Will mediation save the justice system?

12 November 2010 by

Much has been made of the benefits of mediation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in recent weeks, both as a means of reducing the bitterness of family justice proceedings and also of saving money in the court system by keeping people out of it.

 

But is mediation a knight in shining armour or a trendy buzzword used as an excuse to keep people out of the expensive court system? The debate is often heard but rarely goes beyond anecdotal evidence. Lord Neuberger, our highly active Master of the Rolls, has given an excellent speech on the topic, entitled Has mediation had its day?, which presents the evidence on both sides, including references to a number of research studies.

He began by answering his own question: he is a “supporter, indeed a keen supporter, who has been vocal, in court and out of court, in favour of mediation and ADR“. Having put minds at ease, he went on to highlight the “current emphasis on the benefits of mediation can further our commitment to a government of law and how too great an emphasis may, if we do not take care, begin to undermine that commitment.” Moreover,

I perceive a tendency, which has in the past five years or so receded somewhat, to decry mediation as a trendy idea, with no real substance, and which will soon have had its day, so that dispute resolution in England and Wales will revert to being a mediation-free zone. I also perceive a tendency, which has found increasing favour in some circles particularly those in which saving money is the main aim, that mediation is a sort of universal panacea, which, properly developed, should obviate the need for an effective civil courts system

In order to put meat on the bones of his argument, he quoted conflicting studies as to the usefulness (or otherwise) of mediation and alternative dispute resolution in cutting costs and ending disputes earlier than if they reached court (see paras 21 to 27).

Ultimately, he makes some recommendations for the future. His focus is education, education, education:

In the first instance, public legal education is essential. Individuals should be able to easily access information about litigation and ADR. That information should be available at an early stage; if not at the earliest stage. It should be clear. It should be concise. It should set out the advantages and disadvantages of the various different methods by which disputes can be resolved; and all the while individuals should know that if for whatever reason consensual settlement, through one of the various means available, is not appropriate or does not succeed, they have ready and effective access to the civil justice system.

And not just the public need educating:

Furthermore, education of the legal profession and judiciary has to continue. Experienced mediators need to become ever more involved in the provision of training to those in the profession and judiciary;

He also recommends the expansion of ‘telephone mediation’, where a mediator shuttles between parties via telephone in order to attempt to reach a settlement.

He concludes that mediation has by no means had its day; and it is neither a panacea but also not just a fashionable solution to budget cuts:

It has an important part to play in dispute resolution, as do all forms of ADR. Increasing the use of mediation and other forms of ADR to help individuals resolve their disputes is a social good. The consensual resolution of any dispute is a social good.

Whilst the benefits of mediation and ADR are by no means clear, the Master of the Rolls’ evidence-based approach must also be that of the Ministry of Justice. Mediation and ADR have been presented as panaceas before, notably in the 1990s alongside the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules. But there is no point in recommending alternative approaches to litigation unless they genuinely work. If they happen to save money, then that is an excellent outcome too.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

 

1 comment;


  1. Nice post. Here’s the problem, unfortunately, at least in the States: mediators. We are unregulated and, in the main, poorly trained. We practice in secret and are accountable only to the parties who may be ill-informed or unprepared for the all-too-common occurrence of having their own lawyers team up with the mediator to force a settlement down their throats, commonly called “banging head’s together,” and approved (indeed sought) by many in the legal profession. As a blogger on negotiation and mediation, I hear far too many complaints from the clients that they feel their agreements have been coerced. Those who haven’t been coerced (lucky them!) have nevertheless been sidelined from the process or disregarded altogether so that they leave the mediation feeling bitter and unresolved, while their lawyers breathe a sigh of relief that the case is behind them and they can move on. Mediation CAN and MUST eventually begin to deliver justice or it will and should be assigned to the dustbin. What do people need? Not simply to have an end to their disputes but to have a just end to them. And that just end is not simply in the outcome as too many mediators believe (making another notch in their mediation belt so that they can say to their market “I have a 90% success rate,” deeming success to be resolution, any resolution, no matter how corrupt (confidences broken, gamesmanship prevailing, falsehoods in place) and no matter how unhappy their clients are with the proceeding. There is far too little discussion of justice in mediation circles ~ something the adversarial system continues to at least pay lip service to. What’s missing for the participants, the people with the problem, is procedural and interactional justice, not just outcome justice. Having been required to become an extern again at an advanced age (after twenty-five years of legal practice) to earn my LL.M, I observed dozens, if not hundreds of mediations. I witnessed mediators who were so afraid of conflict that they could not bear to have the parties in the same room at any time for any purpose and who were often loathe to have any conversation with parties even in separate caucus, pulling the lawyers out into the hallway to hammer out an agreement, making an appearance only at the end of the day to tell the clueless litigant that powers greater and wiser than him or her had decided this was the best way for the dispute to be resolved and so it should be. If we do not begin to require more training, including apprenticeship in which best practices are practiced, the public will eventually say NO and demand their day in court once more. Better to lose than to be treated with disrespect by the justice system they were once taught to respect.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: