’s Not Working," Dan Heath calls that the "leverage point." A little bit of effort focused on fixing the leverage point will yield disproportionate returns.

If a miracle happened tomorrow to resolve the bulk of obstacles to quick resolution of your cases, what would that look like? That's your leverage point.

Prioritize resolving that issue. If your first concerted efforts aren't working, move on to a different solution.

Another kind of miracle

On several occasions, mediation participants have told me that they must suspend the mediation and conduct further discovery based on information just learned at the meeting.

There are a couple of reasons for this surprise. A big reason is that the participants have not prepared. They didn’t do the things necessary to prepare the case for resolution. They ignored information as it came in, not doing the necessary follow-up to answer the questions the information raised. Some participants review their file only the day before the mediation. On at least one occasion, it appeared the decisionmaker hadn’t reviewed the file at all.

Another reason is that the parties are not communicating to exchange information. Keep sharing information about your evaluation with your opponent so he can pass it on to his client. Likewise, leave the door open to receive information about the case so you can assess it and advise your own client.

Here is my solution when this issue arises: When a participant says further investigation is necessary, I drill down to learn what the person wants to find out. Once that granular information is defined, I ask, “Let’s assume the investigation you propose will produce information completely in your favor. Now let’s try to settle the case based on that assumption.”

It has always turned out that this assumption doesn’t change the party’s evaluation, and we have gone on to settle the case.

Prepare, exchange information regularly with other parties and follow up diligently. You will create your case resolution miracle.

Attorney Teddy Snyder mediates workers' compensation cases throughout California. She can be contacted through snydermediations.com.