future-focused

Louisiana Attorney General Clarifies Scope of Homestead and Disabled Veteran Exemptions

2 minute read

Featured Image

In Louisiana Attorney General Opinion No. 25-0049 (Apr. 6, 2026), the Attorney General clarifies the scope of Louisiana’s homestead exemption and the disabled veteran ad valorem tax exemption, specifically addressing the treatment of additional structures located on residential property. Louisiana’s homestead exemption is grounded in La. Const. art. VII, §20(A), which exempts a portion of the assessed value of an owner-occupied primary residence from ad valorem taxation. Similarly, §20(G) provides enhanced exemptions for certain disabled military veterans. Both provisions extend not only to the residence itself, but also to associated improvements and appurtenances.

However, the constitutional provision creates ambiguity around the outer limits of these exemptions, specifically whether additional structures on the same tract of land qualify, and under what conditions. The Attorney General’s opinion clarifies two significant points regarding the scope of “buildings and appurtenances” and the application of the disabled veterans exemption.

The opinion concludes that the phrase “buildings and appurtenances” encompasses structures beyond the primary dwelling, provided that:

  • The structures are located on the same tract of land as the homestead; and
  • The structures are capable of residential use or are functionally related to the residential character of the property; and
  • The structures are not used for commercial or income-producing purposes. 

This interpretation confirms that secondary buildings, such as guest houses, garages with living quarters, or similar improvements, may fall within the homestead exemption if they retain a residential nexus and are not used in a trade or business.

The opinion further provides that where a property qualifies for the disabled veteran exemption, the exemption applies to the entire qualifying property, including all buildings and appurtenances, in the same manner as the homestead exemption. This effectively harmonizes the treatment of auxiliary structures under both exemption regimes and confirms that the broader exemption afforded to qualifying veterans extends to the full residential property footprint.

Property owners should be aware that the presence of rental activity or business use in auxiliary structures may jeopardize exemption eligibility for those structures. However, non-commercial residential use of additional buildings strengthens the case for inclusion within the exemption. This opinion also provides support for a broader reading of exempt property, particularly in disputes involving mixed-use or multi-structure residential tracts. 

Ultimately, Attorney General Opinion No. 25-0049 reinforces a functional, use-based interpretation of Louisiana’s homestead and disabled veteran exemptions, confirming that qualifying exemptions extend beyond the primary residence to include additional structures that are residential in nature and non-commercial in use. For more information, contact Liskow attorneys Bob Angelico, Caroline Lafourcade, and Kevin Naccari, and visit Liskow’s Tax Practice page. 

Treasury Finalizes Regulations on “Qualified Tips” Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

3 minute read

Featured Image

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service have issued final regulations (Federal Register Doc. No. 2026-07104) implementing the “no tax on tips” provisions enacted as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The rule provides comprehensive guidance on the definition of “qualified tips,” the scope of eligible occupations, and the applicable reporting framework, resolving a number of interpretive questions left open by the statute.

The OBBBA added new §224 to the Internal Revenue Code, creating an above-the-line deduction for “qualified tips” received by individuals for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024 and before January 1, 2029. The statute caps the deduction at $25,000 annually, subject to phase-out based on modified adjusted gross income. While the statutory language established the basic framework for the deduction, it did not fully define what constitutes a qualifying tip or how eligibility should be determined, leaving those issues to administrative guidance.

The final regulations adopt a relatively narrow definition of “qualified tips,” emphasizing the voluntary nature of the payment. To qualify, a tip must be paid at the discretion of the customer and determined solely by the payor, without compulsion or negotiation. The rule further clarifies that qualified tips include cash and cash-equivalent compensation, such as charged tips and amounts distributed through tip-sharing arrangements. At the same time, the regulations expressly exclude mandatory service charges and automatic gratuities, which are treated as non-qualifying payments. In addition, the rule limits eligibility to tips received in occupations that customarily and regularly received tips on or before December 31, 2024, thereby preventing expansion of the deduction to newly structured compensation arrangements. The regulations also exclude tips received in specified service trades or businesses within the meaning of §199A, such as law, health, and consulting services.

In addressing occupational eligibility, the regulations establish a framework tied to historical tipping practices. Treasury identifies categories of occupations that traditionally rely on tipping, including roles within food and beverage service, hospitality, personal care, and transportation. By anchoring eligibility to pre-existing industry practices, the rule reflects a deliberate effort to prevent recharacterization of wages as tips in order to qualify for the deduction.

The final rule also introduces a detailed reporting and substantiation regime. Employers are required to separately report qualified tips on Forms W-2 and other applicable information returns and must identify employee occupations using classifications prescribed by Treasury. The regulations contemplate that payroll and related systems will distinguish between qualifying tips and other forms of compensation, including service charges and non-qualifying payments. On the taxpayer side, individuals must maintain adequate records substantiating both the amount and character of tips received, as well as their eligibility based on occupation. Transitional guidance allows taxpayers to rely on reasonable records for the 2025 tax year, including employer-reported amounts and contemporaneous tip logs.

The regulations operate in parallel with the OBBBA’s separate provisions addressing the deductibility of qualified overtime compensation under §225. Together, these provisions reflect a broader legislative and administrative effort to provide targeted tax relief for certain categories of earned income while imposing structured reporting requirements designed to facilitate compliance and enforcement.

Overall, the final regulations adopt a compliance-focused approach that narrows the scope of the statutory deduction and emphasizes clear documentation and reporting. For more information, contact Liskow attorneys Leon Rittenberg III, Caroline Lafourcade, and Kevin Naccari, and visit Liskow’s Tax Practice page. 

Podcast: Understanding Oil Spills: Legal and Practical Insights from Industry Professionals

less than a minute

In this episode of “Energy Law This Week,” hosts Matt Jones and April L. Rolen-Ogden are joined by Michael Ruckle, Senior Health Scientist and Project Manager in Epidemiology at CTEH, to discuss the legal and practical realities of oil spills. They examine the regulatory framework governing spill response, the roles of federal and state agencies, and the legal obligations placed on operators. The conversation also explores how spills are managed in real time, including response strategies, risk assessment, and coordination efforts, as well as the broader environmental impacts and evolving legal considerations facing the oil and gas industry.

Listen to the full episode here. 
Featured Image

Podcast: Understanding Oil Spills: Legal and Practical Insights from Industry Professionals

less than a minute

In this episode of “Energy Law This Week,” hosts Matt Jones and April L. Rolen-Ogden are joined by Michael Ruckle, Senior Health Scientist and Project Manager in Epidemiology at CTEH, to discuss the legal and practical realities of oil spills. They examine the regulatory framework governing spill response, the roles of federal and state agencies, and the legal obligations placed on operators. The conversation also explores how spills are managed in real time, including response strategies, risk assessment, and coordination efforts, as well as the broader environmental impacts and evolving legal considerations facing the oil and gas industry.

Listen to the full episode here. 

Featured Image

Coming Full Circle: DOI to Combine BOEM and BSEE into New Agency, the Marine Minerals Administration

2 minute read

Featured Image

On April 3, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) announced its plan to combine and absorb the functions of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) into a single new federal agency called the Marine Minerals Administration (MMA). DOI’s stated goal is to create a more streamlined, integrated approach to managing offshore energy development, including both conventional oil and gas and newly emerging energy resources, such as critical minerals.  

According to DOI, consolidating BOEM and BSEE within a single agency will improve regulatory coordination, efficiencies and effectiveness while reducing redundancies across leasing, permitting, inspections, and environmental oversight. DOI also emphasized that the consolidation will maintain all existing regulatory protections and rigorous safety standards.

The roles of BOEM, BSEE, and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) were previously housed within a single federal agency, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), for nearly 30 years. In 2010, following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and reports of unethical management issues, MMS was reorganized into the current three separate agencies, each with defined and distinct missions:

  1. leasing and resource management of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) (became the mission of BOEM),
  2. safety and environmental oversight and enforcement (became the mission of BSEE), and
  3. revenue collection (became the mission of ONRR). 

While the three-agency reorganization has remained in place for 16 years, DOI’s announcement means one agency will now oversee the missions of OCS leasing and resource management and safety and environmental oversight and enforcement, with the final mission of revenue collection remaining with ONRR. 

Although proposed under President Trump’s requested fiscal year 2027 budget (also released on April 3, 2026), the unification of BOEM and BSEE into MMA is in its preliminary phase with internal alignment activities to soon begin.  Stakeholders in offshore resources should stay tuned for more updates. 

For more information, contact Liskow attorneys Jana Grauberger, Kathleen Doody, and Bradford Laperpouse, or visit : https://www.doi.gov/mma-reunification.

IRS Issues Revenue Procedure Providing Framework for New Opportunity Zone Designations

2 minute read

Featured Image

The Internal Revenue Service recently released Revenue Procedure 2026-12, offering procedural guidance for the next generation of qualified opportunity zones (“QOZs”) under §§ 1400Z-1 and 1400Z-2 of the Internal Revenue Code. The guidance implements statutory changes enacted as part of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act and establishes the process by which states and territories will nominate census tracts for designation as QOZs effective January 1, 2027. 

Sections 1400Z-1 and 1400Z-2 established the opportunity zone regime, under which taxpayers may defer and potentially exclude certain capital gains by investing in qualified opportunity funds (QOFs) located in designated low-income communities. The 2025 legislation significantly revises these provisions, effectively launching a new round of opportunity zone designations beginning in 2027.

Revenue Procedure 2026-12 clarifies that a QOZ remains a population census tract that qualifies as a low-income community and is formally designated through a nomination and certification process involving both state executives and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Importantly, the updated statute introduces additional concepts, such as rural opportunity zones and revised investment incentives, that will influence how states prioritize nominations.

Revenue Procedure 2026-12 prescribes the procedures by which a state’s governor nominates eligible census tracts for QOZ designation. Under the guidance:

  • States may nominate only a limited percentage of eligible low-income census tracts, consistent with statutory caps.
  • Nominations must follow a structured submission process to the Treasury Department, which retains authority to certify designated tracts.
  • The IRS anticipates the use of an electronic nomination tool to facilitate submissions and standardize data collection.

The revenue procedure also reflects changes to how eligibility is determined, including updated definitions of low-income communities and rules governing contiguous tracts. These revisions will require states to reevaluate previously designated zones and prioritize new areas consistent with the revised statutory framework.

Revenue Procedure 2026-12 also addresses several transitional and jurisdiction-specific issues. Notably, it eliminates the prior automatic designation of all low-income communities in Puerto Rico as opportunity zones. Instead, Puerto Rico will now participate in the same nomination process applicable to other states and territories, subject to the same percentage limitations.

The guidance also confirms that existing opportunity zones designated under prior law will generally remain in effect through the end of their original designation period (December 31, 2027), after which the new regime will take effect.

While Revenue Procedure 2026-12 is directed primarily at state governments, it carries important implications for taxpayers and investors participating in the opportunity zone program. The forthcoming redesignation process will reshape the geographic landscape of eligible investment areas, potentially altering the availability and attractiveness of QOF investments beginning in 2027.

In particular, the enhanced focus on rural areas and revised incentive structures may shift investment toward regions that were not prioritized under the original opportunity zone framework. Taxpayers considering long-term opportunity zone investments should closely monitor state nomination decisions and Treasury certifications over the next several years. For more information, contact Liskow attorneys Leon Rittenberg III, Caroline Lafourcade, and Kevin Naccari, and visit Liskow’s Tax Practice page. 

Endangered Species Committee Issues Order Exempting Gulf Oil and Gas Activities from Endangered Species Act Requirements

5 minute read

Featured Image

On March 31, 2026, for the first time in the 53 years since the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) became law, the Endangered Species Committee (the “ESC” or “Committee”) unanimously voted to exempt Gulf of America (“GOA”) Oil and Gas Activities from various ESA requirements. Effective immediately, the ESC Order provides that federal agencies tasked with implementing and regulating oil and gas activities in the GOA are no longer required to comply with the procedural consultation and substantive “jeopardy” and “adverse modification” mandates of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Further, any action that would ordinarily be considered a “take” are no longer prohibited under the ESA. The ESC Order aims to strengthen the national security of the United States by reducing ongoing and anticipated ESA litigation, with the hopes that the increased regulatory certainty will lead to an increase in offshore oil and gas exploration and development in the GOA.  

The ESA and the ESC. The ESA, which was enacted in 1973, provides protections for endangered and threatened species by prohibiting certain activities that result in “jeopardy” to endangered species. In 1978, the ESA was amended to provide a process for obtaining an exemption to the “jeopardy” prohibition. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536. The ESA, as amended, tasks the ESC with determining whether to grant an exemption. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(e)(1)-(2); 16 U.S.C. § 1536(h). The ESC consists of seven individuals: 1) the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, 2) the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3) the Secretary of the U.S. Army, 4) the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, 5) the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 6) the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration, and 7) representative(s) from the affected state(s) whom are appointed by the President. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(e)(3). Pursuant to section 7(j) of the ESA, the ESC has special authority and “shall grant an exemption for any agency action if the Secretary of Defense finds that such exemption is necessary for reasons of national security.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(j).  

Committee Meeting Backdrop. The Rice’s whale and thousands of other marine species call the GOA home. Accordingly, during the federal offshore oil and gas leasing process, the ESA requires the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”)—two U.S. Department of Interior sub-agencies charged with regulating offshore oil and gas—to formally consult with the National Marine Fishery Service (“NMFS”) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and ask for guidance on how to comply with ESA substantive mandates while promoting offshore oil and gas development. This formal consultation process results in the issuance of consultation decisions, ESA guidance, and most importantly, a biological opinion that may include a “jeopardy” finding and reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy and allow the project to move forward. This aspect of the federal offshore leasing process has been consistently challenged by environmental non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”).

Regardless of whether the lawsuits challenge individual lease sales or entire National OCS Oil and Gas Programs, NGO attempts to block offshore oil and gas development routinely include challenges to the sufficiency and legality of the resulting biological opinions and consultation decisions. Sierra Club v. NMFS, Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum and Healthy Gulf v. Burgum are recent examples of ESA-litigation initiated by environmental NGOs. These lawsuits specifically challenge the sufficiency and legality of the NMFS’s 2025 biological opinion, the FWS’s 2018 and 2025 Consultation Decisions, and other ESA consultation decisions that impose stringent conditions and mitigation measures to prevent impacts on several species, including the Rice’s whale. 

On January 26, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI”), currently led by Secretary Doug Burgum, notified the U.S. Department of Defense (also known as the U.S. Department of War) of the ongoing ESA litigation and DOI’s view of the impacts on offshore oil and gas exploration, development, and production in the GOA. Several months later, by letter dated March 13, 2026, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responded and shared his national security findings, which included, but were not limited to the following: 

  1. 15% of U.S. crude oil and about 1.7% of U.S. dry natural gas comes from the GOA;
  2. Application of the ESA and recent litigation over its application threaten oil and gas development throughout the GOA;
  3. The biological opinions and incidental take statements, prepared respectively by the NMFS and the FWS, have been repeatedly challenged in litigation over the past several years and continue to be challenged in multiple ongoing cases;
  4. The ESA litigation is diverting federal resources away from approving, managing, and regulating oil and gas activities in the GOA and creating uncertainty and instability, which is chilling the development of oil and gas resources in the GOA;
  5. The United States’s ability to extract oil from the GOA is a matter of national security; and
  6. Given the critical role that oil and gas from the GOA play in the United States’s national security, an exemption from ESA requirements is necessary.  

