Rohas Legal AI: Mediation

View saved version →

---
name: caucus-strategy-planner
description: Plans what a party should disclose, hold back, or route through the mediator during a private mediation caucus — sorting information into what to tell the mediator only versus what to authorise for the other side, protecting the bottom line by default, and never assuming the mediation's confidentiality rules without confirming them. Use this whenever a user is preparing for a caucus session — including phrasings like "what should we tell the mediator in caucus", "help us plan what to disclose in this private session", "should we reveal our bottom line yet", or "what should we hold back for the next round". Fires for any mediation caucus or private-session preparation, at any stage of the process.
---

# Caucus Strategy Planner

## What this does

Plans what a party should disclose in a private mediation caucus, what to keep for the mediator's understanding only, and what to explicitly authorise the mediator to convey to the other side. It treats the party's bottom line as protected by default, and treats the mediation's own confidentiality rules — whether the mediator may pass caucus information along unless told not to, or may not pass it along unless told to — as something to confirm, never assume, since getting this backwards can mean information the client wanted kept private is conveyed by mistake.

## Before you start

**The underlying dispute facts and the party's actual position and interests.** Blocking — there is nothing to plan disclosure around without this. Where a `party-interest-analyst` output already exists, work from it rather than re-deriving it.

**What the client wants this caucus round to accomplish.** Blocking — the disclosure plan depends on what progress the party is actually trying to make.

**The confidentiality default of this specific mediation.** Whether the mediator may convey caucus information to the other side unless told otherwise, or may not convey it unless specifically authorised. Ask; do not assume. Where this is not confirmed, build the plan on the conservative assumption — nothing is conveyed unless the client says otherwise — and flag the confirmation as still needed.

## Method

**1. Confirm the confidentiality default before building anything else.** This single fact changes how every other part of the plan should be built, and assuming it wrong risks a genuine disclosure error, not just a drafting inconvenience.

**2. List every piece of information the party could disclose**, categorised as: must disclose (needed to make any progress this round), advantageous to disclose (helps build the case or build trust with the mediator), neutral, or must not disclose (weakens the position, reveals the bottom line prematurely, or is otherwise protected).

**3. Separate information meant for the mediator's own understanding only from information explicitly authorised for the mediator to convey to the other party.** These are different categories even for information the party is willing to disclose at all.

**4. Treat the party's bottom line or walk-away point as presumptively protected.** Do not recommend disclosing it as a default step; if there is a genuine strategic reason to reveal it now, call that out explicitly as a deliberate decision, not something the plan defaults to.

**5. Plan what to probe through the mediator** — questions or signals designed to learn about the other side's flexibility without committing the party's own position in the process.

**6. Where the mediation will run multiple caucus rounds, sequence the disclosure** — what to hold back for a later round as the picture becomes clearer, rather than putting everything on the table in the first session.

**7. Flag privileged or without-prejudice material separately, and do not assume mediation communications automatically receive the same protection as formal settlement negotiations.** Whether they do depends on the governing law and the mediation agreement itself — flag this as a verification point rather than asserting a specific protection applies.

**8. Note relational or interest-level information that might matter to the caucus** — not just the legal and factual points — since caucuses are often where a mediator explores underlying interests and relationship dynamics that a purely legal analysis would miss.

## Output

**1. Header.** Matter, mediation session or round, confidentiality default (confirmed or flagged as unconfirmed), date.

**2. Disclosure map.** A table: Information | Category (must disclose / advantageous / neutral / must not disclose) | To mediator only or authorised for the other party | Reasoning.

**3. Bottom line handling.** An explicit statement of whether and how the walk-away point is being protected this round.

**4. Questions to probe via the mediator.**

**5. Sequencing plan**, if multiple rounds are expected.

**6. Points requiring verification.** The mediation's actual confidentiality default, and the privilege or without-prejudice status of what is discussed.

## Do not

Do not assume the mediation's confidentiality default without confirming it. Flag it and default to the conservative assumption until confirmed.

Do not recommend disclosing the bottom line without explicitly calling that out as a deliberate strategic decision, not a default step.

Do not assume mediation communications carry the same privilege or without-prejudice protection as formal legal negotiations. Flag it as a verification point.

Do not build the plan around legal and factual positions only. Note relational or interest-level information where it matters.

Do not treat the other party's information as known to this party unless it actually is. Work only from what this party actually knows or can reasonably infer, and label inferences as such.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: mediation-brief-drafter
description: Drafts the mediation brief setting out a party's position, facts, and interests — with the drafting register determined first by whether the brief is confidential to the mediator or will be shared with the other party, since those two versions need to say materially different things. Use this whenever a user is preparing a submission for a mediator — including phrasings like "draft our mediation brief", "prepare a confidential brief for the mediator", "write a brief we're sharing with the other side too", or "set out our position and interests for this mediation". Fires for any written submission to a mediator ahead of a session, whether confidential or shared.
---

# Mediation Brief Drafter

## What this does

Drafts the mediation brief: the written submission that sets out a party's position, the facts, and their interests for the mediator. The single most consequential decision in drafting one is whether it is confidential to the mediator or will be shared with the other party — a confidential brief can candidly discuss weaknesses and underlying interests to help the mediator work effectively; a shared brief needs the same discipline as an adversarial filing. Getting this distinction wrong produces a document that either wastes its usefulness to the mediator or damages the party's position if the other side reads it.

## Before you start

**Whether the brief is confidential to the mediator only, or will be shared with the other party.** This is blocking, and it is the first thing to confirm — it changes what belongs in the document more than any other instruction could. If the user is not sure which type they want, say plainly that this decision has to be made before drafting starts, since a brief drafted for one purpose is not safely repurposed for the other.

**The facts and the party's position and interests.** Blocking. Where a `party-interest-analyst` output already exists, work from it rather than re-deriving it — but note that underlying interests may only belong in a mediator-only brief, not one shared with the other side.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on a reasonable default without it: **page length or format required by the specific mediation process or institution.**

## Method

**1. Confirm the confidentiality status again before drafting a single section**, and keep it visibly in view throughout — this is the discipline that most determines whether the finished brief actually serves its purpose.

**2. State the facts concisely.** If the brief will be shared, calibrate them to persuade without stating anything the party cannot actually support — treat this section with the same care as an adversarial filing.

**3. State the party's position clearly — what outcome they are seeking.** Then, separately, consider whether underlying interests belong in this brief at all: they are appropriate for a mediator-only brief, since interests are exactly what helps a mediator find integrative solutions, but revealing them in a brief the other party will read can weaken the party's negotiating position. Flag this distinction explicitly if the user seems unsure which version they want.

**4. Summarise procedural history and prior settlement discussions only where their disclosure is actually appropriate**, given without-prejudice protection and the confidentiality status of this specific brief. Do not include prior offers or settlement communications by default.

**5. State the party's view of the case's strengths.** If — and only if — the brief is confidential to the mediator, also candidly flag its weaknesses; this is what actually helps a mediator work the room effectively, and it is exactly the content that must never appear in a brief the other side will read.

**6. Where the brief will be shared, deliberately exclude anything that would be strategically damaging if read by the other party** — this needs to be an active drafting discipline, not an afterthought applied at the end.

**7. Reference the documents the brief relies on, and flag any referenced but not supplied.**

**8. Do not instruct the mediator on what to do or decide.** A mediation brief informs the neutral; it does not direct them.

## Output

**1. Header.** Matter, mediation, whether the brief is confidential to the mediator or will be shared, date.

**2. Facts.**

**3. Position**, and, only if the brief is mediator-only, **underlying interests** — clearly separated, with the sharing status restated at this section so the boundary is never ambiguous to a later reader of the draft.

**4. Procedural history or prior settlement discussions**, only if their inclusion was confirmed as appropriate.

**5. Case strengths**, and weaknesses if the brief is mediator-only.

**6. Documents referenced.**

## Do not

Do not include information that would be strategically damaging if the brief turns out to be shared, without the user having explicitly confirmed the sharing status first.

Do not candidly disclose weaknesses in a brief meant to be shared with the other side. Reserve that candour for a confidential mediator-only brief.

Do not instruct or direct the mediator on what to decide. Inform, do not instruct.

Do not disclose prior settlement offers or without-prejudice communications without confirming that is appropriate.

Do not invent a fact or characterisation not supported by the client's instructions.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: mediation-opening-drafter
description: Drafts the opening statement delivered at the start of a joint mediation session — calibrated for a spoken, in-person audience that includes the other party, protecting the bottom line and any weaknesses, and flagging any line that signals more flexibility or more hostility than the client actually authorised. Use this whenever a user needs a statement for the start of a mediation — including phrasings like "draft our opening statement for the mediation", "write what we should say when both parties are in the room", or "prepare an opening that signals we're open to resolving this". Distinct from mediation-brief-drafter, which is a written submission to the mediator — this is spoken, delivered face to face with the other party present. Fires only where the mediation process actually includes a joint opening session.
---

# Mediation Opening Drafter

## What this does

Drafts the opening statement a party delivers at the start of a joint mediation session, when both parties and the mediator are together before caucusing begins. It is written for delivery aloud, to an audience that includes the other party directly — a materially different register from a written brief. It protects the party's bottom line and any weaknesses by default, and flags any line that risks signalling more conciliatory flexibility, or more hostility, than the client has actually authorised.

## Before you start

**Whether a joint opening session is actually part of this mediation's process.** Some mediations go straight to caucus and never hold a joint session. Confirm this first — if there is no joint opening planned, this skill does not apply, and the user should be told so rather than receiving a document that will never be delivered.

**The party's position and the tone or posture wanted.** Conciliatory or firm — this is delivered to the other party directly and sets the tone for the whole session, so the client's actual intent matters more here than in most drafting tasks. Blocking.

## Method

**1. Confirm a joint opening session is genuinely part of the process before drafting anything.**

**2. Open by establishing genuine engagement with the mediation process.** A statement that reads as going through the motions undercuts the entire tone-setting purpose of an opening.

**3. Summarise the party's position and the supporting facts, calibrated for a spoken, in-person, adversarial-but-not-hostile audience** — a different register from a written brief, shorter and less exhaustive.

**4. Be as deliberate about what the statement does not say as what it does.** This is heard directly by the other party and by the mediator; revealing the bottom line, a weakness, or an overly conciliatory signal here can undercut the party's negotiating position for the rest of the session. Treat every line as something the other side will hear and react to.

**5. Include a statement of openness to resolution calibrated exactly to the client's actual posture.** Do not draft language suggesting more flexibility than the client has authorised, and do not draft language so firm it forecloses the collaborative tone the process depends on — unless the client specifically wants a firm opening, in which case draft it that way and say so.

**6. Keep the statement free of language that would read as inflammatory or a personal attack on the other party.** This is delivered face to face and can derail the whole session before caucusing even starts. If the client's instructions push toward language that risks this, flag it rather than silently softening it without saying so.

**7. Keep it appropriately brief.** This is not the place for the full factual or legal case — state that fuller detail sits in the mediation brief if one exists, and keep the spoken opening to what actually needs to be said aloud.

## Output

**1. Header.** Matter, mediation date, party.

**2. The opening statement.** Full text, written for delivery aloud.

**3. Delivery notes.** Tone calibration, and any line flagged as a risk if delivered as drafted — for example, "this line signals more flexibility than instructed, confirm before using" or "this line risks reading as adversarial, confirm the client wants that tone."

## Do not

Do not draft an opening for a mediation process that does not include a joint session. Check first.

Do not reveal the bottom line or a case weakness in an opening statement.

Do not draft inflammatory or personally adversarial language without flagging it, even where the client has asked for a firm tone.

Do not draft the full factual or legal case here. Keep it appropriately brief for a spoken statement and reference the brief for detail.

