Samantha Lowe ran a #TuesdayThoughts debate on twitter this month which considered whether lawyers only meetings help move matters forward when emotions are running high or whether
mediation is a better form of negotiation. Samantha Lowe takes the view that it all depends on the commerciality of the lawyers whether this can work..... she asked her twitter followers whether they agreed and what was their experience?
#unlockhorns Here are some of the comments...
"Commerciality is a good word actually. Switching from an adversarial, win at all costs mentality to a neutral position allows you to evaluate the merits more effectively which ultimately leads to a fair and cost effective outcome."
"Without a decent mediator to control the posturing you really are relying on a meeting of the minds. It can work with sensible lawyers but that also depends on sensible instructions."
"An adversarial approach is unhelpful. An assertive yet practical &commercial approach is refreshing when it is clear on both sides therefore the suggestion of a lawyers only meeting can help the clients make progress
#unlockhorns"
"Mediations [ are ] more effective. Without the mediator there it often turns into a chest puffing, posturing exercise in blowing a lot of hot air through a thick cloud of subjectivity. Lawyer only meetings can be really effective if: a. the lawyer, whether solicitor, barrister, CILEx or otherwise, knows what they’re doing; or b. the lawyer has no clue whatsoever what they’re doing. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Interesting points made and ones which Samantha Lowe aboslutely agrees with. It's a case of mindset when negotiating. A neutral thrid party comes at a relatively low cost and can add a significant amount of value to bring litigation to a conclusion.
#unlockhorns
