Vindication
Seeking Solutions or Crusading for a Cause
By their very nature, parties in conflict believe in the legitimacy of their respective claims. Sometimes, however, the parties’ relationship to the conflict runs deeper. They begin to see themselves as crusaders for justice on a mission to vanquish one another. They may genuinely want to resolve their dispute, but this want is second to their need for vindication.
Crusaders are better served by litigation than mediation. This is not
because they are likely to find vindication in a
judge’s ruling, but
rather because they will not find it in mediation. Mediation is a
problem-solving process. It’s
oriented towards settlement
without ascribing blame, fault, or guilt on either party.
The extraordinarily high success rate of mediation (some 80%
of cases result in a settlement) may owe much to this
problem-solving
orientation. However, to parties whose foremost need is vindication, no
mediated settlement will ever suffice. Unfortunately
for such parties, their
chances of finding vindication are barely any greater through litigation.
That’s because judges’
rulings in divorce, family, and relational disputes
usually issue from either compromises or state-mandated guidelines:
1. Compromises: for example, a judge might adopt a mid-point com-
promise if the parties disagree over the
effective date of legal separation.
2. Guidelines: when dividing community property or setting child support, for example, the judge must follow state-mandated guidelines.
Rulings based on compromises and state-mandated guidelines are unlikely to leave you feeling vindicated. More likely, both parties will feel equally resentful at the price they had to pay to reach a settlement.