00:31 — A promising partnership can still struggle
Nadav Nishri begins with two founders excited about an idea, their complementary contributions and the life success might bring. They sign a founders’ agreement, allocate marketing and finance, and include exit provisions. Then execution takes longer than expected, household expenses press, and differences in ability or effort appear. This solo episode explores a business dispute as a relationship problem as well as a legal one.
02:30 — The story that hardens around the dispute
Disappointment can become a story of “I contributed and the other person failed me.” Supportive friends may reinforce each side’s account until the former partner appears only as an opponent. Nadav broadens the example beyond founders to managers, colleagues, relatives and others in civil disputes. Direct agreement may still be possible. When it is not, a structured conversation can help examine responsibilities and practical needs without demanding that either person simply abandon their account.
04:02 — Advice can widen or narrow your choices
Nadav contrasts two styles of legal response: an adviser who openly discusses costs and uncertainty, and one who fuels anger and immediately promotes a fight. He explicitly says these are extremes and appreciates the first approach. The useful question is how advice serves your wider objective, not whether every professional of one kind is good or bad. He also illustrates that even elaborate commercial agreements may fail when the people cannot work together. Contracts matter, but relationships still need management.
06:42 — Uncertainty is part of strategic planning
The episode challenges the idea that asking “what am I entitled to?” produces a certain outcome. Facts, evidence, contract interpretation, developing technology and procedural choices can leave uncertainty. Nadav’s broader criticism of the legal system is his viewpoint, not a statement that courts lack standards or that new technologies have no applicable law. Consider what the route may cost in money, management attention and reputation, alongside the remedies it can provide. Necessary protective or time-sensitive legal action should not be postponed simply to try dialogue first.
10:44 — What the mediator does
A neutral third person organizes a conversation; the mediator does not act as judge or arbitrator and impose a result. In Nadav’s New Partnership approach, the starting point is a future the parties can both support. Shared goals come first, then individual interests and workable options within that base. Past events remain relevant without becoming the only agenda. Participants can feel angry or disappointed and still work; they need not arrive calm, friendly or reconciled.
12:11 — Repair the partnership or separate well
The remembered beginning—the first idea, even a plan on a napkin—can help locate the value the parties once wanted to create. That does not oblige them to restore the old arrangement. They might redefine roles, decision rules and regular communication; maintain a narrower relationship; or design an orderly exit. The article adds examples such as gradual customer transfer, temporary asset use and payment arrangements. An agreement should reflect choices the parties understand, rather than only a document they sign to end an exhausting meeting.
12:44 — Reputation, privacy and the overall cost
Nadav highlights business secrets, customer complaints, staff confidence and a company’s reputation. A private process may reduce unwanted exposure, but establish confidentiality rules, exceptions and handling of private meetings before sharing sensitive information; protections depend on the applicable framework. Compare total cost, not just an hourly fee: document preparation, time away from work, uncertainty and implementation all matter. Mediation may be shorter and less costly, without promising a particular fee, number of meetings or timetable.
15:01 — Distance need not prevent discussion
Nadav imagines a New York company and an Israeli company meeting by video, with agreed advisers and private discussions. Practical accessibility and legal effect are different planning questions.
Correction to the recording: the Singapore Convention concerns qualifying international commercial mediated settlements, not automatic enforcement in every country. Consumer personal transactions and family, inheritance and employment matters are excluded. Check applicability and enforcement in the relevant jurisdictions.
15:42 — Choice and time to think
The strength Nadav emphasizes is that participants choose the result. They can pause, investigate, consult and bring suitable advisers into an agreed process. A willingness to face the dispute differs from being pushed into a rushed signature. The mediator helps manage the process; the parties retain authority over whether an option works for them. Business and civil examples include suppliers and customers, family firms, contracts, property, consumer matters, some workplace disputes and neighbors, including community mediation where available.
18:15 — Training is not the whole profession
Nadav argues that public access requires practitioners who actually maintain an active mediation practice, explain their approach and make their services visible. He describes writing, videos, a website, a podcast and a physical office as ways people can find help. These are his professional observations and encouragement, not a guarantee that marketing ensures income. He also distinguishes his facilitative approach from bargaining mainly about predicted court outcomes. Other mediation approaches exist; understand the method rather than relying on a title alone.
21:31 — Choose a mediator both sides can trust
Read or watch substantive work, ask about relevant experience, and have an introductory conversation. Both sides need a chance to understand the mediator and process. Ask about joint and separate meetings, treatment of information shared privately, fees, advisers, conflicts of interest and how an eventual agreement will be recorded. A demand for money may conceal a need for security or recognition; resistance may reflect cash-flow or reputational fears. Exploring those concerns can create options beyond simply splitting a numerical gap.
22:28 — An invitation can set a different direction
An invitation to mediation can say: “I take this seriously and want professional help to find a solution that works for us.” It is neither capitulation nor a promise to keep a failing partnership. Nadav contrasts this with the defensive reaction a legal letter may provoke and asks why people sometimes negotiate only after spending heavily in proceedings. His message is to consider strategy early. If dialogue is refused or unsuitable, other routes remain; assess them with appropriate advice rather than treating this episode as a universal prohibition on legal action.
Original episode audio in Hebrew
Watch the original episode (Hebrew)
Read the original Hebrew episode page
Official source: Singapore Convention — scope and exclusions