Is mediation in need of government intervention, asks Paul Randolph
The mediation community has been encouraged by the repeated remarks of government ministers and other leading figures, expressing their determination to promote mediation.But this will not happen unless the government grasps the nettle and makes mediation compulsory—or alternatively, unless mediation undergoes a major marketing makeover. Or both.
In this publication in April last year (160 NLJ 7412, p 499), I compared mediation and litigation to two stain removers: “mediation” was recommended by many as a fast, cheap, and easy to use stain remover, effective on most stains; whereas litigation was slow, expensive to use, and invariably left an indelible stain. Yet the public are queuing up to buy litigation, and leaving mediation on the shelf. Such a marketing conundrum demands an explanation, and a prudent manufacturer would ask: “Where are we going wrong?”
The root of the problem is that most parties in dispute seek only one thing: “justice”—and they associate justice and fairness only with judges and the courts. We are thus victims of the success of our judicial system. Disputants have a
