<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ADR as a Human Rights Violation (??)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/2010/06/adr-as-a-human-rights-violation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/2010/06/adr-as-a-human-rights-violation/</link>
	<description>Conflict Management Expertise from F. Peter Phillips</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 07:35:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/2010/06/adr-as-a-human-rights-violation/comment-page-1/#comment-1742</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/?p=603#comment-1742</guid>
		<description>Un uomo saggio parla

-- FPP</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Un uomo saggio parla</p>
<p>&#8211; FPP</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael McIlwrath</title>
		<link>http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/2010/06/adr-as-a-human-rights-violation/comment-page-1/#comment-1741</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael McIlwrath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:25:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/?p=603#comment-1741</guid>
		<description>Peter, although I come late to this interesting post of yours, I'd like to make a couple of points in favor of mandatory mediation in Italy and other locations.  
1.  In many (most) jurisdictions around the world, including Italy, mediation is virtually unknown to parties and practitioners.  The only way to get parties to the mediation table in the first place, is through some type of "forcing" mechanism, like a requirement to mediate as a precondition to filing suit (Italy) or costs sanctions for failing or refusing to do so.  Voluntary mediation is virtually non-existent.
2.  In any system, there will be vested (financial) interests in preserving any type of inefficiency, and initiatives to reduce inefficiencies are perceived as threats.  Certainly, parties/consumers have very little financial (and no human rights) interest in being able to go directly to court instead of passing first through a free mediation, but a considerable part of the bar does.  In Italy, small claims - even € 1,000 - can entitle lawyers to recover their legal fees.  It may only be € 100, or even less, and recovery of these modest fees may consistitute a portion of many lawyers' income (and these are truly small claims, as there are no rights of class action to speak of.)
3.  Therefore, it is not a question of human rights or access to justice for consumers, but really "access to fees" for a part of the bar that is driving the opposition to mandatory mediation, in Italy and other locations.

And there you have an answer to your question as to why an Italian court has treated mandatory mediation as a violation of human rights:  because it is perceived as a threat to those with an interest in the legal system's existing inefficiencies.  It remains to be seen whether the new law that Alessandro describes will ultimately represent a bold step forward, or if those with vested interests will find a way to diminish it to a small step that preserves the status quo inefficiencies.  Italy invented the concept of avoiding change by changing just a bit.  (Tommasi di Lampedusa's famous words in The Leopard.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter, although I come late to this interesting post of yours, I&#8217;d like to make a couple of points in favor of mandatory mediation in Italy and other locations.<br />
1.  In many (most) jurisdictions around the world, including Italy, mediation is virtually unknown to parties and practitioners.  The only way to get parties to the mediation table in the first place, is through some type of &#8220;forcing&#8221; mechanism, like a requirement to mediate as a precondition to filing suit (Italy) or costs sanctions for failing or refusing to do so.  Voluntary mediation is virtually non-existent.<br />
2.  In any system, there will be vested (financial) interests in preserving any type of inefficiency, and initiatives to reduce inefficiencies are perceived as threats.  Certainly, parties/consumers have very little financial (and no human rights) interest in being able to go directly to court instead of passing first through a free mediation, but a considerable part of the bar does.  In Italy, small claims - even € 1,000 - can entitle lawyers to recover their legal fees.  It may only be € 100, or even less, and recovery of these modest fees may consistitute a portion of many lawyers&#8217; income (and these are truly small claims, as there are no rights of class action to speak of.)<br />
3.  Therefore, it is not a question of human rights or access to justice for consumers, but really &#8220;access to fees&#8221; for a part of the bar that is driving the opposition to mandatory mediation, in Italy and other locations.</p>
<p>And there you have an answer to your question as to why an Italian court has treated mandatory mediation as a violation of human rights:  because it is perceived as a threat to those with an interest in the legal system&#8217;s existing inefficiencies.  It remains to be seen whether the new law that Alessandro describes will ultimately represent a bold step forward, or if those with vested interests will find a way to diminish it to a small step that preserves the status quo inefficiencies.  Italy invented the concept of avoiding change by changing just a bit.  (Tommasi di Lampedusa&#8217;s famous words in The Leopard.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul S. McDonough</title>
		<link>http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/2010/06/adr-as-a-human-rights-violation/comment-page-1/#comment-1710</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul S. McDonough</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:16:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/?p=603#comment-1710</guid>
		<description>I conducted a difficult, but successful mediation for the U.S E.E.O.C. today. It would not have succeeded if the parties were not willing to engage in the process, but were forced into it.

By definition, mediation is a voluntary process; to me mandatory mediation is an oxymoron and a delay in the process. Parties must buy into the procedure and not see it as a way to get free discovery for it to be successful.

Paul S. McDonough</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I conducted a difficult, but successful mediation for the U.S E.E.O.C. today. It would not have succeeded if the parties were not willing to engage in the process, but were forced into it.</p>
<p>By definition, mediation is a voluntary process; to me mandatory mediation is an oxymoron and a delay in the process. Parties must buy into the procedure and not see it as a way to get free discovery for it to be successful.</p>
<p>Paul S. McDonough</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: F. Peter Phillips</title>
		<link>http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/2010/06/adr-as-a-human-rights-violation/comment-page-1/#comment-1707</link>
		<dc:creator>F. Peter Phillips</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:13:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/?p=603#comment-1707</guid>
		<description>Alessandro:

Thanks for your informative reply.  Among my many questions is this:  The Human Rights Convention applies everywhere, not just Italy.  Why is it that only in Italy is the claim made that mandatory mediation violates the Convention?

(Best personal wishes, and I hope to see you soon!)

-- Peter</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alessandro:</p>
<p>Thanks for your informative reply.  Among my many questions is this:  The Human Rights Convention applies everywhere, not just Italy.  Why is it that only in Italy is the claim made that mandatory mediation violates the Convention?</p>
<p>(Best personal wishes, and I hope to see you soon!)</p>
<p>&#8211; Peter</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alessandro BRUNI</title>
		<link>http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/2010/06/adr-as-a-human-rights-violation/comment-page-1/#comment-1705</link>
		<dc:creator>Alessandro BRUNI</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/?p=603#comment-1705</guid>
		<description>Dear  Peter,

the problem if ADR clause violates Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ensuring access to the courts, is old like the world.
In Italy we are discussing wheter mandatory (by law)  mediation is against the Constitution or not!
Some lawyer and SOME civil procedure professor say that if a law provides for mandatory attempt of mediation this must be considered as violation of article 24 of Italian Constitution that says that: "Everyone can take legal action to protect their legitimate rights and interests. The defense is inviolable at every stage and level of the proceedings".
In nuce, they say that nobody can be forced for a prior attempt of mediation because mediation has to be only on voluntary basis and if the contrary happens it is not constitutional.
This problem has now to be considered with major attention because of the new mediation law.
On 20 March 2010 was enacted the new Italian legislative decree No. 28
The above mentioned Decree contains rules regulating and promoting the use of mediation in civil and commercial disputes in Italy.
What is most novel and noteworthy about the Decree is its introduction of mandatory mediation to the Italian legal system and also, depending on the results of the mandatory mediation, the arrangements for judicial expenses.
The Decree has established that disputes in the following categories are subject to mandatory mediation: condominium and real rights; division proceedings; hereditary succession; family agreements; lease; gratuitous bail; business leasing; compensation for damages deriving from medical liability and defamation through the press or other means of publicity; insurance, banking and financial agreements.
We are waiting for the implementing decrees... which are expected for release in September !!!
CROSS OUR FINGERS!!B :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear  Peter,</p>
<p>the problem if ADR clause violates Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ensuring access to the courts, is old like the world.<br />
In Italy we are discussing wheter mandatory (by law)  mediation is against the Constitution or not!<br />
Some lawyer and SOME civil procedure professor say that if a law provides for mandatory attempt of mediation this must be considered as violation of article 24 of Italian Constitution that says that: &#8220;Everyone can take legal action to protect their legitimate rights and interests. The defense is inviolable at every stage and level of the proceedings&#8221;.<br />
In nuce, they say that nobody can be forced for a prior attempt of mediation because mediation has to be only on voluntary basis and if the contrary happens it is not constitutional.<br />
This problem has now to be considered with major attention because of the new mediation law.<br />
On 20 March 2010 was enacted the new Italian legislative decree No. 28<br />
The above mentioned Decree contains rules regulating and promoting the use of mediation in civil and commercial disputes in Italy.<br />
What is most novel and noteworthy about the Decree is its introduction of mandatory mediation to the Italian legal system and also, depending on the results of the mandatory mediation, the arrangements for judicial expenses.<br />
The Decree has established that disputes in the following categories are subject to mandatory mediation: condominium and real rights; division proceedings; hereditary succession; family agreements; lease; gratuitous bail; business leasing; compensation for damages deriving from medical liability and defamation through the press or other means of publicity; insurance, banking and financial agreements.<br />
We are waiting for the implementing decrees&#8230; which are expected for release in September !!!<br />
CROSS OUR FINGERS!!B <img src='http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Markowitz</title>
		<link>http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/2010/06/adr-as-a-human-rights-violation/comment-page-1/#comment-1697</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Markowitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:42:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/?p=603#comment-1697</guid>
		<description>Due to spending cutbacks required by California's continuing budget crisis, our time to trial will soon be approaching the 887 days reported in Italy.  And appeals already take a comparable amount of time.  Given those kinds of delays in access to court, would I be in favor of mandatory mediation prior to filing a lawsuit?  I think not, because to me the idea of "mandatory" is inconsistent with the idea of "mediation."  They are almost a contradiction in terms.  Since I believe that mediation should be voluntary, I might even agree that any procedure, even a procedure as wonderful as mediation, should not be required prior to filing a lawsuit.  If someone owes me money, or runs me over with their car, or fires me from my job, I should have the right to sue them immediately!  Then even if my case might not come to trial for two years (and 95% of cases never get to trial anyway), they still have to hire a lawyer and respond to my suit right away.  After I have the satisfaction of making someone respond to my suit right away, then maybe I would be interested in mediation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Due to spending cutbacks required by California&#8217;s continuing budget crisis, our time to trial will soon be approaching the 887 days reported in Italy.  And appeals already take a comparable amount of time.  Given those kinds of delays in access to court, would I be in favor of mandatory mediation prior to filing a lawsuit?  I think not, because to me the idea of &#8220;mandatory&#8221; is inconsistent with the idea of &#8220;mediation.&#8221;  They are almost a contradiction in terms.  Since I believe that mediation should be voluntary, I might even agree that any procedure, even a procedure as wonderful as mediation, should not be required prior to filing a lawsuit.  If someone owes me money, or runs me over with their car, or fires me from my job, I should have the right to sue them immediately!  Then even if my case might not come to trial for two years (and 95% of cases never get to trial anyway), they still have to hire a lawyer and respond to my suit right away.  After I have the satisfaction of making someone respond to my suit right away, then maybe I would be interested in mediation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

