|
News
|
Amid fierce opposition from some leading mediators, The Netherlands-based International Mediation Institute (IMI) announced the composition of its standards commission in January.
The commission will oversee the organisation’s Certificate of Mediator Competency, which aims to enhance confidence in mediation and promote greater use of the process in jurisdictions where mediation is less well established.
Though sympathetic to some of the objects of the IMI, leading figures in the profession have voiced doubts as to whether the scheme in its present form will achieve its ends. Leading mediator Tony Willis labelled aspects of the venture, ‘impossibly cumbersome’ and concluded ‘it will be damaging to the profession.’
The commission will comprise four workgroups: one to research then set the necessary standards for mediator competence in training, education, experience, and leadership. A second group will work on standards for ‘intercultural mediator competency certification’ which will be available to previously certified professional mediators. A third work group will determine criteria, standards, process and licensing terms for ‘registered educational establishments’. The fourth and final group will collaborate with the other three to handle all other requirements of ‘professional mediator competency certification,’ including license terms for the IMI name and logo by certified mediators, quality control and supervision of IMI certifications, and criteria for adequate professional liability indemnity insurance.
 Willis, who has been urging mediators to take up this issue for themselves for some time, said, ‘Lots of us have thought about how mediation should be policed to achieve high standards in the interests of users and the profession but there’s no evidence that a scheme like this will do anything of the kind.’ He continued: ‘I disagree root and branch with most of the detail. It is cumbersome, expensive and is likely to provide a barrier to new entrants.’
Part of the problem for Willis is what he calls ‘a one size fits all approach’ to many different jurisdictions and legal systems, irrespective of the existing availability of mediators and differing standards and organisation.
Willis is also concerned that the organisation is overly dependent on service providers and that mediators’ interests are not sufficiently well represented. These structural biases, he believes, risk placing an undue burden on mediators. The disclosure of business plans and feedback, for example, to a service-provider-appointed mentor, would be an expensive and time-consuming imposition on mediators, he says, adding, ‘No other established profession has anything like this scheme.’
While Willis knows several of the mediators on the standards commission and has ‘a high regard for them individually’ he does not see ‘large numbers of professional mediators’ in the organisation who ‘understand the reality of day to day practice.’ He concludes that, ‘If those concerned with these proposals had worked with professional mediators from the outset, much more sense might have emerged.’
Michael McIlwrath, co-chair of the Standards Commission and senior litigation counsel at GE, is conscious of criticisms but believes IMI is set up to learn from them and adapt. ‘There’s a structure there,’ he said, ‘but nothing’s set in stone. As a company you have to adapt, and Michael [Leathes] has done an excellent job in bringing all kinds of people in, including dissenters. It can only make us stronger.’ 
McIlwrath is also dismissive of suggestions that the scheme will deter new mediators: ‘GE would not be associated with this initiative if it were perceived as creating barriers to entry. It’s about being sensible, responsible, and making profession more attractive so people in jurisdictions that haven’t benefited from the Woolf Reforms will have the confidence to try mediation. GE is not supporting this for the glory of it,’ he said, ‘we are supporting it because it’s in GE’s financial interests. And the spread of mediation globally is in GE’s financial interests.’
The subcommittees will spend the next two months on information-gathering exercises before reporting to the IMI Board.
|
News Analysis 
