From Blame to Breakthrough: How Shifting the Conversation Works for Public Entities

August 27, 2025

I recently mediated a case where a school district was sued after a child suffered permanent disfigurement and injury during recess. As a mom, this scenario is one of my worst fears! Yet, my role was neutral--with no stake in the outcome and the ability to listen without judgment. The stakes were high, emotions ran deep, and both sides seemed entrenched in their positions. Fortunately, we were able to reach a resolution that served everyone’s interests.

The key? Moving the conversation from blame to contribution.

The Power of Reframing: From “Who’s at Fault?” to “How Can We Learn From What Happened Here?”

As outlined in Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen’s seminal work “Difficult Conversations: How To Discuss What Matters Most,” one of the most powerful tools in conflict resolution is shifting from a blame frame to a contribution frame. While assigning blame is judgmental and isolating, exploring contribution is non-judgmental and collaborative. In this case, the plaintiff's legal team was focused on proving the district’s negligence, while the district was confident there was zero liability. This litigation-centered dynamic was creating an impasse that threatened to drag the case through six figures worth of additional discovery, motions, and trial.

Instead of allowing the parties to remain stuck in “Who’s legally at fault for this accident?”, I guided them toward exploring “What factors contributed to this situation, and how can we prevent this situation from occurring again?” This subtle but profound shift set the tone for a collaborative mediation. The parties were able to brainstorm solutions without judgment.

The plaintiff’s family wasn’t just seeking accountability—they wanted assurance that other children wouldn’t face similar risks. The district wasn’t just defending their reputation—they genuinely cared about student safety and wanted to learn from this incident. Once we uncovered these shared values, the parties cleared their obstacle to resolution.

Breaking Through with Brackets and Creative Proposals

When we reached a slow-down on the financial negotiations, I employed bracketing—presenting ranges rather than fixed numbers—which gave both parties psychological space to move without feeling like they were making unilateral concessions. The brackets also allowed me to accurately determine the zone of possible agreement. 

With consent and careful consideration, I successfully crafted a mediator’s proposal that addressed interests beyond just monetary compensation. Drawing on my understanding of how public entities operate—gained through years defending police officers and mediating cases for municipalities, school districts, and other governmental bodies—I crafted a proposal that took into account policy modifications, safety enhancements, and a structured settlement that protected both the family’s needs and the district’s fiscal responsibilities.

To date, I have a 100% acceptance rate on my mediator's proposals, as I only issue them when I am confident they will be accepted and satisfy everyone's interests. 

The Public Entity Advantage: Understanding the Unique Landscape

Public entities face distinct challenges in litigation and settlement. They’re accountable to taxpayers, bound by complex regulations, and often deal with insurance carriers and legal counsel who may have different priorities. I understand these dynamics intimately.

My experience with public entities allows me to:

- Navigate the multiple decision-makers typically involved 

- Craft solutions that align with public policy and fiscal constraints

- Address the reputation concerns that often drive public entities to trial and 

- Structure settlements that satisfy both legal requirements and public accountability

Every public entity case carries unique pressures—from media attention to political considerations to the challenge of serving multiple constituencies. These cases require a mediator who understands not just the legal landscape, but the operational realities of public service. The decision to choose mediation over continued litigation has extraordinary potential to expand the pie by uncovering shared interests and learning opportunities rather than blame.