Networking sits in the strange space between technique and judgment. A junior attorney with good technique and no judgment will miss it; a senior attorney with great judgment and rusty technique will get half of it right. The best practitioners keep both sharp.
Written for mediators considering Networking as one of several possible practice directions, with limited time to evaluate which one is worth pursuing.
Mediation involving Networking often benefits from explicit education for both parties on the substantive issues before negotiation begins. A mediator who spends 20 minutes walking both parties through the basics of Networking levels the information asymmetry that often blocks productive discussion. This is education, not advocacy — and it’s a core mediator skill.
How Networking engagements begin
A useful intake habit: ask the client to articulate, in their own words, what they’re hoping the engagement will produce. The answer reveals where the client’s expectations align with what Networking engagements actually deliver and where they don’t. Closing the gap before the engagement starts saves significant friction during the matter.
The right intake length for a Networking matter is usually 60 to 90 minutes, conducted in person or by video. Shorter intakes miss the depth required for the engagement to be properly scoped; longer intakes overwhelm the client. Many practitioners follow up the intake conversation with a written summary the client confirms before the engagement letter is sent.
What happens in the middle phase
The middle phase of a Networking engagement is mostly about data gathering, analysis, and coordination. The data gathering involves requesting documents from the client and (often) from third parties through subpoenas or formal requests. The analysis involves working through what the documents reveal. The coordination involves keeping the attorney and other co-professionals informed.
Communication discipline during the middle phase prevents most of the problems that show up at the deliverable. Practitioners who send the client weekly or biweekly written updates — even short ones — maintain trust and surface issues early. Practitioners who go silent during the analytical work leave the client to imagine what might be happening, which is rarely productive.
Concrete tactic: build a roster of 25-40 family-law-adjacent professionals in your market — attorneys, mediators, financial advisors, therapists, accountants. Every quarter, contact 8-10 of them with a substantive question about a current case. Not coffee, not ‘just touching base.’ A real practice question. Over two years, this generates a denser referral network than any conference attendance pattern.
What gets produced
Walk the client through the deliverable before they take it to the attorney or court. The presentation matters; the same report explained well lands differently than the same report dropped over email without context. The walk-through is also where the client’s last questions surface; addressing them in real time prevents follow-up cycles weeks later.
The deliverable for a Networking engagement is the work product everyone will reference for years afterward. It needs to be defensible (your analysis can withstand scrutiny), readable (the client and any non-specialist can understand it), and complete (it addresses what the engagement was scoped to address). The deliverable usually takes 20-40% of the engagement hours; underestimating this consistently produces matters that run over time.
Matter-specific considerations
Networking engagements vary along a few predictable dimensions: client sophistication (institutional client vs. unsophisticated individual), case complexity (single straightforward question vs. multiple intertwined issues), opposing-side cooperation (cooperative vs. adversarial), and timeline pressure (negotiated timeline vs. court-imposed deadlines). Each dimension affects how the standard engagement pattern needs to adjust. For deeper reference, see ABA Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators.
High-conflict matters require different communication and documentation discipline than cooperative ones. In high-conflict Networking engagements, every communication may eventually be reviewed by opposing counsel or a judge; the practitioner needs to write as if the matter will be litigated, even when it won’t be.
The practitioners we see succeed in Networking 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
Practitioners who handle Networking repeatedly find that the back-office infrastructure is the difference between a practice that scales and one that absorbs the practitioner. VennBoard provides the structured workspace that lets you focus on the substantive work — the part that actually compounds.
Learn more about how VennBoard fits into a mediator practice focused on Networking at VennBoard.com.
Further reading
ABA Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division resources