I was reflecting this morning about some of the conferences and professional meetings I have attended in the last year. In almost all instances--except those that are for attorneys only--there is a debate about mediators who don't have a law degree. The debate centers on how mediators should identify themselves.
In one of the professional organizations that I belong to, some members will introduce themselves as "non-attorney mediators." Others in that same organization express outrage at such a description.
I can't think of another profession that describes its members by what they are not: "Hello, I'm a non-doctor plumber." Or a "non-engineer architect."
There is no question that mediation, and mediators, derive a great deal of work from and through the legal system. Having judicial appointments is a good way to obtain cases. Having professional relationships with attorneys is a good source for business. The courthouse is a natural place for disputes and opportunities for resolving disputes.
But should people be identified as "non-attorney mediators?" What are the pros and cons of such a label? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
1 comment:
Mediation and law are not one in the same. The skills required to be effective are far different. That being said, any mediator operating in a court-annexed arena needs to be able to speak the language of their clients, the attorneys (i.e. basic civil procedure, basic law in the area being mediated). If the mediator cannot speak the language, the mediator will not earn the respect of the clients.
I am a mediator in NJ who does not happen to hold a law degree. But I have earned the respect of most of my clients (you never win them all) by giving them what they need.
I have also posted on this on my blog at Sanns Mediation.
Post a Comment