The Abstract to my forthcoming article (based upon my recent online talk to members of the SCMA worldwide) – ‘Mediation Advocacy in Trust & Estate Disputes – Part 1: Preparation’, currently reads:

‘The twin pillars of Mediation Advocacy are:
(i)         ‘effective preparation’; and
(ii)        ‘skilful negotiation’.
In Part 1 of this article I will discuss preparation and in Part 2 – negotiation.
It is a cognitive error to assume that because a legal practitioner is a competent trial advocate, that they must also be a competent mediation advocate, i.e. dispute resolution negotiator. While to an extent advocacy skills transfer to negotiation, the two skill sets are not the same. So, a practitioner may be a brilliant trial advocate but ineffectual as a dispute resolution negotiator.

In the UK, ‘negotiation’ is generally not taught to law undergraduates, nor is it taught to student solicitors and barristers on their vocational courses. As a result of changes made to the Civil Procedure Rules on 1 October 2024, there is likely to be an increase in mediations, whether parties consent or not, and consequently an increased demand for practitioners who are skilled mediation advocates, i.e. negotiators. So, in the opinion of the author, this gap in the education and professional training of lawyers in the UK is likely to change, otherwise market demand for proficient negotiators will exceed supply.’

In Part 2 of the article, I will also discuss ‘Ethics in negotiation’. I have just ordered a copy of ‘What’s Fair: Ethics for Negotiators’ by Carrie Menkel-Meadow, which I will read cover-to-cover in December.

It has just occurred to me that since ‘negotiation’ is generally not taught to law undergraduates, nor to student solicitors and barristers on their vocational courses, that nor is ‘Practical Ethics in negotiation, i.e. doing the right thing.’

So, in developing a future ‘Negotiation’ course for law students at all levels, ‘Ethics in negotiation’ is a key component.

A deep understanding of ethics is vital not only to mediation advocates (whatever the nature of the dispute) but also to mediators.

As I said, I will discuss this in Part 2 of my article which I will write during the first quarter of 2025. I am on schedule to submit a complete draft of Part of the article to the editor of Trusts & Trustees in 21 days time. I have already written 25 pages of manuscript in one week.

2nd ed Contentious Probate Handbook – I am awaiting return of the manuscript from the type-setter for proof-reading. That is the final step prior to publication.

To read the Mediator’s ‘Camel Parable’, Google ‘The Eighteenth Camel.’

By acknowledging the ‘interdependence dynamic’, i.e. that siblings in dispute actually need each other in order to maximise gains by avoiding/minimising losses (Pareto Principle or 80/20 Rule), i.e. because collaboration v. competition can result in the creation of synergy e.g. 2+2 = 6, then what parties in dispute and their mediation advocates need to do in preparing for mediation, is to search for the 18th camel. The same principle applies to the mediation of commercial disputes.

The 18th Camel is a win/win/win outcome, i.e something that is bigger than money.

In a trust/estate dispute there is always an 18th camel, as I discuss in Part 1 of an article I am currently writing and will offer to Trusts & Trustees (Oxford University Press) for publication about ‘Mediation Advocacy in Trust and Estate Disputes.’

All you have to do to find the 18th camel is adopt a constructive mind-set i.e. approach to the settlement of an estate dispute in mediation. That is because searching for the 18th camel can transform competitors into problem-solving partners.

In particular, to find the 18th camel where an estate includes both qualifying agricultural property and heritage assets, see my article published in Taxation in 2023, ‘Downton revisited – Mediating estate disputes involving art and heritage property.’ There is a link on the Publications page at www.carlislam.co.uk.

Today Trump is ahead in Arizona by +1.80, i.e. he is forecast to win 48.7% of the vote v. Harris on 46.9. So, if he wins that state on Tuesday, then on the election math, Harris must win Michigan.

No Democrat has ever won the Presidency without winning this state.

Today she is forecast to win 47.8% (i.e. she is ahead of Trump by 0.80.

However, 5.4% are undecided + there is a margin of error.

Some voter are undecided.

Some may not have openly come out if favour of Trump in Michigan but will in fact end up voting for him.

In March I wrote a blog on the ‘Conflict & Dynamics’ page at
www.diplomaticlawguide.com – ‘Has Trump already won the Presidential election?’

I argued that on the election maths, Biden (i.e. now Harris) can only win if he [i.e. she] takes Michigan.

I added a note at 12.21, 01.03.2024:

‘Biden has picked his side – ‘The US, on 29 February, vetoed a UN Security Council (UNSC) statement that would have condemned Israel for the mass murder of over 100 Palestinian civilians who were awaiting the delivery of humanitarian aid in Gaza City. … Thursday’s veto is the fifth time Washington has blocked a UNSC statement or ceasefire resolution that would hold Israel accountable for the atrocities it has committed in Gaza. According to Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian UN ambassador, 14 of the 15 council members supported the statement advanced by Algeria. At least 112 Palestinians were killed and more than 750 wounded after Israeli troops opened heavy machine gun and artillery fire on thousands waiting for food … in what marked the first delivery of food to northern Gaza in several weeks. “After opening fire, Israeli tanks advanced and ran over many of the dead and injured bodies,” Al Jazeera’s Ismail al-Ghoul reported from the scene. “At about 4:30 in the early morning, trucks started to trickle in. The Israelis just opened random fire on us as if it was a trap. Once we approached the aid trucks, the Israeli tanks and warplanes started firing on us,” a witness at the scene told Al Jazeera.” (thecradle.co).’

If elected Trump has pledged to end the war in Ukraine. Geo-politically, his focus will be on containing China, and not on MENA. He may even: normalise US foreign relations with Russia; close US bases in MENA; and open-up a dialogue with BRICS (including Iran) about economic relations and trade. To his credit, unlike Biden/Harris, he is not a warmonger.

So undecided voters in Michigan, many of whom emigrated to the US from MENA, provided they do not abstain, may vote for Trump.

This is even more likely, if as reported, Trump has clearly stated that he does not want a war with Iran no matter what Netanyahu wants.

For those of you who have forgotten, Netanyahu betrayed Trump in the immediate aftermath of the previous election. Trump has a long memory. I wonder if he has forgiven Netanyahu?

So, keep a close eye on Michigan!