Do not signal more conciliatory flexibility than the client has actually authorised.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: mediation-outcome-documenter
description: Records what was actually agreed in a mediation session and what remains open — distinguishing full agreement from agreement-in-principle, noting every condition attached, and never treating the record itself as the binding settlement document unless the user confirms that is what's intended. Use this whenever a user needs a session documented — including phrasings like "record what we agreed today", "document the outcome of this mediation session", "write up what's settled and what's still open", or "capture the next steps from today's session". Distinct from settlement-terms-drafter, which converts a completed settlement into full binding terms — this documents what actually happened in the room. Fires after any mediation session, whether it ended in full settlement, partial agreement, or no agreement.
---

# Mediation Outcome Documenter

## What this does

Produces a contemporaneous, accurate record of what was actually agreed in a mediation session and what remains open — distinguishing a fully agreed point from one where the parties narrowed the gap but did not close it, and from one that remains entirely unresolved. It records only what actually happened; it does not round an agreement-in-principle into something that reads as final, and it is not itself the binding settlement document even where a full settlement was reached.

## Before you start

**What actually happened and was discussed in the session**, from the user's account or notes. Blocking — this is a record, not a reconstruction, and it cannot be built from inference.

Not blocking, determined from the facts rather than assumed in advance: **whether the session reached full settlement, partial agreement, or no agreement.** Let the record's structure follow from what actually happened, not from an assumption about how the session was supposed to go.

## Method

**1. Record what was actually agreed, precisely and only as instructed.** Do not round out an ambiguous or incomplete agreement into something that reads as more definite than it was — if the parties agreed to something "in principle" without settling the mechanics, record it as agreed-in-principle, not as final.

**2. Separate three categories clearly**: points fully agreed, points where the parties narrowed the gap without reaching agreement (record where each side's position moved to, since this matters for any future round), and points that remain entirely open.

**3. Note every condition attached to what was agreed** — subject to board approval, subject to formal documentation, subject to a specific party's confirmation — precisely, since these conditions determine whether what was agreed is actually binding yet or not.

**4. Record next steps and, where given, timing** — who does what, by when.

**5. If a full settlement was reached, flag plainly that it still needs to be converted into a formal binding document, and that a skill such as settlement-terms-drafter is the next step.** Do not treat this outcome record itself as the binding settlement agreement unless the user has explicitly confirmed that is what is intended.

**6. Flag the confidentiality and without-prejudice status of this record as it applies to what was discussed.** Whether this document — or what it records — is admissible or otherwise usable later depends on the mediation agreement and the governing law; flag this as a verification point rather than asserting a specific protection applies.

**7. Where no agreement was reached, record that plainly**, along with whether the parties intend to continue negotiating and anything learned during the session that is useful for that. Do not use this as an opportunity to plan the next session's strategy — that is caucus-strategy-planner's job; this skill documents what already happened, not what should happen next.

## Output

**1. Header.** Matter, mediation date, parties, mediator, date of this record.

**2. What was agreed.** Precisely, distinguishing full agreement from agreement-in-principle, with every condition noted.

**3. What remains open.** Points not resolved, and where relevant, where each side's position moved to.

**4. Next steps and timing.**

**5. Status.** Full settlement requiring formal documentation, partial agreement, or no agreement — stated plainly, with the next step flagged if formal documentation is still needed.

**6. Points requiring verification.** The confidentiality or admissibility status of this record and of what was discussed in the session.

## Do not

Do not round an agreement-in-principle into a description that reads as a final, complete agreement.

Do not treat this outcome record as itself the binding settlement document. Flag that formal documentation is a separate next step if a full settlement was reached.

Do not invent what was agreed or discussed. Record only what is actually reported.

Do not assert that mediation communications are protected or inadmissible without flagging that as governing-law and agreement-specific.

Do not plan the next session's strategy here. This skill documents what already happened.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: party-interest-analyst
description: Separates each party's stated position from their actual underlying interests, for both sides of a dispute, tagging every interest as confirmed from direct instruction or inferred from conduct — and maps where positions conflict but interests might not, without pretending every conflict has a win-win answer. Use this whenever a user wants the interests behind a dispute mapped out — including phrasings like "what does the other side actually want, versus what they're asking for", "map our interests and theirs for this mediation", "where might we find common ground here", or "separate positions from interests on both sides". Fires ahead of or during any mediation where understanding both sides' real motivations matters, not just their stated demands.
---

# Party Interest Analyst

## What this does

Maps each party's stated position against their actual underlying interests, for both sides of a dispute — the classic distinction between what a party says they want and why they actually want it. It works with real uncertainty about the other side's interests, labelling every inference as an inference rather than presenting a guess as a fact, and it identifies where positions conflict but interests might not — the openings a mediation can actually use — without pretending every point of conflict has an integrative solution when some genuinely do not.

## Before you start

**What is known about each party's stated position and the facts of the dispute.** Blocking — the analysis has to start from what has actually been said or observed, not from a general sense of the dispute.

Not blocking: **how much is actually known about the other party's interests.** This is often limited. Work with that uncertainty directly rather than filling gaps with confident-sounding guesses — every inference about the other side gets labelled as an inference in the output.

## Method

**1. State each party's stated position precisely, for both sides** — what they say they want, in their own terms as far as they are known.

**2. For the instructing party's own interests, work from direct instructions** — the actual reasons behind the position: cost, time, certainty, relationship, precedent, reputation, or a specific practical need. Distinguish interests the client has stated clearly from ones being inferred from context, and label the difference.

**3. For the other party's interests, work from whatever is actually known or can reasonably be inferred from their conduct and statements — and label every one of these as an inference, never as a fact.** Presenting a guess about the other side's motivations as established is the single most common way this kind of analysis misleads.

**4. Identify where the two parties' positions conflict but their underlying interests might not.** This is the core mediation opportunity — for instance, both sides may share an interest in resolving quickly even though their positions on the merits are opposed. Flag these as places an integrative solution might genuinely be found.

**5. Identify where the interests themselves conflict, not just the positions.** These are the harder points — no clever reframing avoids a real trade-off here, and the analysis should say so plainly rather than implying every conflict has a win-win answer waiting to be discovered.

**6. Note any interest that seems implicit in a party's conduct but has not been confirmed** — for instance, an apparent interest in preserving a business relationship, signalled by how they have negotiated so far — and flag it as worth exploring in caucus rather than treating it as confirmed.

**7. Organise the output around what might actually help the mediation move forward**, not as an academic taxonomy exercise.

## Output

**1. Header.** Matter, parties, date.

**2. Positions.** Each party's stated position.

**3. Interests.** Each party's interests, tagged Confirmed (from direct instruction or clear statement) or Inferred (this analysis's own reading), kept clearly separated by party throughout.

**4. Areas of potential alignment.** Where positions conflict but interests might not.

**5. Areas of genuine conflict.** Where the interests themselves conflict, stated plainly as harder points, not glossed over.

**6. Interests worth exploring further.** Implicit but unconfirmed interests, flagged as worth raising in caucus.

## Do not

Do not present an inferred interest as a confirmed fact, especially for the other party.

Do not assume every conflict is resolvable through an integrative solution. Flag genuine interest-level conflicts plainly.

Do not invent an interest that is not evidenced by the facts or instructions actually given.

Do not plan a specific negotiating strategy here. That is caucus-strategy-planner's or negotiation-position-planner's job; this skill maps interests.

Do not blend the two parties' interests into a single combined list. Keep them clearly separated by party throughout.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: settlement-evaluator
description: Tests a specific settlement offer against the realistic alternative of continuing to litigate — an expected-value comparison with the arithmetic shown, layered with what pure expected value misses — certainty, the client's actual risk tolerance, and hidden costs in the offer's own conditions. Use this whenever a user has a concrete offer to evaluate — including phrasings like "is this settlement offer better than continuing to litigate", "run the numbers on this offer against our litigation risk", "should we take this deal or fight on", or "what's this offer actually worth once you account for the conditions attached". Distinct from legal-risk-assessor, which compares general decision options — this is narrower and offer-specific — given this offer, on the table now, how does it compare. Fires whenever a concrete settlement offer needs to be weighed against continuing a dispute.
---

# Settlement Evaluator

## What this does

Tests one specific settlement offer against the realistic alternative of continuing to litigate or arbitrate: an expected-value comparison with the arithmetic shown, then layered with what the raw numbers miss — the certainty a settlement buys, the client's actual risk tolerance and priorities, and any hidden cost in the offer's own conditions. It supports the client's decision on this offer; it does not make the decision for them.

## Before you start

**The settlement offer's actual terms.** Amount, payment terms, conditions, any non-monetary terms, and the deadline to accept if one exists. Blocking.

**The realistic litigation alternative.** The likely range of outcomes if the dispute continues, the estimated cost to reach a conclusion, and the estimated time to conclusion. Blocking — where a `legal-risk-assessor`-style analysis already exists, work from it; where it does not, say plainly that this input is needed before a meaningful comparison can be run, rather than inventing a probability of success.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is confirmed: **the client's risk tolerance and priorities** — certainty versus upside, cost sensitivity, time sensitivity, reputational considerations. These determine how the comparison should be weighted, not just what the raw numbers say.

## Method

**1. State the settlement offer precisely** — amount, payment terms, conditions, non-monetary terms such as confidentiality or non-disparagement, and the acceptance deadline if any.

**2. State the realistic litigation alternative as a range** — best case, likely case, worst case — grounded in supplied analysis. Do not invent a probability of success that is not otherwise supported; if the range is not yet established, say that a risk assessment is needed first rather than filling the gap with an assumption.

**3. Calculate the expected value of continuing, where the facts support it** — the probability-weighted outcome range, less the cost of continuing (fees, disbursements, management time and distraction), with a note on time-value or discounting if the client cares about time to resolution. Show the arithmetic in full, and flag every input that rests on an estimate rather than a hard figure.

**4. Compare the settlement offer against this calculated alternative**, stating plainly whether the offer is better or worse in pure expected-value terms, and by how much.

**5. Layer in what pure expected value does not capture.** Settlement removes litigation risk immediately — a client with a strong preference for certainty may rationally accept an offer below expected value, and the expected-value number alone will not show why that is still a reasonable decision. Weigh the client's actual stated priorities, and any reputational or relationship considerations, explicitly rather than leaving them as an unstated afterthought.

**6. Check the offer's conditions and non-monetary terms for hidden costs** — a confidentiality clause, an admission requirement, a non-disparagement term — that affect the offer's true value beyond its headline figure.

**7. Note the acceptance deadline and any consequence of letting it lapse.** Where a procedural cost-consequence rule might apply — for instance, a costs-shifting rule for rejecting an offer that turns out to beat the eventual result — flag this as specific to the governing procedural law, and do not assert that such a rule applies without that being confirmed.

**8. State a conclusion framed as input to the client's decision, not a directive.** The client decides whether to accept; this skill's job is to make sure they are deciding with the full picture in view.

## Output

**1. Header.** Matter, the offer being evaluated, date.

**2. The offer.** Terms stated precisely.

**3. Litigation alternative.** The range of outcomes, cost and time to continue, with every assumption and its source flagged.

**4. Expected value comparison.** The arithmetic shown in full, offer against calculated alternative.

**5. Beyond expected value.** Certainty, the client's actual risk tolerance and priorities, and reputational or relationship factors, layered onto the pure numbers.

**6. Hidden costs.** Any condition in the offer that carries real value or cost beyond the headline figure.

**7. Deadline and consequences of lapse**, with any procedural cost-consequence rule flagged for verification.

**8. Observation.** Framed as input to the client's decision, not an instruction.

## Do not

Do not invent a probability of litigation success that is not otherwise supported by analysis.

Do not present pure expected value as the whole answer. Layer in certainty and the client's actual priorities.

Do not assume a procedural cost-consequence rule — such as costs-shifting for a rejected offer that beats the eventual outcome — applies without flagging it as governing-law-specific.

Do not overlook a non-monetary condition in the offer that carries real value or cost.

Do not make the decision for the client. Frame the conclusion as input, not an instruction.

Referenced files: 1