Based on these national security findings, Defense Secretary Hegseth concluded that, pursuant to section 7(h) of the ESA, the national security of the United States requires the ESC to exempt the proposed actions reviewed in the 2025 biological opinion and the FWS consultation decisions from the ESA.

March 31, 2026 Committee Meeting and ESC Order. At Defense Secretary Hegseth’s request, Interior Secretary Burgum, as Chairman of the ESC, convened the ESC on March 31, 2026, for a Committee Meeting. The Committee Meeting, which was made publicly available, marked the fourthever meeting of the ESC and the first time the ESC convened due to matters of national security. During the meeting, the ESC addressed the Secretary of Defense’s national security findings, unanimously voted to exempt “Gulf of America Oil and Gas Activities” from the ESA requirements, and issued an order effectuating said exemption effective immediately. Pursuant to the ESC Order, the term “Gulf of America Oil and Gas Activities” includes “both the oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities, as well as the avoidance or minimization measures described in the agency action analyzed in NMFS’s 2025 biological opinion and in FWS’s 2018 and 2025 consultation decisions.” Additionally, the ESC Order provides that any action that would be considered a “take” under the ESA shall not be prohibited. 

Impact of the ESC Order. Effective immediately, BOEM and BSEE will no longer be required to consult other federal agencies, such as the NMFS and FWS, about ESA compliance when undertaking oil and gas activities in the GOA. Several notable uncertainties remain following the ESC Order. For example, it is uncertain whether the ESC Order will stand. Shortly after the ESC Order was issued, several NGOs, including Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity, Oceana, Turtle Island Restoration Network, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, filed suit arguing that the ESC Order sidesteps environmental protections put in place by Congress and concentrates power within the executive branch.  Additionally, it is not clear whether the ESA exemption will have any effect on the Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”), which is a separate but related statute that includes prohibitions like those included in the ESA. Unlike the ESA, the MMPA does not include an exemption process.  

For more information or questions, contact Liskow attorneys Jana Grauberger, Emily von Qualen, or Margaret Chavez, or visit Liskow’s Environmental – Regulatory & Litigation and Federal Offshore Regulatory practice pages.

This meeting made clear that energy streams in the Gulf of America must not be disrupted or held hostage by ongoing litigation

www.doi.gov/…

LDR Issues Guidance on Changes to the Inventory Tax Credit

2 minute read

Featured Image

On March 27, 2026, the Louisiana Department of Revenue issued Revenue Information Bulletin No. 26-011 (“RIB 26-011”), providing important administrative guidance on recent legislative changes to Louisiana’s inventory tax credit (“ITC”) under La. R.S. 47:6006. The bulletin addresses statutory amendments enacted in Act 11 of the 2024 Third Extraordinary Session and Act 412 of the 2025 Regular Session, both of which modify the ability of taxpayers to use the ITC beginning in the 2025 tax year. 

Most notably, taxpayers taxed as C corporations for federal income tax purposes, as well as estates and trusts subject to Louisiana income tax, will be prohibited from earning the credit for ad valorem taxes paid on or after July 1, 2026. A narrow exception applies to certain cooperatives that issue patronage dividends, provided appropriate federal reporting is attached. On the other hand, pass-through entities, including S corporations and partnerships, remain eligible to earn the credit, regardless of whether a pass-through entity tax election has been made under La. R.S. 47:287.732.2.

The bulletin also addresses changes to the monetization of the credit. For C corporations, ITCs generated during the transitional period from January 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026, will be nonrefundable, although unused credits may be carried forward for up to ten years. Importantly, RIB 26-011 provides additional relief for legacy credits. Taxpayers that will be barred from earning new credits after July 1, 2026, are granted an extended carryforward period for previously earned credits, effectively allowing up to a twenty-year carryforward for credits generated between 2015 and 2025, so long as those credits had not expired as of December 31, 2025.

Finally, the Department clarifies the interaction of these changes with Louisiana’s revised treatment of S corporations. In light of Act 382 of the 2025 Regular Session, Louisiana now conforms to federal treatment of S corporations as flow-through entities beginning in 2026. Consistent with that change, RIB 26-011 reiterates that ITCs earned by S corporations may only be utilized at the shareholder level, and must be reported on the applicable individual or fiduciary returns.

RIB 26–011 underscores a broader policy shift away from refundable inventory tax credits for corporate taxpayers and toward a more limited, pass-through-oriented regime. Taxpayers with significant inventory holdings should carefully evaluate the timing of ad valorem tax payments, the availability of transitional credits, and planning opportunities associated with entity classification and credit utilization before the July 1, 2026, cutoff. For more information, contact Liskow attorneys Bob Angelico, Caroline Lafourcade, and Kevin Naccari, and visit Liskow’s Tax Practice page. 

District Court Declines to Approve Consent Judgement Allowing Church Political Speech

2 minute read

Featured Image

On March 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas published an Opinion and Order in National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent which highlighted the jurisdictional limits on pre-enforcement challenges to federal tax law, particularly in the context of the Johnson Amendment. Rather than resolving the constitutional questions presented, the court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, effectively halting the parties’ attempt to obtain judicial approval of a negotiated consent judgement narrowing of the statute.

The plaintiffs, a group of religious organizations and churches, filed suit challenging the Johnson Amendment’s prohibition on political campaign intervention by §501(c)(3) entities, asserting violations of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs did not allege past enforcement action against them, but instead relied on a theory of chilled speech, arguing that they would engage in political expression but for the statute’s existence.

Although the parties later sought to resolve the case through a consent judgment adopting a narrowed interpretation of the statute, the district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to enter such relief. The court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations did not establish a sufficiently concrete and imminent injury, but instead reflected a generalized intent to engage in potentially prohibited conduct at some undefined point in the future. As a result, the dispute remained too speculative to support federal jurisdiction. The absence of a case or controversy also meant that the court could not approve or enforce the parties’ proposed consent judgment, regardless of their agreement on a narrowing construction of the statute.

The decision reinforces a limitation on the use of pre-enforcement litigation to reshape federal tax law. Even where both plaintiffs and the government align in seeking a particular interpretation, Article III requires an actual dispute grounded in concrete facts, not a hypothetical or advisory disagreement. Although administrative agencies retain discretion in enforcement and may adopt interpretive positions, they cannot rewrite statutory boundaries in the absence of a live case or controversy. 

Religious organizations seeking clarity on the scope of permissible political speech remain subject to the existing statutory framework, and any meaningful narrowing of that framework will likely require either a case with standing or legislative action. For more information, contact Liskow attorneys Leon Rittenberg III, Caroline Lafourcade, and Kevin Naccari, and visit Liskow’s Tax Practice page. 

The Psychology Driving Modern Mediation — And How to Use It to Your Advantage

4 minute read

Featured Image

A mediator’s perspective for lawyers and clients.

Mediation has become one of the most important tools for resolving disputes efficiently, privately, and with far more control than a courtroom allows. But the forces shaping today’s negotiation environment look very different from those that defined mediation a decade ago.

Many parties still approach mediation with strategies shaped by an earlier era of litigation — before nuclear verdicts reshaped risk, before portfolio‑driven settlement models became standard, before the rise of litigation funding added new layers of leverage and timing, and before we fully understood how deeply psychology influences negotiation behavior. Today’s mediation landscape is more complex, data‑driven, and psychologically dynamic, and the strategies that once worked reliably often need recalibrating to match the realities of modern dispute resolution.

The result: smart lawyers and sophisticated clients working hard, but not always using the tools that best fit the environment they’re negotiating in.

A Mediation Environment Transformed
Verdict exposure is higher, funding and portfolio considerations influence timing, and parties arrive with more information — and more psychological investment — than ever. Mediation is no longer just an exchange of numbers; it’s a negotiation shaped by human, financial, and structural pressures. Recognizing these dynamics early allows lawyers and clients to use mediation as a strategic tool rather than a procedural checkpoint.

1. Extreme Anchors Are Now the Norm — And They Work
Opening numbers today are intentionally aggressive because they shape the psychological “range” of the negotiation. You can often see the reaction before anyone speaks — crossed arms, a sudden lean back, or a quiet exhale signaling disbelief.
What works:
A counter‑anchor with equal psychological weight. Not because it will be the final number, but because it resets the frame and prevents the negotiation from being defined by the other side’s narrative.
In practice:
A plaintiff opens at $18 million, an anchor so outsized the defense immediately reads it as performative. The mediator reframes it as a psychological tactic and helps the defense craft a counter‑anchor that signals engagement without validating the plaintiff’s range. Once that balanced response is delivered, the tension eases and the negotiation shifts from reacting to the number to actually negotiating.

2. Facts and Law Don’t Move People Until Their Fairness Concerns Are Addressed
Lawyers often lead with liability arguments and damages analysis. Those matter — but only after the parties feel heard. You can see the disconnect when fairness hasn’t been addressed: a plaintiff’s shoulders are tense, eye contact drops, or they disengage entirely.
What works:
Start with a narrative that acknowledges the human experience behind the dispute. Once people feel understood, they become more open to risk assessment and compromise.
In practice:
A defense lawyer opens with a tight liability analysis, but in caucus the plaintiff is focused on feeling dismissed. The mediator validates that experience, then helps the defense offer a brief acknowledgment of the human impact without conceding liability. Once that message is carried back, the plaintiff becomes receptive to the legal arguments.

3. The Decision‑Driver Isn’t Always in the Room
Mediations often stall because the people at the table aren’t the ones controlling the final decision. The mediator sees the cues — a pause before answering, looking at documents, or statements like “need to review.”
What works:
Identify early who actually holds the authority. A mediator can help surface these dynamics, but only if the parties are willing to explore them honestly.
In practice:
A mediation stalls because the plaintiff insists they can’t move off their demand. In caucus, it becomes clear the real decision‑driver is the litigation funder who must approve any reduction. The mediator shifts strategy, helping the plaintiff’s team shape the risk framing and valuation rationale that will be presented to the funder. Once the funder’s concerns are addressed, progress that seemed out of reach becomes possible.

4. Reality‑Testing Must Be Personal to Be Effective
General warnings about trial risk rarely shift positions. You can tell when they’re not landing — polite nods, unchanged posture, or a quick pivot back to entrenched talking points.
What works:
Connect risk to the party’s lived experience — the cost of delay, the emotional toll of litigation, the unpredictability of juries, or the financial impact of liens and appeals. The goal isn’t prediction; it’s clarity.
In practice:
A generic warning about jury unpredictability doesn’t move a plaintiff. But when the mediator frames the risk in terms of another year of litigation, delayed closure, and the impact on their daily life, the plaintiff begins to reassess their trial appetite.
5. Mediators Are Strategic Partners, Not Couriers
The most effective mediations happen when lawyers treat the mediator as part of the strategy. You can see the difference instantly: when counsel hands over a number with no context, the other room fills in the gaps with their own assumptions.
What works:
Equip the mediator with your narrative, risk themes, rationale for movement, and insights into the other side’s psychology. When the mediator understands the “why” behind your position, they can help the other side hear it.
In practice:
When counsel shares not just their number but the reasoning, pressure points, and anticipated reactions, the mediator can deliver the message in a way the other side can absorb — often unlocking movement that wouldn’t happen through raw numbers alone.

The Bottom Line
Mediation today is shaped by modern litigation realities — funding, verdict exposure, portfolio pressures, and human decision‑making. Lawyers and clients who succeed are the ones who:

  • adapt to modern anchoring dynamics
  • lead with human‑centered narratives
  • identify true decision‑makers early
  • personalize risk
  • use the mediator as a strategic ally

When your mediation strategy reflects the world we’re negotiating in now, outcomes improve, timelines shorten, and resolution becomes far more achievable.

For more information or questions regarding this topic, contact Liskow attorney Cherrell Simms Taplin and visit Liskow’s Alternative Dispute Resolution practice page.