Enter the co-mediators.

While conventional wisdom has co-mediation being considered for a variety of reasons, including combining complimentary skills and expertise, providing a balance in terms of gender, age, culture and language where appropriate, my experience  is that co-mediation is considered primarily in two situations in the commercial sector;

1. in mega cases
2. where the claimant and responding groups are incapable of agreeing the identity of a single mediator – so they appoint one mediator each, arbitration style

Clearly, while claiming and responding groups appointing a mediator each cuts across much of what we hold dear in mediation and belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the mediator’s role, the process is all but doomed if the mediators see themselves as mediator for ‘their party’ and much more could be written on this topic.

However, I am happy to report, this is rarely the case for mediators but appointment in these circumstances is a development to be watched and, in my view, discouraged. For one thing, it often means mediators of different stripes (both philosophical and style) find themselves working together and quickly tripping over each other. Much better to appoint mediators who have worked together before and are hand in glove.

As one party once said to me when considering my co-mediator,  “we need to avoid 2+2 = 3”

In fact, it needs to equal five.

Read original article


Tags: