Ever thought of taking the law into your own hand?
Wouldn’t everyone like finding their own resolution for their own conflict?
As an honorable alternative within legal system we live in: we call it now Mediation.
In event of a dispute there are several aspects automatically taken off the scenario once we delegate the case to Courts.
Legal representatives wipe off all non-objective matters to make cases strong to stand in Court.
However, emotions, fears, requests, expectations may find correspondence and support somewhere in the dense and rich network of Civil Law codes, regulations and principles. Same chances they may have within the mare magnum of Common Law cases history and collections.
Keeping in mind that where each little detailed request gets under Court consideration, they may slow down the whole process of obtaining justice by final sentencing.
If all personal feelings stay out of the Court dispute, however, they seldom disappear from our day-to-day lives; if unheard, they last as long as the Court case ends. Or longer
Time is money.
Time is money to all: parties and representatives.
It is worth it to mention as well that each complaint formally brought to Court becomes public. As consequence, this choice impacts privacy and reputation: how valuable are they to the parties?
Quality of life and relationship are entirely at parties’ (i.e. disputants’) disposal: it is their own life quality at stake.
It is up to the disputants how to treasure their standards of quality.
Mediation process works on those values, considering them closely together with the real interests to be evaluated.
Expert and professional mediators facilitate the disputants’ pattern of clear communication. Assist along the whole process ensuring all requests and expectations are on the table to be heard and worked out towards an agreement.
Mediators are equi-distant o equi-close to both parties, rather than super partes.
Mediation stays neutral and non judgmental before and after a solid, valuable and professional initiative towards solutions the parties themselves may be well able to figure out, handle and finally manage.
Parties keep all the time control of their goals and mediation may save time, money and values after all.
Terms of an agreement may be reasonably reached before any external interference or order from Court. There is no need to publicly disclose their feelings. To any public.
Encouraged by professional mediators, bound to code of conduct, privacy and confidentiality, as a result, are guaranteed to the disputants by their own honorable agreement.
Finally I feel to add a priceless extra value: mediation process brings parties through a self-management of their mutual relationship.
A professional mediation helps all parties adapt their agreement to their own circumstances, creating reasonable solutions within legal frame.
It teaches how to better manage their wishes and values for life.
One own’s justice is a tailored suit: it fits better
By Debora Unali
Announcement by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Frances Fitzgerald, Wednesday 4th February 2015, that she intends to proceed with the enactment of mediation legislation...
One of the pillars of Civil Law rules and principles is the maxim “Nemo iudex in sua causa”.
This legal phrase comes from Latin, and its literal translation is: nobody may be judge of his/her own case.
It refers towards a major legal principle, which states that no person can judge a case in which he or she participates as a party (i.e. pursues benefits).
In brief words it means that nobody can judge on their own lawsuit, otherwise there would be no fair justice.
The goal of the law is to secure the delivering of fair justice.
As a student it fascinated me both for the sense of search of fairness and for the necessity of cooling off any case from feelings. Hey, I am Italian…
It did fascinate me and it still does.
My thesis, final work of my Bachelor Degree in Law pointed me there: a further chance to investigate amongst a deeper sense of justice.
“Hermeneutics within the judiciary context” my ambitious title: a broad and extended work, which allowed me to get a taste and a sense of Common Law system.
In Civil Law system, justice is acknowledged confidently as far as a written rule, principle exists prior to the dispute.
What if no trace of same complaints exist in codes, Courts sentences, Constitution or sovereign legal hierarchic database etc…?
From a Civil Law student’s perspective, best area to investigate into was international law disputes, mainly family and commercial cases.
I had finally found grounds to enlightening my own doubts and uncertainties.
If disputants are from different Countries, not only they may speak different languages, they are brought up with different believes, different expectations and occasionally they may behave differently even when they mean to reach a common goal.
Bingo: in those (legal) cases, discarding emotions to be expressed, exchanged, considered, heard and worked at, it would just lead to a superficial agreement with little chance to endure at long term relationship.
During my legal practitioner experience in Italy, where Civil Law rules, I privately questioned this approach of ‘Straight to the facts. Objectiveness as the best way to deliver justice’ every and each time I was hearing a client’s complaint at the lawyers cabinet I worked at.
As legal representative, my duty was to translate clients’ requests into legalities, i.e. facts that can be brought before Court. No feelings allowed.
Each story ended up into legal papers and/or appearances to Court spoiled of the emotions from both disputants.
Litigations often appeared to me as if they were about to fail and to cause further damages as consequence.
I was often tempted by and considered inviting counterparty legal representative to look for some pre-judicial agreement, getting the disputants involved as well.
That personal approach to ideal justice never left me.
Times were not mature, neither was Civil Lay system.
I moved then to Ireland where Common Law represented a total new ground to me.
I learned (hardly at first) that a judge sentence is law. Each case may potentially become new justice rule or principle.
Courts decide on contemporary basis, not on millennial principles.
How much clearly I appreciated my Mediation course and practices…
Here I experienced evidences and tangible scenarios where my long-term dug approach to justice resuscitated and made sense.
What if the disputants get the opportunity to better understand each other requests, expectations, feelings?
What if before any legalities and technicalities the parties clear off the air from matters they may understand, hear and get to agree to?
What if, given the best circumstances and the professional assistance, the dispute becomes more and more a communication meeting, a parties’ strategy meeting?
What if thanks to the mediator I am today, I can see only the most complicate legalities brought to Court, while the parties stay in control of their own relationship?
May each disputant feel and be Iudex in sua causa after all?
By Debora Unali
3rd February 2015