Mediation Observation Paper - Assignment Example

Mediation Observation Paper Mediation has proved an alternative, reliable and one of the most effective methods of solving problems faced by individuals. Mediation offers a better way of conflict resolution when compared to court system of conflict resolution. The effectiveness and appropriateness of mediation is that it gives individual parties chances to express themselves with assurance of maintaining confidentiality of the views. Mediation also ensure protection of human rights as the process provides an open ground for free expression of opinions as to the way forward out of the conflict faced. Unlike, the court system of conflict resolution that may take days due to postponements, mediation consumes very short time as the mediator only depends on the speed at which the conflicting individuals will decide to settle their differences (Lovenheim and Lisa 34). Mediation also offers cheaper avenue of conflict resolution as fines and bonds are usually not involved in the process. This paper will focus on two mediation cases that involved different participants and parties. The mediation case in focus involved James Nguyen, a student of Chapman law and who acted as the mediator between Robert and Swoboda who were the plaintiffs and Keith Mullens who was the defendant at the Corona Superior Court. Robert and Swoboda were couples who rented their house to Keith who upon vacation left the couple’s house in damaged state and was therefore sued for failure to pay for repair and rent of the previous month. However the disagreements, it became apparent that the plaintiffs and the defendant had never engaged in any conflict for the past five years that Keith rented the plaintiffs’ structure. All the parties were convinced and accepted to engage mediation process and Keith indicated that he would not be able to pay for the alleged damages and therefore requested that the plaintiffs drop the demands. On the other side, the plaintiffs held strongly that they could not drop the demands and the case was taken back to court where the plaintiffs were denied their demands after long period of time. Effective mediation requires that the individual mediator follow certain sequential processes and procedures that will enable him/her comfort the parties and achieve utmost transparency of opinions and views. Usually, mediation process begins with introduction between the mediator and the individual parties and any other additional party present in the session(s). The introduction part is usually very critical as it determines the moods and emotions of the individual conflicting parties and allows the mediator an opportunity to employ other strategies to comfort the parties (Douglas and James 4). Introductory part of the mediation process requires the mediator use the most appropriate physical presentation to ensure that no individual party is frightened or threatened by the just intended process. According to Douglas and James, this stage needs to be accomplished with all parties who are located in different structures (6). In the introductory stage, the mediator clarifies the roles of each participant in the process and explains the rules that should govern the mediation process and the actual time frame for the process. The mediator will then acknowledge by reaffirming to both parties about the issues under determination or the actual cause for the mediation (Cohen 6). In his mediation practice, James Nguyen involved all necessary aspects introduction to ensure that nothing was left in doubt. In introducing my friend Abdul Sameer and I, James described us as his fellow law students who had come to particularly assess his progress and approach to the mediation process. James reiterated to the individual conflicting parties that we the third party had nothing to do with their discussion and therefore the parties had no reason to fear expressing their vies in transparent manner. It is at this level of mediation that James Nguyen informed the conflicting parties about the rules that were set to govern the mediation process and the roles of every party involved in the process. In this introductory stage of mediation, James first contacted and identified with the plaintiffs and then later with the defendants. Douglas and James indicate that after the introduction stage, mediation goes to the next process that involves gathering of individuals’ view regarding the conflict in jeopardy (6). This level of mediation involves narration by individuals demonstrating what each feel could have been the cause of the conflict. Effective narration requires presence of the individual mediator and one party involved in the particular conflict. This level also requires diligence of the mediator to ensure that he/she is able to detect and counter any emotional change appearing on the individual client. During narration, it is also required that the mediator ensure minimal interruption and disturbance to individual respondent. It is after gathering narrations from both parties, which sometimes may require writing to ascertain the level of concern of the mediator on the issue that mediator will be in a position to determine the possibility of the two groups reaching a solution and the appropriate skills to involve in the next stage. James Nguyen also happened to involve this process in his attempt to mediate Robert, Swoboda, and Keith. James gave individual parties significant chances to express their views without any interruption. In move to further assure the parties about the confidentiality of manner discussed, James reiterated that the notes he recorded were only intended for use in that particular mediation and will be destroyed immediately after the whole process. He further assured the parties that their individual views would not be shared by the other party in a manner that betray the individual’s integrity, but to seek for solution. Gathering of information