www.mediator-chereji.ro

Meetings on information about mediation were declared compulsory and free of charge, as per Law 202/2010 aka “the Little Reform of the Justice System”. These meetings can be ordered by judges to litigation parties, prior to the beginning of the process. The Law also stipulates the situations when judges have to send parties to information meetings on mediation. Thus, according to the Romanian Law, mediation is not mandatory, but an information meeting about mediation is mandatory, if a judge orders so.

There was a lot of fuss about this decision, lots of mediators saying is an intrusion of government on private enterprises decisions. Why should a mediator spend her/his time to give information about mediation to litigating parties for free? That time doesn’t have any value? Based on the discussions following the introduction of Law 202/2010, and as president of the Ultrasilvam Mediators Association – certified supplier of level 1 mediation trainings – I made the following observations:

1. In light of the provisions of both Law 192/2006 – (1) The mediator has the obligation to offer any and all clarifications required regarding the mediation process to all parties, so that they fully understand the purpose, limits, and effects of mediation, especially concerning whatever makes the object of their discontent; as well as Art.45 – the mediation contract must include, under the sanction of complete annulment, the following clauses:…

c) the obligation of the mediator to fully explain to the parties all the details regarding the principles of mediation, its effects, and the rules that apply, and d) an informed consent of all parties involved that the mediator has explained to them the process of mediation, and its corresponding effects and rules, the UltraSilvam Mediators Association argues that it is redundant that Law 202/2010 specify that the information meeting is free, because it is an obligation of the mediator to hold such a meeting, in whatever form, from the very first contact with the parties. The fact that if it is an obligation it is automatically free is only commonsensical, meaning informing the parties about mediation, procedures, rights and obligations of both mediator and conflicting parties, fees and additional expenses, lengths, and so on, is free by definition.

2. As certified supplier of level 1 mediation formation and training, the Ultrasilvam Mediators Association has always considered that informing the parties about the mediation process was an obligation of the mediator, a sine qua non to be completed before any other steps can be taken in the direction of building and signing a contract of mediation. The principles of self-determination of the parties would make no sense if the same parties could not act in full awareness of the facts and details of the process, that is, if they had not been provided with all the information necessary to take such decisions. All mediators trained by our Association have been particularly warned not to take any steps in the mediation process until the parties are fully and accurately aware of all the details involved in the mediation process. As it was a requirement of the law, the issue of money or fees for these information meetings has never even been raised; the Ultrasilvam mediators have always stressed this aspect even during the training courses.

3. In our view, whoever is or has been in favor of asking for payment in return of information regarding mediation, has had either little or no contact with the practice of mediation, and has probably spent very little time reflecting on the training course he/she was going through. Informing potential customers or beneficiaries about a service they request is free in any liberal profession and is an important means of self-promotion. Therefore, asking the customer to pay for the advertising of a service he or she is about to benefit from is a rather unusual marketing technique and should be treated as such. The fact that such a discussion has made its way through the public space is yet another proof that the lack of popularity of mediation amongst its potential beneficiaries is due first and foremost to mediators themselves. A large number of them have less than enough knowledge of management, marketing, and customer focus – essential aspects of promoting mediation as an autonomous profession in Romania.

The present document was published on the Mediation Council official site in December, 2010.