Report comment

All mediations I carry out do not have a lawyer or other representative present. That's not because of my directive but I just happen to work in areas where they are not used - workplace disputes, neighbour disputes, complaints work (NHS and Universities etc), special needs mediation and others. If someone else attends a mediation I conduct, they don't speak other than in response to the person they are supporting asking them a question, but at all times it is the participant in dispute who speaks not any representative. I also don't mediate in 'separate rooms' so the ridiculous notion of 'best room' would not arise. It is one of the many failings and ambiguities of mediation that remains within the legal process rather than be an entirely alternative, separate process that a) mediations are commissioned by lawyers rather than clients and so lawyers feel they have a 'right' to lead on the discussion and b) that many comments and the article above suggest 'it depends on the barrister being trained in ….blah, blah'. Such ambiguities should not be relevant - it is a client-led process. If the lawyer takes centre stage it has already failed as a process even if many claim to get 'good outcomes for their clients'…..it wasn't a mediated outcome it was still an outcome from an adversarial process.