through questioning is the next level in the mediation process. This level basically involves determination of goals and expectations of the conflicting parties (Douglas and James 10). Questioning in itself enables the individual mediator determines the points that are not understood and therefore may clarify further to ensure that every each individual is conversant with the entire process. In our observatory session of the mediation process, James Nguyen did ask the parties to express their goals and their expectations about the eventual outcome of the process. After knowing the goals and expectations of each conflicting party, James stated that the parties were at free liberty to request for stop of the mediation process if in case they felt unsatisfied and that he will not feel bad or offended. As reported by Douglas and James, the next procedure in the mediation process is presentation of options (12). This is usually the role of the mediator who walks into the rooms of both the parties and informs them of the options available to facilitate the process. At this level again, the mediator needs to assure each individual parties about his neutrality in the matter (Stepp). In order to ensure full neutrality, the individual mediator may need to engage the different parties discussing and weighing the options by typically touching on the pros and cons of all the available options. The mediator also needs create scenarios for the conflicting parties to enable the conflicting individuals arrive at the best decisions of their interests (Duffy, James and Paul 227). It is at this level that the mediator needs to state to the conflicting parties that he is not legal advisor and therefore will not advise the parties on the next legal partake. Moving through this process, James reminded the individual conflicting parties it was upon them to accept mediation and sign an agreement to continue with the process. He also informed that in case they did not pleasure having the mediation, they would be left with the alternative of going to court. In stating the advantages of mediation, James indicated to the individual conflicting parties that mediation was the fastest, cheap and most convenient process of conflict resolution (Murray). James further reminded the parties that returning the conflict to the court in its unresolved manner may take unnecessary long period time before justice is determined. James promised every individual that they could decide on what to do and that he would respect any decisions made by each individual. In the process, it became apparent that the defendant declined to pay the perceived arrears and still asked if they could continue with the mediation process to solve statements. The plaintiffs on the other hand rejected the requests of the defendant and thus bringing mediation to a halt and moving of the parities back to court. James Nguyen applied almost all important methods and strategies to keep the parties feel comfortable and treasured in the mediation process. Every time James entered into a mediation room he asked for forgiveness for having kept parties waiting for long. James also kept on smiling to the parties as a way comforting the conflicting parties. James also displayed high sense of humility. In addition, James talked to the parties in very polite manner in way that signalized how important James considered the case. His manner of staring at the individual parties during negotiations and nodding styles indicated his level of seriousness and commitment in listening and help solve the impending conflict. James also demonstrated high levels of democracy in the mediation process as he left decisions and opinions about how the mediation was to be run in the hands of the conflicting parties. James made himself to at lowest level in process as failed to offer any solution to the parties and relied on their permission if there arose any need to share the recorded opinions. The level of leniency depicted by James in the mediation process also became evident when he allowed the individual parties time to talk and express their problems. He also reiterated on need to maintain confidentiality of the matter and discussion by proposing the burning of the papers immediately after the session. James was very sensitive to assume any unclear issue unexplained. In so doing, he made the parties understand the reasons why they had been separated and hosted in different rooms. He informed them that the actions were defining the interests of the individual parties. James also portrayed serious focus to creating a transparent environment attributed to self introduction as a law student under internship and committed to ensure that mediation results into desirable outcomes. When mediating, James Nguyen displayed high levels of leadership qualities. He begun by introducing himself to the parties and then introducing Abdul Sameer and me, after which he allowed the individual parties to introduce themselves. Instead of moving direct to the agenda of the meeting, James further exhibited leadership by welcoming the parties into the session. as a leader, James explained every aspect of law that would govern the mediation process as well making the parties understand the available options and their impacts of each option on the mediation process. As leader, he made himself ready to listen to the expression of each party despite the fact that he knew and understood the issues to be solved. James also displayed good levels of intuition as he tried to apply every principles of good mediator in the entire process. His intuition guided him to avoid presenting or making solutions to the problems faced by the individual conflicting parties. Furthermore, intuition guided James in informing the parties that he will not be a position to give any legal advice to any individual and that each one had to decide on the most suitable interest. James also managed to create hope in