There are roughly two camps of practitioners on Three Must-Dos: those who treat it as a niche worth investing in and those who treat it as something they pick up as cases arrive. The camps diverge financially within five years and don’t recover the gap.
Written for mediators considering Three Must-Dos as one of several possible practice directions, with limited time to evaluate which one is worth pursuing.
The mediator handling Three Must-Dos-heavy matters needs to know when to pause negotiations and recommend specialist consultation. Some Three Must-Dos questions exceed what can be productively negotiated without independent expert input; mediators who push past those limits produce agreements that don’t hold up under later scrutiny.
The first question every client raises
Clients usually have an implicit theory of what Three Must-Dos can do for them — sometimes wildly optimistic, sometimes pessimistic. The early conversation should surface that theory and address it. A client who thinks the engagement will solve a problem the analytical framework can’t actually solve will be disappointed regardless of the technical quality of the work.
Many clients come to Three Must-Dos matters expecting binary answers (yes or no, this number or that number). The reality is usually ranges, probability-weighted scenarios, and contingent recommendations. Helping the client adjust to that reality at intake — rather than at the deliverable — produces a better engagement. For deeper reference, see ABA Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators.
What practitioners get wrong about Three Must-Dos
Practitioners new to Three Must-Dos often underestimate how much of the work is communication rather than analysis. The analytical conclusions matter, but the way they’re presented to the client, the attorney, and (if relevant) the court determines whether the work produces the outcome the client wanted. Polishing the report and the explanation is a substantial portion of the engagement.
Practitioners often fail to recognize when a Three Must-Dos matter has crossed from analytical work into advocacy or therapy. The work has clean boundaries — analytical work is appropriate; advocacy or therapy beyond your role is not. Recognizing the boundary and referring out when appropriate is one of the markers of senior practice.
Where the field is moving
Professional standards in Three Must-Dos have been evolving across the major credentialing organizations. The credentials themselves matter less than they used to (because client research finds them) but the underlying curricula have improved. Practitioners going through current credential programs emerge with better-built frameworks than those who credentialed a decade ago.
Software for mediators working in Three Must-Dos has improved significantly in the past five years. The standard tools handle case management, document organization, billing, and coordination far better than they did a decade ago. Practitioners who haven’t updated their tooling stack in the past three or four years are usually working harder than they need to.
Should you commit to this area?
A simple test: do the matters in Three Must-Dos that you’ve already handled interest you? Practitioners who genuinely enjoy the analytical work and the relational dynamics tend to build sustainable practices in Three Must-Dos; practitioners who found the matters tedious tend not to, regardless of the market opportunity.
Honest assessment of your market matters too. Three Must-Dos has different dynamics in different markets — major metros with concentrated family-law sections versus smaller markets with broader generalist practices. Practitioners in markets where the area is underserved by genuine specialists have steeper paths to dominance; practitioners in markets already saturated have harder paths.
The practitioners we see succeed in Three Must-Dos share a few habits: they show up consistently at the same professional events, they invest in templates and infrastructure, they keep peer relationships current, and they treat each matter as a chance to refine their approach.
How VennBoard fits in
VennBoard helps mediators build the operational backbone Three Must-Dos engagements require — engagement letters that handle the scoping conversation in writing, case files that stay organized across long matters, communication tools that keep the broader case team coordinated, and the infrastructure that lets the practitioner focus on the analytical work rather than the administrative drag.
For mediators ready to see how VennBoard supports Three Must-Dos engagements, visit VennBoard.com.