I have been mediating for several years now and with the Covid Pandemic I have had to consider the pros and cons of face-to-face mediations compared to online mediation. Here are some interesting benefits of both online and in person mediations.
Online mediation
My first online mediation was brilliant! It definitely exceeded my expectations!
Throughout the pandemic I only carried out two face to face and at a distance mediation and even then, I was only present for 3 hours with the rest of the paperwork and discussions taking place online.
It’s great when the clients are in different countries and you’re dong online medaition. Also, if it is an emotional dispute or with elderly clients then the comfort of being in their own home or in a geographical area in which they feel comfortable can have positive outcomes. This helps them to take a break from the mediation and in turn helping them to think and consider the making of difficult decisions that mediations often involve.
Learning from online
The initial online pre mediation meeting is now quite the norm. Soon after lockdown everyone was getting to grips with technology BUT it soon became clear that this meeting in advance to meet the mediator made parties feel very comfortable.
Face to face mediation
The good thing about in-person mediation has been the ease and effectiveness of personal interactions – the body language , the highs and lows of the way people speak and answer questions and so the benefits of such conversations are an essential part of mediation.
I find it easier to build rapport and pick-up on the non-verbal clues when I am physically present with all the parties. It is also more natural to continue the conversations in the private rooms and expand on conversations beyond the dispute. It’s these informal conversations which can sometimes lead to an unexpected insight for a settlement.
I recently mediated a trust dispute in which each of the parties was present in a representative capacity; they didn’t know each other, and their lack of familiarity and trust was hindering a constructive dialogue. Chatting generally in one room, it became clear to me that the parties had far more in common than they realised. The parties then met to share stories about their respective backgrounds and their memories of the deceased. That conversation was a pivotal point in establishing trust and a platform for negotiations to settlement.
Face-to-face conversations between principals can have far greater power than indirect messages. In one recent mediation the impediment to settlement was the inability of one party to accept that the trust and confidence between her and the other party had broken down to such an extent that the termination of the relationship was inevitable. That acceptance, and hence settlement, was only made possible by a face-to-face, principal-to-principal meeting (with lawyers holding a watching brief) at which the strength of feeling was communicated directly.
So – remote or in-person mediation? Over the past two months my mediations have been 50: 50. Clients and their lawyers clearly recognise the benefits of each, appreciate the flexibility they offer and will continue to use the process best suited to their dispute and circumstances.
Leave a Reply