the process of mediation as he reiterated the importance of mediation citing its convenience, efficiency and time saving capabilities. As a way of showing hope in the mediation process, James made himself become a careful listener who nodded and maintained appropriate eye contact with the individual conflicting parties. His optimism on the process was also evident from repeated apologies and smiles every time he entered the rooms occupied by individual parties. During and at the end of the mediation, James Nguyen displayed high levels of professionalism in the field. I must confess that his approach and momentum with which he handled the mediation was probably the best for that case. The fact that the two parties were unable to reach to an amicable solution had noting translating to incompetence of James. In fact, if he could have attempted to mend both parties stand by convincing either side to change their stand, he could appear biased and taking side. From the perspectives, I felt that James did the best and in case I was the one handling the issue I could have applied the same approach. Throughout the mediation process, James maintained neutral ground and stand without any point of relenting to the demands of one side. Every view and decision of each individual party was shared and discussed with the other group to assess the practicality of the proposals. When it came to gathering of information, James ensured that he treated and handled each party in equal manner as the other. He allowed all the parties ample time of explaining their views without interruptions. He also used similar questions on both the parties with particular focus being on the goals and expectations of individual conflicting parties. When Keith Mullen indicated that he would not pay for any claim, James made the same report to the plaintiffs who turned down Keith’s requests and James found it necessary to return the case back into the court room. At no point did the mediator appear to cross or almost cross any ethical boundaries of either the parties or we the observers. The mediator remained focused and heavily relied on intuition that governs mediation process. He showed respect to both the parties and did not at any instance investigate private lives led by the parties. In fact, mediator relied and depended on what he was told by individual parties and reported just the same communications to the other party without adding or changing anything. At the end of gathering information from both the parties, mediator reread the writings to the particular party just to confirm that what was recorded was actually what the party intended to share. With such strictness, mediator ensured that he did not report any lie or make false reports from individual parties. I must also comment that the two conflicting parties did adhere to the laws and rules of mediation. Considering the actions of defendant Keith of asking the plaintiffs to drop the claims demanding for payment of money to repair the damages made in the house and further call for mediation did not breach any set rules in the mediation process. Similar, the failure by the plaintiffs to accept the proposals of Keith did not breach any rules of mediation as they exercised their rights inconformity to the directives that they could request for stop of the mediation process when they felt unsatisfied. The parties came to realize the benefits of mediation after the case had been returned to court where declaration delayed for a long period of time. The final ruling by the court favored the defendant who in the very initial stages of requested that mediation be continued. The plaintiffs are one who learnt the best lessons about the benefits of mediations but this happened in a hard manner after they lost in the conflict. The issue that led to the conflict surely qualified for mediation considering the meager claims involved in the conflict. The parties could solve the conflict better by talking and discussing various aspects of the conflict and could finally reach out to the best solution than presenting the issue to the court. Mediation had opportunity of making the plaintiffs understand and appreciate the long term good relation they enjoyed with the defendant. In conclusion, mediation is one of the best methods of solving conflicts and disagreements between different parties. Mediation is best applied in solving issues relating to social and civil affairs. Effectiveness of a given mediation depends on the level of conformity and approach to various processes that directs mediation. Good mediation process also requires that individual mediator allow maximum participation of the conflicting parties with the mediator just facilitating the process towards realization of the best possible results. The above discussed mediation session conducted by James Nguyen and observed by my friend Abdul Sameer and I complied to the best practices of mediation as there were no abuse of individuals’ rights and the mediator also kept from making decisions or solutions to bind the two parties. Every step and view about the directions of the mediation was left at the hands and liberty of the conflicting parties. Works cited Cohen, Richard. Students Resolving Conflict: Peer Mediation in Schools. Tucson, AZ: Good Year Books, 2005. Print. Douglas, Frenkel and James Stark. The practice of Mediation. New York: Aspen Publisher. 2012. Print. Duffy, Karen G, James W. Grosch, and Paul V. Olczak. Community Mediation: A Handbook for Practitioners and Researchers. New York: Guilford Press, 1991. Print. 227 Lovenheim, Peter, and Lisa Guerin. Mediate, Don't Litigate. Berkeley, Calif: Nolo, 2004. Print. Murray, Jean. The Mediation Process Explained. 2012. Web. < http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/resolvingbusinessdisputes/a/mediationproces.htm>. Stepp, Jessica. How Does The Mediation Process Work? 2003. Web. < http://www.mediate.com/articles/steppJ.cfm>. Read More