Sastow Law & Mediation

Experienced Online Mediation Services

Online Mediation

Adapting to a new reality. It is effective, comfortable and safe.

What are the benefits of online mediation?

As a New York attorney and mediator, I have been doing Divorce Mediations and Elder Care Mediations for more than 20 years. Whether it is a Divorce, Pre-Nuptial, Post-Divorce issue, or Elder Care Decision Conflicts with your siblings, you are not stuck without any recourse during this COVID-19 period.

As I have done for many years, I continue to offer remote, virtual or online mediations. The only difference for my practice right now, is that ALL my Mediations are online, instead of being able to give my clients choice of online or in-person. I am happy to report that my clients are actually emailing me letting me know how surprised that they feel so comfortable and advise that if they are going to opt to continue mediating online.

I have actually seen the benefits of online mediations for years. When you stop to think about it, what exactly is lost when discussing things virtually? What we need for good discussions is good eye contact, to see each other’s body language and very importantly, to be comfortable in the room, and all of that is possible whether the “room” is in person or a virtual setting. I have successfully resolved dozens of divorces and family conflicts online over the years, and it works really well! While some mediators only have online mediation practices, I prefer to give my clients a choice between in-person and online/remote mediations when we’re not restricted due to COVID-19.

Online mediation enables clients who are not in the same place, to resolve their matter without court.

I use Zoom for my mediations when one of the parties is unable to attend in-person. I am able to help my clients resolve their issues successfully and peacefully—and at a fraction of the cost of unnecessary litigation.

Parties do not have to be in the same room as one another and this is a relief.

Oftentimes, one or both of the parties are resistant to agree to mediation, not wanting to sit in the same room with the other person. Perhaps the person is afraid of a power imbalance. Perhaps they are too angry or upset. Perhaps they feel they cannot advocate for themselves while sitting in the same room. Well, the wonderful thing about online mediation, is that while the parties are able to see each other and interact, they are not physically in the same room. As my one client commented, “the buffer helps me feel more comfortable.” While she could see her spouse, she reported that she felt safer and calmer in her own space. This reaction is very common.

They are able to see their own faces which helps them see in the mirror!

This appears to help people control themselves and actually listen which is so critical in creating a good settlement.

They are able to stay more focused on the issues and their future objectives.

People cannot come to agreement when they are heated. Since the online setting enables them to better control themselves and have fewer heated arguments, they are able to stay focused on moving forward to create a just and peaceful resolution.

With online technology, I am able to share my screen with my clients so all can read the same document.

This ensures we are all on the same page and all is understood. I am also able to type things up in front of them at that time and/or mark up the document in front of my clients to review.

I can move the parties to separate online rooms.

As the Mediator, being able to see the parties’ faces and body language, I am capable of assessing the “temperature” in the room and to know when it is time to split up the parties into separate online rooms. I then speak with each individual privately, and when ready, I bring the parties together and we resume the joint session.

All of the above benefits of Online Mediation enable the Mediation to go along smoothly and result in an equitable resolution, for far less money, in far less time and with far less stress.

While online, virtual or remote mediation appears to be a new concept for many, for me, it is a tried and true method to help my clients leave their past behind and to look forward with less stress and less cost to resolve their conflicts with dignity and peace.

Case study 1: Carole and Jack

Jack had been having an affair. Carole found out. As far as she was concerned, their marriage was over.

Neither of them wanted to talk about it. Actually, I still don’t know the nature of the affair or its length. But I did need to know the overall dynamics of the situation, to understand what was in their heads, since they’d stopped communicating with each other.

The couple weren’t speaking

The fact that he’d had an affair slipped out of Carole’s mouth. Then she clammed up. Resentment and anger were filling the room, but they didn’t want to talk about it. In cases like this, I sometimes find it’s essential to talk to them separately. I sometimes just say, “It would help me if I spoke to you individually.”

Clients know they can speak to me separately. Our conversation will be private and confidential, unless they tell me it’s OK to share.

If I can help her get past the anger, or at least put it aside momentarily, and acknowledge what she’s feeling, we’re likely to get to a resolution sooner.

In this case, during the mediation, I said to Carole, “What I hear from the tone of your voice is that you’re very hurt. Is that right? Her acknowledging her emotional anguish was critical. For the first time, the injurer, Jack, didn’t hear, “You bastard, look what you’ve done.” Instead, he realized that he’d caused her a great deal of pain. In such circumstances, it’s not unusual for the injurer to respond—as Jack did—with "I didn’t mean to hurt you. It happened, and I feel terrible about it.”

At last, a breakthrough

I knew we could move forward.

In this case, Carole and Jack had two kids under the age of 10. So we addressed the parenting plan first. Once we figured out access to the children, then we went to the financial stuff. It turns out that Jack had a substantial pension. He hadn’t realized that because it was earned during the marriage, it was considered a marital asset. The pension was so important to him that we worked out a solution in which Carole kept the house and received a lump sum of money. He kept his pension.

No court would have created such a solution. Courts are not designed to be creative. They make decisions that have little to do with your life. Unlike how they would have felt at the end of a court process, at the end of the mediation process, this couple was pleased with their Agreement.

Case study 2: Susan and Donald

Susan and Donald had been working in the same business, but she was getting tired of it. Susan started taking courses so she could begin another independent business. Once she started to disassociate herself from the business somewhat, Donald told her not to come in any more.

Their marriage deteriorated quickly. When it became obvious that they were splitting up, Susan told Donald that she wanted half of the business “My blood, sweat and tears are in that business,” she told him. “The only reason I didn’t come in was because you told me not to."

In addition to half of the business, Susan wanted the house. Donald said that she had a rich grandmother in whose house she could live, plus a trust account. He maintained that he had nowhere to go.

A shared bond: their own and each others' kids

Both Susan and Donald had children from previous marriages.

The kids really liked each other. So I had them focus on the fact that they didn’t want to hurt the children. They’d been living together for 15 years, and each child regarded the other as a parent. Both acknowledged that they had, indeed, been good parents to each other’s kids. So we definitely had some positive feelings to build on.

Since the kids were now teenagers, we didn’t try to arrange a formal parenting plan. In fact, there are no legal rights or obligations to see an ex-spouse’s previous children—even though her kids called him “Dad,” and his kids called her “Mom”.

I helped them understand that it was important for the kids to retain relationships with both of them, and not to be cut off, even though there was no legal obligation to do so. In fact, Donald had been paying for Susan’s college-aged child’s college expenses.

Financial security concerns

For this particular family, there were bonds that still existed. So parenting issues were the first subjects that we addressed. She was hesitant to get divorced because of the financial implications. I explained in private and joint meetings that there was common ground on which to begin building a settlement.

Eventually, they negotiated an arrangement in which he continued to pay for her daughter’s tuition and college expenses. She, in turn, agreed to take less of the business than she had originally asked for.

There’s no way a court would have enforced his paying for the tuition. The settlement truly was one borne of negotiation and compromise. It worked out well for them.

Case study 3: Maria and Ed

This is the type of case I see fairly often: A woman walks in. She’s tired of doing everything. She has spent her life working, and also taking care of the kids. Often one child is in college, and the woman wants a life of her own, now.

The woman in cases like this is often strong, and in some cases, earns more money than her husband. Also it’s common for her husband to resist the divorce. In fact, he will only agree to a divorce if he makes sure he is financially secure. However, his sense of pride makes him unable to explain why he doesn’t want the divorce. In this case, Ed was embarrassed and depressed.

Hidden fears

I said to Ed, “I’m hearing that you don’t want the divorce, but I don’t have a sense of why. I see anger. I see body language indicating that you’re fearful. But I don’t understand what it is. Can you please help me understand?”

That’s when Ed mentioned finances. Maria immediately said, "I’m not trying to hurt you." Maria’s parents had given her money. She said, “My parents really liked you, Ed. They would have wanted you to have some of it.”

In Maria’s mind, she was paying her way out of her marriage. To her, this was a business decision and a logical one. She figured that the amount of money she would end up giving him was less than one third of what they would have blown on attorneys. She knew that if they went to court, there would be escalating conflict. And the divorce would take a far longer period of time. Maria decided to buy her freedom and keep the marital assets intact—for them, rather than give the money to attorneys.

In 4 hours, we were done.

Open for Business Online

During COVID-19, we are open and resolving your conflicts via Zoom and in person.
Looking forward to hearing from you!

(516) 314-6116 | [email protected] ​​​​​​​

Close Window