Our first topic was: Acquisition of mediation cases between lawyers?
Why is it that lawyers and mediators between themselves forward hardly appropriate mediation cases?
A key issue seems to trust in the competence of a potential third-party mediator to be lawyer, whom you want to recommend a party, but hardly knows.
basis of which the question arose as to determine what criteria make a selection and
are more likely to find a suitable mediator. At the end of a lengthy discussion, the following criteria were developed:
- A joint mediation experience (in particular through jointly carried out co-Medition) strengthens confidence in the respective mediation partners;
- The mediation partner does professional and does his work transparent;
- commitment of the Mediation Partners in mediation (eg through training, participation in workshops, working groups etc);
- The mediator should his personality fit the mediant;
- The mediator has expertise in the field of law, in the case of mediation is based.
There was agreement that there are still far too little mediation cases and more attention should be paid to whether the cases that you get as a lawyer on the table for meditation are. The same applies to the inclusion of mediation clauses in contracts.
second point of discussion was the question of the future of Kompentenzkreises, see the post from Dorothea.
The third point concerned the fee structure for the mediation. In particular, the question was discussed how to handle it, if we underestimated the time needed for mediation. Similarly, the question can discuss whether then the final agreement to settle claims.
marked the end of our meeting the supervision of a case presented by Eva mediation, which was so exciting that we had almost forgotten about the time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment