Dearbhaile Flynn

Ardbear

Clifden

Co. Galway

Introduction and Definition

Collaborative Lawyering (CL) is the term used to describe a revolutionary practice that has developed in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution[1]. Providing an alternative to traditional litigation, it is premised on the concept of coupling the problem solving and interest- based negotiation principles of mediation with an additional element – a commitment by the parties and their attorneys to settlement[2]. 

It is the intention of this paper to provide a critical analysis of the emergence of CL as well as an examination of the individual elements that comprise its practice, so that its worth and potential might be established. That is, to justify that CL is indeed a “way forward” and not a “waste of time”. However, it is submitted that in order for CL to move forward it must overcome its ethical and procedural shortcomings and so these issues will also be examined and potential solutions proposed[3]. 

The CL Model 

The emotional and psychological trauma for litigants involved in family law disputes is well documented[4]. Daicoff states that the “traditional system of family law litigation is often disastrous emotionally and financially for families and divorcing couples.[5]” Strickland outlines that nowhere can the negative effects of litigation and the lack of confidence in legal representation be seen more clearly, than in the area of family disputes [6]. Tessler outlines that the court is an inappropriate place to resolve issues that arise from family dissolution as judges and lawyers on the whole, do not possess the requisite emotional objectivity and skills[7].

Legal practitioners are far from immune to the effects of the harrowing ordeal that is family law litigation[8]_. The stresses of traditional representation have been found to be “nearly catastrophic for the mental and physical health of lawyers[9].”

The dissatisfaction felt by both parties and practitioners involved in family law is evidenced by “changing dynamics in the litigation process[10]” – 90% of all lawsuits now settle without ever going to trial[11]. However, despite the obvious and substantial financial and emotional savings that can be made when a couple can resolve a divorce without resort to courtroom adjudication[12], most of these cases settle, after much expense and time “on the courthouse steps, between disillusioned, embittered opponents[13].” 

CL comes into the breach and takes the advantages of settlement “to the next level[14]”. Webb describes his vision as “removing the trial aspects and creating a coterie of lawyers who would agree to take cases only for settlement[15]”. Thus “interest based negotiation” is employed as the means for resolving family law disputes and focus is placed on the issues of both parties involved in order to produce solutions addressing the needs of all[16].

CL removes the “game playing” and posturing (of litigation) and encourages the parties to disclose their needs to each other in order to generate an honest, all encompassing settlement[17]. As per Vickers J, “In an adversarial system claims are dealt with to produce a win/lose result. Interest negotiations, designed to take opposing interests into account, have the potential to achieve a win/win result. [18]”

The client’s role in CL is fundamental to its success as it is the direct participation of the client and their autonomy in creating solutions and making decisions (with support from their legal counsel) that makes the process less traumatic and more productive than litigation[19]. Hilbert voices a concern that the client may not be in the right frame of mind emotionally nor possess sufficient experience and familiarity with the legal system to play such an integral role[20]. However, Lande outlines that having the support and guidance of legal counsel, as well as the ability and facility to generate solutions without adversarial pressure, allows clients to overcome their vulnerabilities and insecurities[21]

CL has been heralded by family lawyers, judges and clients as a “method of meeting the needs of those involved in the divorce process with the added benefit of being less destructive to parties than traditional divorce proceedings[22].” It is unclear whether the practice is in fact a faster or more cost effective alternative to traditional litigation[23]. However the merits of CL can be seen by the rapid and dramatic acceleration in its practice[24]. It is now routinely practiced throughout the United States[25] and is also practiced Australia, Canada, and throughout Europe[26].

Overview of the Individual Elements of the CL Process

Participation Agreement-

The Participation Agreement gives CL “its’ spine[27]”. It is the Participation Agreement that distinguishes CL from other forms of alternative dispute resolution by ensuring that the participants and their attorneys commit themselves fully to “good faith bargaining, voluntary full disclosures, interest-based bargaining (and the inclusion) of relational and long-term interests in the identification of clients’ goals and strategies[28]”.

Commitment to Disqualification-

One of the most important aspects of the Participation Agreement is a resolution that should the parties find themselves unable to reach a settlement, litigation proceedings can only be entered into with new legal representation[29]. That is to say that CL Lawyers are disqualified from representing their clients in litigation following failure of the CL process. Lawrence observes that by contracting away their right to continue the dispute into litigation, both attorneys and clients increase the stakes in the negation process and make a real commitment to settlement[30].

Four Way Meetings-

Once the Participation Agreement has been signed the parties and their attorneys proceed to “Four Way Meetings”. Four way meetings, in their open transparent and face to face manner, facilitate the parties’ commitment to being respectful, providing full disclosure of relevant information and addressing each other’s legitimate needs[31]. Tessler opines that the four way meetings give rise to an enhanced creative process that ultimately results in better settlement agreements[32].

 Macfarlane notes that the set-up of the four way meeting ensures that the client is always present to hear and directly respond to the advocacy put forward by their attorney on their behalf[33]. Thus the 4 way meeting perpetuates an interesting dynamic, with the counselling (that usually takes place in private between a client and his attorney) and advocacy (usually manifested publically but as a manifestation of decisions made in private) roles played by the lawyer now interwoven into one role with no physical distinction between the two[34].

The parties continue the four way meetings until a satisfactory settlement is reached[35] or return to litigation with new counsel.

Procedural and Ethical Concerns-

Central to the process of CL is a movement away from the traditional position of the lawyer as “a knight in shining armour whose courtroom lance strikes down all obstacles[36]” to one where the lawyer is part of a “pit crew[37]”.The win-lose dynamic of the traditional adversarial model is replaced by a team approach centred on problem solving[38]. Critics differ as to whether this difference in approach constitutes a complete paradigm change[39] in the profession or merely a natural evolution, the product of the convergence of litigation and consensus building cultures[40].

Whether in fact the new approach to lawyering has emerged as a result of a paradigm shift or natural evolution is beyond the scope of this paper. What is of paramount importance for the purpose of this paper, in assessing the overall value and worth of CL, is a discussion on the many ethical and procedural issues that have arisen as a result of this new approach.

Interest-based negotiation does not come naturally to lawyers[41]. Hilbert notes that engaging in problem solving approaches, whilst at the same time zealously representing a client is no mean feat[42] and lawyers have displayed a certain reluctance to adapt to the change in parameters fundamental to CL[43]. Menkel-Meadow outlines that the concept of focussing on underlying interests and “forging a joint agreement that would meet the needs of both parties was (and is) countercultural to the way most parties approach negotiations[44].” Indeed, it is the “attorney personality” itself that may pose the biggest obstacle to effective collaborative practice[45].

Essentially what must be ascertained is whether a lawyer is capable of acting as both a zealous advocate and as an interest based negotiator for his client. And if he is so capable, what are the ethical consequences of this dual role.  

Mnookin describes the benefits of the collaborative lawyering arrangement as creating “powerful incentives to search for a reasonable solution without litigation. Each lawyer knows that he cannot profit from the use of litigation[46].” However, as an advocate it is the duty of a lawyer to zealously represent the interests of his client, and so it is necessary to question whether such zealous advocacy is possible where the lawyer has locked themselves into a position as “settlement counsel[47]”.

It would appear that such a stance is indeed possible for two main reasons. Firstly the client, by signing the Participation Agreement, has consented to the “attorney’s singular pursuit of settlement without resort to litigation or the threat of litigation[48]”. Thus the client is aware of the limitations of the representation and so their lawyers’ actions are essentially advocating for them. Secondly, several proponents of CL suggest that “zealous advocacy” must be determined on a wider, more all encompassing scale. MacFarlane notes that “few lawyers would understand their advocacy responsibilities as narrowly” as what is contended in the traditional adversarial model[49]. Zealous advocacy could be fulfilled by the fact that the best interests of the client are served by a collaborative, as opposed to adversarial model – taking into account the overall interests of the client in the circumstances as opposed to litigating purely for financial or proprietary gain[50]. As Strickland notes, “zealous advocacy has never meant mindlessly pursuing every possible objective or trying to get the biggest piece of the pie every time[51].”

However, it is this “piece of the pie” that embodies one of the main criticisms of CL – it may not always be feasible for a CL lawyer to advocate zealously within the terms of the Participation Agreement as the CL lawyer must consider interests other than those of his client[52]. MacFarlane notes that the CL lawyer must consider the needs of the whole family in problem solving to reach a suitable settlement and that there is therefore a danger that the over eager (often inexperienced) CL Lawyer, may resign from the advocacy responsibilities they owe to their own client[53]. As Annable points out, “sooner or later the pie must be cut and the value claimed” and there is a danger that a client may have to forego a particularly viable “piece of the pie” in the hopes of reaching a settlement[54].

In such a situation, notwithstanding the client’s informed consent to the process, it cannot be considered just or ethical that a client feels compelled to take a bad settlement for fear of incurring more expense and time. However Schwab’s research, however, seemingly disproves the claim that the disqualification provision applies inappropriate pressure on clients to settle[55]. Similarly, Macfarlane’s research found that “positional bargaining” in CL “simply does not work”[56]. As a result, settlement figures may in fact be higher as the goal is to find an amicable settlement as quickly as possible and not to win at trial[57].

The disqualification commitment also raises several ethical and procedural issues. Firstly, a client and their lawyer could enter into the collaborative process with a “pre-design for failure[58]”solely to remove the attorney on the other side. However, it is necessary to note that no system is perfect and completely immune from abuse – there is no engagement in any type of legal process that is “risk free[59]”. Furthermore, such an ulterior motive for engagement in CL is unlikely as the both parties too would “bear the burden of losing counsel[60]”.

The disqualification commitment also raises questions regarding confidentiality. Fundamental to the CL process is a commitment to “provide good faith responses to any good faith questions and requests[61]”. However, the extent of the “duty of candour” is unspecified[62]. Lawrence states that it is unclear whether the parties have a duty to disclose information that has not been requested by the other side nor is it clear whether CL lawyers are obliged to disclose all relevant information independent of their obligations to their client[63]. It is submitted that in order for the process to be fully collaborative full disclosure is desirable (if not essential), yet there is an underlying danger that information disclosed during collaboration[64] could be obtained through formal discovery procedures should the process fail[65].

The duty to disclose may also have an effect on a lawyer’s ability to maintain client confidentiality[66]. Should the process fail, the withdrawing attorney has a duty to aid their client in finding new counsel and to inform the successor counsel of the facts and circumstances of the case[67]. In spite of this, the lawyer may be restricted by the confidentiality clause as to the information that they can provide to new counsel[68]. This gives rise to a significant dilemma as failure to provide information to subsequent counsel may significantly prejudice a client’s case[69]. However, Schwab’s research indicates that the majority of lawyers place their duties of zealous advocacy and client confidentiality in paramount position and allow the two duties to mutually inform each other, delineating from the CL principles where necessary in order to uphold such duties to their clients[70].

Application of CL

The application of CL in various circumstances is an issue worthy of discussion[71]. MacFarlane notes that her research found that only “A small number of CL lawyers express concerns about vulnerable clients who may not do well in the process because of fear or intimidation[72]”. Furthermore she highlights that there as yet no systematic screening for domestic violence[73].

Van Steegh[74] notes that the lack of screening for domestic violence is of particular concern given that “CL is a private process that functions almost entirely outside the purview of the court system, and the parties consequently have little or no contact with judges or court system personnel who might otherwise regulate the divorce process, screen for intimate partner violence, or make appropriate referrals”. Thus, it is imperative that CL Lawyers be equipped with skills to detect inter partner violence –as an unequal bargaining position renders the collaborative process inequitable and misrepresentative[75].  However, Van Steegh states that a history of intimate partner violence does not necessarily exclude CL entirely[76].

Whilst the majority of CL cases concern family law its use has been reported in other areas[77] due to its ability to solve disputes whilst maintaining an on-going and respectful relationship between the parties during and after the process, and to provide settlement arrangements unique to the needs of the parties[78].

One of the most interesting areas where CL has evolved beyond the realm of Family Law is its employment to achieve social change[79]. The concept refers to no longer viewing lawyering as a “unidirectional ‘professional service’ but rather to see it as a collaborative communicative practice[80]”. CL Lawyers can be collaborators in social justice projects, giving those in poorer socio economic groups the tools to reach their self-defined aspirations, whilst linking the groups with wider spheres of justice work[81]. Piomelli endorses the use of collaborative lawyering to “urge a radical reorientation of the work of lawyers and their lower-income clients” as its “client-centred” ethos compels lawyers to “involve clients directly in individual and collective efforts to speak out and act against their own oppression”[82]. Killelea proposes the application of CL to work in conjunction with the medical sphere, particularly in the area of HIV/Aids services, so that the medical and legal communities speak with, as opposed to for, the poorer groups in society in order to empower and effect real social change[83].

Future Application/Recommendations

Many of the criticisms CL pertain to a lack of uniformity of practice in the area[84] – although collaborative practices share common traits there are varying “models of practice[85]”. Hilbert outlines that CL, with interest best negotiation at its core, can “fulfil its promise” as best practice – but it needs a systematic structure in order to do so[86]. Strickland opines that “statutes would increase the legitimacy of the option (of CL) for divorcing couples and give parties and their attorney’s guidelines to follow[87]”.

Strickland also notes that “statutes will hopefully further unify CL as a method of dispute resolution, creating the desire for more training and a broader knowledge base, hopefully remedying the uncertainty associated with the skills CL lawyers possess[88]”. Indeed, it is submitted that education and skills is also an area of the utmost importance if CL is to reach its potential and continue to evolve as a viable and advantageous alternative to litigation. Macfarlane highlights the need for the continuous development of the “new lawyer” (i.e. the CL lawyer) through the continuous advancement and improvement of negotiation skills, communication skills and the evolution of a new participatory approach to client relationships[89]. She outlines that legal educators and pr­acticing lawyers with a good will to reconceptualise and restructure the traditional litigious stand points have essential roles to play in this process[90].

Lawrence proposes that the CL lawyer falls in a “unique ethical position” somewhere between the ethical posture of a traditional advocate and a neutral[91]. Whether the position is entirely novel or is merely an extension of the role of advocate[92] it is submitted that ethical guidance is needed in order for the CL to evolve effectively. 

Conclusion

CL is a simple yet profound concept[93] that has shown great potential to alleviate the pressures and distress associated with traditional litigation. Yet CL is not without fault. The ethical and procedural concerns outlined in this paper with regard to its use must be addressed before it can move forward. However, that is exactly what ought to occur – CL must move forward, continue to evolve, grow and develop. It is in no way a “waste of time”, and those parties who consider it to be so are unsuited to its application. Whilst not suitable for everyone,[94] it is a feasible and potentially incredibly rewarding process that should be, more prevalently, available to all in the future[95].

Bibliography

• Annable Z, ‘Beyond the Thunderdome – The Search for a New Paradigm of Modern Dispute Resolution : The Advent of Collaborative Lawyering and Its Conformity with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct’ (2004-2005) 29 J Legal Prof 157.
• Barbara Smyth, ‘Collaborative Law’ (15 July, 2009 ) <http://www.acp.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=131&Itemid=114> accessed 30 September 2011.
• Burger W, ‘Isn’t There A Better Way?’ (1982) 68 A B A J 274.
• Burrows G, How to Get the Most out of Your Divorce Financially (Dundorn Press 2002).
• Daicoff S, ‘Collaborative Law: A New Tool for the Lawyers Toolkit’ (2009) 10 U Fla J L & Pub Pol’y 113.
•  Mosten F and Lande J, ‘The Uniform Collaborative Law Act’s

Contribution To Informed Client Decision Making In Choosing A Dispute Resolution Process’ (2009) 38 Hofstra Law Review 611.

• Fairman C, ‘Ethics and Collaborative Lawyering: Why Put Old Hats on New Heads’ (2003) 18:2 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 505.
• Gutterman S, Collaborative Law : A New Model for Dispute Resolution (Bradford Publishing, 2004).
• H Mnookin and Lewis Kornhauser, ‘Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce’ (1979) 88 Yale L J 950.
• Hilbert J, ‘Collaborative Law: A Process for Interest Based Negotiation’ (2010) 38 Hofstra Law Rev 1083.
• Irish Law Reform Commission, Consultation Paper­ – Alternative Dispute Resolution (LRC CP50-2008)
• Killelea A, ‘Collaborative Lawyering Meets Collaborative Doctoring: How a Multidisciplinary Partnership for HIV/AIDS Services Can Improve Outcomes for the Marginalized Sick’(2009)16 Geo J on Poverty L & Pol’y 413.
• Kovach K, ‘New Wine Requires New Wineskins : Transforming Lawyer Ethics for Effective Representation in a Non-Adversarial Approach to Problem Solving, Mediation’(2001) 28 Fordham Urb L J 289.
• Lande J, ‘Possibilities for Collaborative Law: Ethics and Practice of Lawyer Disqualification and Process Control in a New Model of Lawyering’ (2003), 64 Ohio St L J 1362.
• Lawrence J, ‘Collaborative Lawyering: A New Development in Conflict Resolution’ (2001-2002) 17 Ohio St J Disp Resol, 431.
• Macfarlane J, ‘Experiences of Collaborative Law: Preliminary Results from the Collaborative Lawyering Research Project’ (2004) J Disp Resol 179.
• Macfarlane J, The New Lawyer: How Settlement is Transforming the Practice of Law (UBC Press, 2008)
• Menkel-Meadow C, ‘Why Hasn’t the World Gotten to Yes ? An Appreciation and Some Reflections’ (2006), 22 Negot J 485.
• Mnookin R, Beyond Winning (Harvard University Press, 2000)
• Murphy R, ‘Is the Turn Toward Family Law a Turn Away from Justice?’ (2004) 42 Fam Ct Rev 460.
• Pearlstein A, ‘Meet the New Lawyer : How Settlement is Transforming the Practice of Law’ (2008) 10:1 Cardozo J of Conflict Resolution 1.
• Piomelli A, ‘Appreciating Collaborative Lawyering’ (1999-200) 6 Clinical L Rev 427.
• Rack R, ‘Settle or Withdraw: Collaborative Lawyering Provides Incentive to Avoid Costly Litigation’ (1998) Disp Resl Mag 9.
• Schwab W, ‘Collaborative Law: A Closer Look at an Emerging Practice’ (2004) 4 Pepp Disp Resol L J 351.
• Shneyner T, ‘The Organised Bar And the Collaborative Law Movement: A Study in Professional Change’ (2008) 50 Arz L Rev 289. 
• Strickland E, ‘Putting ‘’Counsellor’’ Back in the Lawyer’s Job Description: Why More States Should Adopt Collaborative Law Statutes’ (2005-2006) 84 NCL Rev 979.
• Tessler P ‘Collaborative Law: What it is and Why Lawyers Need to know About It’ (1999) 13 Am  J of Fam L 215.
• Tessler P,  Collaborative Law: Achieving Effective Resolution in Divorce Without Litigation (American Bar Association, 2001)
• Tessler P, ‘Collaborative Family Law’ (2004) 4 Pepp Disp Resol 317.
• Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia [2008] 1 C.N.L.R.
• Van Steegh N, ‘The Uniform Collaborative Law Act and Intimate Partner Violence: A Road Map for Collaborative (and Non Collaborative) Lawyers’ (2009-2010) 38 Hofstra L Rev 699.
• Webb S, ‘Collaborative Law: A Practitioner’s Perspective on its History and Current Practice’ (2008) 21 J Am Acad Matrimonial Law 155.
• White L, ‘Collaborative Lawyering in the Field? On Mapping the Paths from Rhetoric to Practice’ [Spring 1994] Clinical Law Review 157.

The Bill also proposes removing the requirement for wearing wigs or gowns in court and allowing solicitors to become senior counsel for the first time. 

The Department of Justice says the Bill will give effect to key reforms included in the Programme for National Recovery and agreed with the EU, ECB and IMF.

 “The Legal Services Regulation Bill is intended to bring the legal profession out of the 19th century and into the 21st century and to provide essential information and protection for the consumers of legal services”.

 The most important changes:

 End of the Monopoly in the field of legal-professional education

The Law Society and Bar will have to allow the many other education providers to compete for students. 

• Unification of the two branches of the legal profession

Many people do not know the difference between Solicitors and Barristers. The Unification will simplify the situation for customers, and might serve to categorise lawyers by their area of expertise instead of their role in the legal process. 

• Possibility for solicitors to become Senior Counsel as well as barristers 
• Direct access to barristers for contentious business

Previously you had to incur both solicitors and barristers’ costs to get advice relating to a case. Many young Barristers would benefit from being allowed advice clients directly. 

• Possibility for solicitors and barristers to act jointly as advocates in court and other proceedings. 
• Possibility for clients to nominate who should lead their case in court when members of both legal professions are involved 
• Barrister partnerships, partnerships between barristers and solicitors and multi-disciplinary practices

A solicitor, accountant and a tax expert can join together to offer a one stop shop for small businesses. The danger is that this will restrict access to the best barristers. 

• A separate profession of “conveyancers” 
• Legal costs more transparent

Both solicitors and barristers will now have to provide proper costs information. A detailed Bill of Costs is required which contains specific information. Ongoing information will need to be provided and penalties will be imposed for lawyers who fail to do this. 

• An independent complaints structure 

to deal with complaints about professional misconduct.

Consumers will no longer have to complain directly to the law Society or to the Bar Council to obtain redress. It will be a three step process that involves alternative dispute resolution. 

• A New Legal Services Regulatory Authority

It would be independent body made up of 11 members: two members of the Law Society, two members of the Bar Council, one legal costs accountant, one ministerial appointee and five lay people.

It will report to the Minister for Justice and the relevant committees of the Oireachtas.
It will be empowered to set up sub-committees, including a complaints committee, to which clients may go in the first instance.

The matter can be referred for mediation or other informal resolution.

 If it goes to a hearing of the complaints committee, that can impose a series of minor sanctions.

If the matter is more serious, the regulatory authority will refer it to the Disciplinary Tribunal, which will also be appointed by the Minister for Justice and will have a lay majority. This will have the same power as the High Court to compel witnesses and the production of documents.

The disciplinary tribunal will have at its disposal a range of sanctions similar to those available at the moment to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, including the referral of the legal practitioner to the High Court for striking off.
The new regulatory authority will also be responsible for drawing up or approving codes of conduct for the two branches of the legal profession, deciding on levels of professional indemnity insurance and supervising entry into the professions.

It will review the provision of professional legal education and prepare a report for the Minister on how this is to be delivered in future, and by whom, ending the monopoly on legal education exercised by the Law Society and the King’s Inns. 

• An Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator 

It will assume the role of the existing Office of the Taxing-Master which will be conferred with enhanced transparency in its functions. The legal costs regime will be brought out into the open with better public awareness and entitlement to legal costs information.

Welcoming the government’s approval for the Bill, Minister for Justice Alan Shatter said it was a big achievement for both the consumer and legal professions.

According to the Minister, the new Bill provides for greater transparency for legal costs and greater assistance and protection for consumers of legal services. It also provides an entirely independent dispute system to determine allegations of professional misconduct and a new system for legal costs adjudication where legal costs are in dispute.

Restrictive practices inhibiting the delivery of legal services are being removed and structures being put in place which provide for greater competition in providing legal training, as well as reduced costs for that training. 

Reaction 

The Bar Council has criticised the Bill, claiming it will reduce competition and increase legal costs. It said it went far beyond implementing the outstanding recommendations of the Competition Authority, contradicting a number of them and the EU/IMF Memorandum of Understanding with the Irish Government.

The chairman of the Bar Council, Paul O’Higgins SC, said: 

 “An independent legal profession is a cornerstone of democracy, and the Bar Council is determined to protect that principle.”

Expressing his concern about the independence of the regulatory body he also said:

“If the collective Government or an individual Minister has final say over all aspects of the regulatory function and code of conduct this could cause problems for barristers taking such a stance”

The Bar Council has also voiced its opposition to the proposal to introduce multidisciplinary partnerships and the abolition of the independent referral bar. 

“If partnerships are to be introduced, this will dramatically contract the available numbers of barristers and greatly restrict access to justice for those who cannot afford legal representation. At a time when the Legal Aid provisions are being curtailed and the Legal Aid system has a waiting list of up to nine months and 4,500 clients waiting for a first appointment, this will severely impede availability of quality representation for the general public and those who cannot afford representation.” 

John Costello, President of the Law Society, told Minister Shatter that it fully supports a move towards a “much more modern, transparent and predictable system for the assessment of costs in civil litigation”, but is wary of introducing changes to regulation which would result in increased costs for solicitors and fees for clients.” 

The Director General Ken Murphy said the legal profession is not opposed to change and had known an independent legal services authority was coming.

However, he said the Minister for Justice had, without consultation, chosen a model quite fundamentally different to that recommended by the Competition Authority in its 2006 report. 

He said the model, which is “unprecedented in the EU and North America,” raised a number of concerns, and had been rejected after consideration by the authorities in England and Wales due to worries about its impact on the independence of the profession and costs. 

 “The independent oversight model for the legal profession is a matter of concern”, he said. 

Minister Alan Shatter said criticism he would be influencing the regulatory body was “so far from reality to be completely absurd”.

 “It as a very substantial reform package” that would “blow the cobwebs” out of the legal profession.

 Sonia Gabbiano

Sonia Gabbiano is a legal intern with CPD Seminars majoring in mediation and alternate dispute resolution studies in Dublin, Ireland.

 This is a matter of primary importance also from an economic standpoint, because the lack of an efficient judicial system produces legal uncertainty, and “doing business” becomes more difficult!

It is not surprising to find such countries asHong Kong,LuxembourgandIcelandat the very top of the list, as they are prospering nations from an economic point of view.

 The problem is thatItalyis really missing “a culture of justice”, and there is no real pressure from the Civil Society and the policy to address the problem.

 “Lawyers in Italy are more than 200.000! Justice is sick. Just read the merciless 2006 Report of the Cepej (European Commission for the Efficient of Justice) which defined our Country as one of the worst in Europe in this field.

But, despite the elephantine size of the justice machine, its inefficiency is a matter of fact, something which all have direct experience in”.

Said Guido Alpa, President of the Italian National Bar Council.

 Now many lawyers are more willing to negotiate the fees, rather than to apply the contract rates, to give up high-quality performance to meet the expectations of an economic nature of their clients, to exercise their business within the limits of the code of ethics in order to acquire or maintain customers. 

                                           �
The high number of lawyers undermines the professionalism of same.

This numerical imbalance is linked, through the educational and vocational deficits, to the problems of justice as a whole.
Earlier, in 2007, Sen. Manzione of PD proposed a reform text, arguing that:
 
“It is undeniable that the number of those currently practicing, often without any vocation, has become exorbitant. The current access to the profession does not guarantee nor an effective and appropriate preparation of new lawyers neither an appropriate selection of the many aspiring [...]”

  Senator Manzione raises another problem:ItalianUniversityof Law does not qualify its graduates. It is not able to create good lawyers.

 Even though, no action is taken on University teaching, but adding to additional years of training, in Specific Educational Schools, with the aim of reducing the actual educational gap. But what really Italy needs is, maybe, a courageous intervention on the Legal System, to make it efficient and faster, reducing the enormous number of legal cases, rather than artificially reduce the number of lawyers with measures which have little to do with merit. 

These are all issues that Italian National Bar Council knows well, but there is still no plan for a big change!
 Sonia Gabbiano

Sonia Gabbiano is a legal intern with CPD Seminars majoring in mediation and alternate dispute resolution studies in Dublin, Ireland.

If we just have a quick look to the rest of European Countries, we can see that the Irish Legal Service Reform is neither the only one, nor the first one.

The UK Legal Services Act was approved on 2007 by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to liberalize and regulate the market for legal services in England and Wales, to encourage more competition and to provide a new route for consumer complaints.

Described as a Big Bang moment for the legal profession, the introduction of the Government’s Legal Services Act (‘LSA’) posed serious challenges for traditional providers, but also presented a wealth of opportunities for those firms who are willing to make the most of the changes. The impact of the reforms and the implementation of legal technology will allow forward-thinking firms to carve out an increasing share of the market as others succumb to increased market pressures.

 According to Richard Cohen, Solicitor and Chairman of Epoq Group, The Legal Services Act brought a significant wave of change to the legal profession, and created a markedly different landscape.

 It was the first attempt to bring the entire legal services market under one regulatory framework and departed significantly from the previous structure of the profession.

It did this by creating what are termed Alternative Business Structures (ABS’s) combining the skills of a variety of professionals including lawyers, as well as current non-law businesses such as banking, insurance and financial services.

Before the coming into force of the Act, lawyers in England and Wales could only practice as:

• Solicitors, as sole traders or in partnerships with other solicitors;
• Barristers, as sole traders; or
• Employees providing legal services to their employer.

The Act allowed alternative business structures with non-lawyers in professional, management or ownership roles and created a system whereby approved regulators can authorize licensed bodies to offer reserved legal services.

“The scope of these changes should not be underestimated. In effect, the amount of competition within the legal services industry will increase, resulting in wider access to justice and a commercial environment more attuned to developing innovative and cost effective legal services and products. The new entrants to this market will have greater experience of operating in a public environment and will possess greater branding power, human resourcing and product development skills than small law firms.”

Said Richard Coen.

By allowing non-lawyers to own law firms, the LSA exposed high street firms to competition from all-comers, especially those with well-established brand presence, superior media exposure, IT capabilities, and existing retail muscle. Such organizations as MORE, RBS, the Co-op, HBOS, NatWest, DAS, Allianz and Abbey Santander have all launched legal services.

Research conducted by Finnacord in 2006 found that almost 50% of consumers would be open to considering new providers of legal services post-deregulation. In a subsequent survey by which 75% of consumers were found to be very receptive to the prospect of new entrants such as banks and supermarkets entering the legal services space.

 But what kinds of law firms and investors will be interested in taking advantage of alternative business structures?

The Baker Tilly survey found that around half of law firms had either lost business to a non-lawyer competitor or expected to.

 “We believe that the growth potential is there, but it may well be that only a few firms are able to capitalize.” says Matthew Gwynne of private bank Investec

One problem is that some of the firms which will think ABSs are a good idea are probably the firms which realize they are struggling and see them as a last resort. This would be the worst of all worlds.

 Richard Meddelton, relationship director at Santander Corporate Banking, says:

 “The legal sector is extremely conservative and you couldn’t really afford for there to be one or two early failures resulting from the Legal Services Act. But there will be successes. What’s important is that the winners are picked early and backed, because I don’t think the market at this time can afford too many failures.”

Martin Prentice, a relationship director at Lloyds TSB Corporate Markets, predicts a ‘wait and see’ approach:

“We’ve had conversations with a number of top-tier firms and the next tier down, and I think it would be fair to say that whilst there has quite rightly been a lot of talk and discussion, in terms of converting that into a more tangible forward plan, it’s tended to be more on tomorrow’s agenda than today’s.”

Matthew Gwynne’s colleague at Investec, Jonathan Harvey, also believes that “there are a lot of people waiting for someone else to make the first move”. He sees the real threat to the industry as coming from new entrants that will start a business afresh, inject capital into it, and run it in a way that is very different to the traditional law firm model. This would, however, be a “longer-term play”, he recognizes.

“Law firms have historically been highly profitable, so there is a definite appeal for new entrants. It may even prove to be a more palatable option than the cultural challenges involved in investing in an existing law firm. It can be very challenging on both the private equity and law firm side to merge two different cultures together and achieve the desired growth and increased profitability from the capital injection.”

Kevin Pearson, also a relationship director at Lloyds, believes that such a start-up is more likely at the consumer end of the market. “I think that would have to be very much a commodity-related product, such as personal injury, where face-to-face contact with a lawyer is not the most important thing. That sort of business could be formed if the consumer could see that it provided them with a good service and was good value for money. But it would have to be in a relatively narrow part of the market rather than being an all-service firm.”

But Richard Meddelton is not convinced of the viability of a start-up, at least in the short term: “It’s very easy to say that law firms aren’t efficient. The model has worked for several centuries – albeit in a privileged state, yes – but the expertise is nevertheless there. I think law firms will provide steady, rather than spectacular, growth for an investor. For a private equity house this may well prove to be a challenge.”

Tony Pierre, head of Baker Tilly’s London corporate finance team, says he could easily see a supermarket setting up a legal services section in each of its stores to deal with accident claims, wills and so on. “I think they would probably want a platform to build on. They would identify a law firm that was providing commodity-type services and build on that. Private equity doesn’t really go into start-up type situations. They like to go into a business that is already established and can be taken to the next level – and quickly.”

Finally, with regard to the other aspects of the reform, it should be noted that the UK Legal Services Act maintained the status quo in relation to “reserved activities”: Exercise of rights of audience, conduct of litigation, Reserved instrument activities (being certain activities concerning land registration and real property), Probate activities, Notarial activities, Administration of oaths; but the list can be amended by an Order in Council of the Lord Chancellor.

 Only an authorized person (Person authorized in respect of a given legal activity by a relevant approved regulator; or Licensed body authorized in respect of those activities) or an exempt person can carry out a reserved legal activity.

 Before the Act was brought into law, there were already many instances in which non-lawyers could deliver legal services. The Act did not change this and extended the opportunities further in the interests of ‘promoting competition in the provision of legal services’.

Sonia Gabbiano

Sonia Gabbiano is a legal intern with CPD Seminars majoring in mediation and alternate dispute resolution studies in Dublin, Ireland.

Dear Mr. McFeely,

Do you remember me, I bought a two bedroomed apartment from you back in 2006 for nearly €300,000.

I’ve just been offered a job in New Zealand and I’ve asked the local estate agent to sell my apartment and he wasn’t very upbeat about the prospects of finding a buyer until you can sort out all the fire safety issues but I with glad to hear that you think you can have all this sorted by the end of November, it certainly won’t help my prospects of selling my apartment on the basis that you probably won’t be able to make the whole complex totally fire safety compliant until maybe the end of February 2012 and when we all move back in again at the end of November I hear that we will have a 24-hour Fire Warden resident on the premises!

I’ve asked my solicitor to handle all the legalities when I find a buyer. However, Katherine tells me that Priory Hall is not MUDs Compliant?

My solicitor gave me a copy of the Multi Unit Developments Act 2011, she is a very direct woman and she told me very clearly that what I got for my €300,000 was effectively a right to pass through the common areas, breath the air in my apartment and most of what I thought I “owned” appears to be what is known as the “common areas” and she told me that these common areas are owned by the management company, Priory Hall Donaghamede Management Limited of which you and your brother Noel are the directors and I think all of the residents are the members.

My solicitor told me that you as a director were required to send me the audited accounts every year 21 days before the annual general meeting but I don’t recall ever receiving these from you and I just find it hard to take on board that what I thought I “owned” appears to vest with this management company that is controlled by you and Noel and is late with its accounts and returns to the CRO and is at risk of being struck off the register in future.

So she is saying what I thought I “own”, I don’t fully appear to “own”. She says it’s like in limbo! She says it will be okay in time if your solicitors do up all the legalities and move the “common areas” over to our OMC. Have they started on this paperwork yet because what I read from this new apartment management company law is that most builders, developers and their advisers had to be aware of this two or three years ago and must’ve known that it was coming down the line and would need to put the paperwork in order? Seems like we have all these wonderful laws but nobody is enforcing them?

 She thinks Coalport have been put in receivership or was in receivership? Are you in receivership? Are you liable to go into liquidation? Do you know if you’re going to be able to come out of this on the right side? What if all the residents get together and sue Coalport for some class-action for all the stress, anxiety, trouble, inconvenience and the garden sink for all that happened was over the last few weeks?

My solicitor told me that if the Company is struck off the register, that the company will have no legal existence and the “common areas” will vest with the State in the name of the Minister for Finance, Mr Michael Noonan! I thought our situation was quite messy and complex would it now seems to be taken on a life of its own and I’m getting more confused as time goes by.

Great if you can assure me that you are working on these accounts and that you will have them audited and sent to all the members for their consideration as soon as possible as otherwise my solicitor has advised me that I may need to bring what’s known as a Section 371 Application under the Companies Acts 1963 to 2009 in the High Court to compel you as a director to comply with your statutory obligations under company law.

However, I’m aware that you have a lot on your plate these days having already been brought before the High Court by Dublin City Council when they sought an evacuation order on the premises last Friday and I’m still shellshocked from this whole episode and right now I don’t fancy being the one to have to bring another formal application before the High Court to make you do something you should already have handled.

Speaking with my fellow neighbours and residents in the Regency Hotel the other night nobody seemed to be aware of Section 1 of the MUDs that seems to very clearly set out that all the exterior walls, foundations roofs, entrance halls, landings, lifts, staircases, access roads, footpath, systems, tanks, drains, pipes, wires central heating boilers and all other areas common areas are owned by “our” management company.

However, my solicitor tells me that in accordance with Section 5 of the Multi Unit Developments legislation you, as the developer, Coalport were required by 1st October to have arranged to transfer all these common areas from your company to “our” management company.

Did you know about Section 5?

I have to say I didn’t know about a lot of my solicitor told me last week but she told me that it started life from a Law Reform Commission Report carried out nearly 10 years ago and that this new apartment management company law has been going through the Seanad and the Dail for the last two years and was actually passed by the Dail last December 2010, President McAleese signed it into law on 24th January 2011 and my solicitor tells me that it was actually commenced into law on April Fools’ Day 2011!

My solicitor is very knowledgeable about these matters and she also told me that we have a double whammy in that “our” apartment management company is also regulated by 15 different companies acts that are nearly 50 years old, 1963 to 2009 and she told me that the Principal Act of 1963 was also commenced into law on April Fools’ Day 1964! I don’t know how she knows all this technical stuff which she also told me that the previous act, the Companies Act 1908 was likewise commenced into law on April Fools’ Day 1909!

I find all these coincidences about April Fools’ Day as being rather worrying and I’m now concerned at all the apparent failures to comply with this Multi Unit Developments legislation and it looks like it might delay my sale if I can find a buyer because my solicitor has gone through a big long list of documentation that is required to be handed over under what’s known as the Schedule 3 documentation. Also the management company is now calling an OMC, an owners management company and I don’t feel like I’m really part of this or have ever been involved?

When I read all the Schedule 3 documentation and what my solicitor told me are what is known as the new Requisitions on Title from the Law Society I asked her if this was another April Fools Joke that she was playing on me because this is just part of what she will need from you before my “Sale” can take place and you might give me some comfort to let me know that you have all this handled and that your solicitors are in the process of arranging to hand over all the Schedule 3 documentation which I set out here for your information:

SCHEDULE 3
Documentation to be handed over pursuant to Section 31(2)

1. Confirmation that the development has been completed—

(a) in accordance with all relevant planning permissions under the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2009, (other than in relation to a condition of such permission relating to the making of financial contribution,
(b) in accordance with the Building Control Acts 1990 and 2007.

2. Certificates confirming that any financial contributions required by virtue of a condition in a relevant planning permission under the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2009 or pursuant to any other statutory enactment have been paid.

3. Any safety file required by or under any enactment to be maintained by the developer.

4. Professionally prepared drawings of the development together with the latest revisions of the drawings of the structure or structures prepared by the design team.

5. Professionally prepared drawings showing the services relating to the development, as built.

6. Operational and maintenance manuals relating to plant and equipment in the development.

7. Documentation relating to warranties and guarantees as respects plant and equipment in the development.

8. Maintenance contracts and contracts for the provision of services relating to the development.

9. Test records relating to drainage, water pipe work and heating pipe work.

10. Schedule of plant, equipment and fire protection systems specifying the expected useful life of such plant, equipment and systems.

11. Title documents relating to the development including, as respects the common areas and the reversion, the original stamped deeds (including the declaration made pursuant to section 11 or 12).

12. Stamped and registered counterpart leases or other deeds relating to each unit in the development or relevant part of the development.

13. Documentation relating to the owners’ management company including such documents and records as the company is required by law to maintain together with financial and management accounts and records relating to service charges as respects the development,
except where such documentation has already been furnished to the owners’ management company or is already in the possession of the owners’ management company.

Further, my solicitor has also given me another list that will require all these boxes to be ticked before she can satisfy “My New Purchaser” of my apartment whenever he or she can be found and I’m finding all this rather overwhelming and I really need to hear back from you that you have all this handled and in particular with regard to the Sinking Fund and that you have been collecting the service charges and will be able to hand over all the stamped and registered counterpart leases, other deeds for each unit in the development and most importantly that we will get the Safety File and all the professionally prepared drawings.

This is what Katherine told me you need to hand over in addition to the Schedule 3 documentation and I am typing it out here for you:

Units in a Multi-Unit Development in which a residential unit was sold prior to 1st April 2011
1. Furnish evidence by way of Companies Office search that the Owners Management Company (“the OMC”) is registered in the Companies Office.

2. Confirm if the OMC has received any notice threatening a strike off or liquidation. If any such notice has been served please furnish details.

3. Furnish certified copy Certificate of Incorporation and Memorandum and Articles of Association of the OMC.

4. Furnish either:
(a) Copy Folio and map showing the OMC as registered owner of the common areas and of the reversions in the residential units or
(b) Copy Deed of Assurance of the common areas and of the reversions in the residential units to the OMC.

5. If the development stage has ended provide a copy of the statutory declaration required under Section 11 of the MUD Act.

6. Has any request been made under Section 12 of the MUD Act? If so, please furnish details and a copy of the Statutory Declaration required.

7. If the development stage of the Multi Unit Development has ended, provide written confirmation from the OMC that the documentation specified in Schedule 3 of the MUD Act has been furnished to it.

All units in a Multi-Unit Development
1. (a) If no contract for the sale of a residential unit in the Multi Unit Development was entered into prior to the 24th January 2011, confirm that the voting rights of the members and the name of the OMC are in compliance with Section 14 of the MUD Act.
(b) If any such contract was entered into prior to the 24th January 2011, confirm that the voting rights of members comply with Section 15 of the MUD Act.

2. Confirm:

(a) That one OMC is or will be responsible for the management of the external and/or internal common areas of the entire Multi-Unit Development and all the services relating thereto.
(b) That the only shareholders/members in the OMC are the unit owners.
(c) How the service charge is apportioned between the unit owners?
(d) There has been no breach of Section 16 of the MUD Act.

3. Who is presently managing the Multi-Unit Development?

4. If a firm of managing agents has been engaged state:

(a) The name of the firm.
(b) The terms of their engagement including (in particular) the amount of their charges.
(c) Whether they are employed by the Developer or the OMC.

5. Furnish the name of the solicitor or firm of solicitors representing the OMC.

6. (a) Are there house rules of the OMC other than as set out in the Memorandum and Articles of Association or in the Lease.
(b) If so furnish details of these rules and confirm that they were made in accordance with Section 23 (4) of the MUD Act.

7. (a) Has the OMC put a sinking fund into effect in accordance with Section 19 of the MUD Act?
(b) If so what is the present level of the fund and where and in whose name is it held?
(c) What is the amount of contribution required under Section 19 (5) of the MUD Act?

8. (a) What is the amount of the service charge currently payable?
(b) Furnish details of the scheme in respect of annual service charges as required under Section 18 (1) of the MUD Act.
(c) Furnish a copy of the estimate for the current service charge year as required under Section 18 of the MUD Act.
(d) Confirm the estimate was considered and approved as required under Section 18(2) of the MUD Act.
(e) Furnish a copy of the last annual report as required under Section 17 of the MUD Act and confirm that all requirements in relation to the annual meeting have been complied with by the OMC.
(f) Furnish now the accounts of the OMC for the previous financial year.

9. Is the Vendor or the OMC aware of any possible claim against the funds of the OMC?

10. Is the Vendor or the OMC aware of any proposal by the OMC to carry out any repair work or incur other expenditure which would substantially affect the service charge payable at present?

11. Has any application to Court been made or is pending or has been threatened by any person under Section 24 of the MUD Act in relation to the OMC or the Multi-Unit Development? If so please furnish full details.

12. Has the OMC entered into any contracts which would contravene Section 32 of the MUD Act?

13. Furnish a certified copy of the current block insurance policy together with evidence that it is in force together with a letter of interest noting the Purchaser’s and (if applicable) the mortgagee’s name(s).

14. Hand over on closing;

(a) Share Certificate in or membership certificate of the OMC in the name of the Vendor.
(b) Receipt for latest payment of the service charge.

All the other residents seem to think that I should become the new Company Secretary and that seems to mean that I will be kind of responsible to guide all the other residents, members and directors through this incredible maze of legislation, rules and regulations.Who in their right mind would want to take on this job , however , if somebody doesn’t come forward and “volunteer ” then this sad saga will just continue on and on until somebody takes this completely in charge and writesout a roadmap going forward as to where we are going and when we can start ticking off these boxes that we have slowly but surely achieved what MUDs sets out in this relatively short but very technical 34 sections of new Apartment Management Company Law !

Then about five or six of the other residents will need to go forward as directors of the management company Priory Hall Donaghamede Management Limited in place of you and your brother Noel and that we better start reading up on the existing company law that seems way over the top for what is in reality a glorified Residents Association but Katherine says that we are what’s known as a company limited by guarantee and she said that under company law we are regarded as a public company and that we are similar to Irish Resolution Bank Corporation Plc, AIB plc or any one of the 1700 other public companies in that we have to file the full statutory accounts in the companies registration office.

 Our little management company cannot claim audit exemption. 160,000 other private companies don’t need all the red tape and bureaucracy as does our little management company in that if their turnover is below €8.8 million now they don’t need an auditor and they just claim audit exemption, we can’t avail of this and we appear to have a huge amount of rules and regulations governing our humble “Residents Association”.

 Katherine then handed me three big books and she said that this is Pillar A of the new Companies Bill that will go before the Oireachtas next year and will completely change company law in that all the 15 companies acts that she gave me will go in the bin over the next few years and we will get a complete set of new rules and regulations. I put these three books on the weighing scales and they weighed nearly 5 kg and Katherine said that they were copied double sided and on particularly light paper to keep the weight down. She said that this is the first half of the new legislation for apartment management companies and then gave me the bad news that the second half of what’s known as Pillar B has yet to be published next year and will specifically will deal with our OMC, Owners Management Company.

 Unfortunately people like yourselves have double home work in that if you are a Pillar B type company then you also need to know about Pillar A! I was planning on taking pillar a and B with me next weekend when I’m taking a few days off and I wasn’t planning on paying for a bag with Ryanair but Pillar A and Pillar B weighs in at nearly 10 kg and it uses up all my Ryanair Baggage Allowance! This doesn’t even include the Multiunit Developments Act 2011 or the Fire Services Act 1988 and 2003 or the new  Requisitions on Title from the Law Society!

 I just don’t know how I’m going to be able to convince all the other residents to put their name forward and become a company director of our OMC and take charge of all the legalities.

 Life is really not much fun these days reading the new apartment management company law and I think I going to have a problem if I become a director of our OMC complying with Section 17 of the Multi Unit Developments Act 2011 as it says very clearly say that I as a director must prepare and furnish to each one of my fellow members and residents an Annual Report which complies with Section 19 and in particular includes a statement setting out, in general terms, the fire safety equipment installed in the development and the arrangements in place for the maintenance of this equipment!

 It seems like becoming a director of your OMC might be like a full-time job for Priory Hall!

 Are you aware of Section 17? Because right now you in your brother Noel are the directors and you will be required to comply with this section and maybe you might start preparing this paperwork and we can follow the lead from you?.

 Section 17.— (1) An owners’ management company shall— 

(a)  prepare and furnish to each member an annual report which complies with subsection (2),

(b) hold a meeting at least once in each year for purposes which include the consideration of the annual report referred to in paragraph (a). 

(2) An annual report of an owners’ management company shall include: 

(a) a statement of income and expenditure relating to the period covered by the report;

(b) a statement of the assets and liabilities of the company;

(c) where the owners’ management company is required to establish and maintain a sinking fund, a statement of the funds standing to the credit of that fund;

(d) a statement of the amount of the annual service charge and the basis of such charge in respect of the period covered by the report; 

(e) a statement of the projected or agreed annual service charge relating to the current period;

(f) a statement of any planned expenditure on the refurbishment, improvement or maintenance of a non-recurring nature which it is intended to carry out in the current period;

(g) a statement of the insured value of the multi-unit development, the amount of the premium charged, the name of the insurance company with which the policy of insurance is held and a summary of the principal risks covered;

(h) a statement setting out, in general terms, the fire safety equipment installed in the development and the arrangements

in place for the maintenance of such equipment; and

(i)   a statement fully disclosing any contracts entered into or in force between the owners’ management company and a director or shadow director of the company or a person who is a connected person as respects that director or shadow director.

 (3) At least 21 days notice of the meeting referred to in subsection (1)(b) shall be given to each member.

 (4) A copy of the annual report referred to in subsection (1)(a) shall be furnished to each member at least 10 days before the meeting referred to in subsection (1)(b). 

 (5) The meeting referred to in subsection (1)(b) shall take place within reasonable proximity to the multi-unit development and at a reasonable time (unless otherwise agreed in writing by a 75 per cent majority vote of the members).

            (6) The obligations of an owners’ management company under this section are in addition to any other obligation or duty of such company whether arising under an Act, statutory instrument, by rule of law or otherwise.

  It doesn’t get any better when I read Section 18 that sets out how all the service charges have to be approved at the annual general meeting and I don’t remember being at any of these meetings where all this was discussed.

 I’m really struggling with Section 19 that says that the OMC must establish a Sinking Fund next year and that the amount of the contribution from each member shall be €200 per annum or such greater amount as the members might agree. How am I going to be able to “Sell” this to my fellow residents and members when right now they are hard-pressed even paying their mortgages, the annual service charge and now Section 19 requires me as the company director of the OMC to hit them with another bill!

  Great if you could come back to me within the next week to let me know that this is all handled as right now all this legal stuff is just too much for me and is way over my head but Katherine says I will not be able to sell until you make us MUDs compliant as she says no bank will give my purchaser the mortgage until all the boxes have been ticked and the new purchaser will want to know that he or she will have good title to my apartment.

Sorry if I have rambled on a bit too much, this is all very new to me and I thought when I bought my apartment in Priory Hall that I wouldn’t have to worry about such things like looking after the gardens and cutting the grass and keeping the place nice and tidy!

 This is the first I’ve heard of all these new laws for apartment management companies. My solicitor tells me that the Department of Justice were responsible for introducing this new law for people like us and whilst I’m sure it all seems very logical and lays out a roadmap for the future, there appears to have been absolutely nothing spent on publicity or education for the 500,000 people or so that own, invest or a live in typical apartment complexes like Priory Hall.

However, overnight, life appears to have become very complicated  if you live in what is now known as the multiunit development, a humble block of apartments and I’m really worried about how long it’s going to take to put our house in order?

I look forward to hearing from you next week?

Johnny M

 On the 21^st of September, on the opening day of the General Assembly’s annual session, Finland’s President Tarja Halonen used her speech to point that women have an important role to play in conflict mediation.

 “The record is far from impressive at the moment as the number of women around the negotiation tables continues to be strikingly low.”

 UN Department of Political Affairs position:

 In an address to the UN General Assembly last January, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon outlined his top priorities for 2011, placing women’s empowerment at the forefront.

 “Take any issue – climate change, development, peace and security. When women are part of the vision, the world sees better results.” he said.

 The Department of Political Affairs, and especially the Secretary-General, attaches great importance to increasing women’s participation in the resolution of conflict.

 “The Department of Political Affairs is actively working to bring this approach into the mainstream of our efforts” said B. Lynn Pascoe, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs

 “We believe that the inclusion of women and increased attention to gender issues in these efforts are vital.”

 Last year great strides were made at the UN with the establishment of UN Women and the office of the Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict.

 The Secretary-general also underlined the importance of UN Women as “a dynamic force for change and women’s empowerment everywhere” and pledged to do more to combat violence against women and continue to increase the number of women in the UN’s senior leadership.

 The number of women in the UN’s highest ranks has been increased by more than 40%. Four years ago, when the Secretary-General took office, the UN had one woman heading a field mission. Today there are five — inBurundi,Timor-Leste,Cyprus,Liberiaand theCentral African Republic(and until its closure last week, inNepal).

 “Things are certainly moving in the right direction” said Mr. B. Lynn Pascoe.

 The Department of Political Affairs is working closely with Michele Bracelet, former President of UN Women, to increase women’s participation in conflict prevention and peacemaking and in UN rosters.

Currently, 38% of the 200 people on the Mediation Unit’s roster are women and 39% are from the global South.

 “The participation of women is rising, but still has some way to go, and gender issues need to be better inculcated in the process.

While we are making good progress inside the UN, the harder issue is to encourage greater participation of women on the ground in the peacemaking or preventive efforts. We must redouble our efforts in this area.” added Mr. B. Lynn Pascoe.

 DPA has worked in number of recent cases to ensure that gender experts are deployed to peace talks in order to shape their content and ensure strong channels of communication with women’s organizations.

Under-Secretary-General also worked closely with the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNIFEM on the successful Commission of Inquiry into the September 28, 2009, violence inGuinea. Standby Team’s Expert on Gender and Mediation has helped the Secretary-General’s Special Representative inWest Africato develop a broader strategy to involve more women in resolving the various conflicts in the region.

 DPA and UNIFEM, which is now part of UN Women, recently agreed on a Joint Strategy on Gender and Mediation which pulls these diverse strands into a common three-year action plan for increasing women’s representation in peace processes, developing guidance and training on gender-related issues, and improving partnerships within and outside the UN.

 “We need women’s talent in a mediation role and we need strong involvement of women from all the conflicting parties. Only then, can we be sure that we are paying appropriate attention to the gender dimensions of conflict and assembling our best talent to resolve the conflict and keep it from re-emerging” concluded the Under-Secretary-General.

 Mediation Training in West Africa:

 On July 2011 UN Women and the United Nations Office for West Africa (UNOWA) started training women leaders to strengthen their mediation capacities in peace-building processes to prioritize women’s specific needs.

 “This training aims at sharpening the knowledge and skills of the participants, so they can bring the gender dimension into mediation processes,”

  said Josephine Odera, UN Women Regional Director forWest Africa.

 The first training session, which ran from 19 to 23 July inAbuja,Nigeria, brought together 32 women from 16 West African countries and focused on the techniques of mediation, advocacy, negotiation and the implementation of peace agreements.

The training is in line with the strategic priorities of UN Women and UNOWA to increase women’s participation in conflict-resolution efforts, including conflict-related sexual violence.

It was the first in a series of three training meetings, each one focusing on different mediation areas that will prepare women to effectively intervene in the resolution of conflicts and contribute to peace and stability across the region.

The first meeting focused on skills development, while the second one focused on outreach and advocacy, and the third and final session will focus on forming communities of practice and is scheduled for next November.

 On the 3rd of October 2011 the thirty-two women leaders met inSenegalto attend the second training meeting.

 The UN Office for West Africa (UNOWA) and the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) said that the five-day training meeting in the town of Saly aims to increase participants’ knowledge and mediation skills, as well as strengthen their advocacy, negotiation and peace agreements implementation techniques.

 The meetings have been organized by UNOWA in collaboration with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Gender Development Centre, the Network on Peace and Security for Women in the ECOWAS region, and supported byNorway.

 The initiative is linked to the West Africa Regional Action Plan for the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1325, on women, peace and security, and resolution 1820, on stopping sexual violence in conflict. One of the aims of the plan is to further empower high-level women mediators from civil society to play effective roles in conflict resolution.

 Odera stated that UN Women and the United Nations Office forWest Africa will continue to back efforts to ensure that women leaders and negotiators are adequately skilled, and called for their increased participation in the consolidation of peace in the region.

 Said Djinnit, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General forWest Africa, reiterated the determination of the United Nations to remain mobilized behind women’s participation and declared:

 “Sustainable peace is possible only with women’s perspectives, their leadership, and their daily, equal presence wherever we seek to make and keep the peace.”

Sonia Gabbiano

Sonia Gabbiano is  alegal intern with CPD Seminars majoring in mediation and alternate dispute resolution studies in Dublin, Ireland.

The Mediation Service was established by the General Assembly as part of the United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services (UNOMS) to strengthen the United Nations internal justice system.

Mediation skills could be employed in all of the following contexts:
• prior to conflict through preventive diplomacy;
• during a conflict through peacemaking activities;
• after a conflict to promote implementation modalities and agreements
• during peace-building efforts to consolidate peace and lay the foundation for sustainable development.

When the United Nations is called upon to mediate a resolution to a conflict, the parties accept what is called a mediation mandate. This means that they accept that the UN mediator is there to help and provide them find solutions to resolve their conflict.

The United Nations mediator engages in the process as a third party, with the aim of prevent, manage or resolve a conflict.

He has the authority to:
• meet and listen to all parties to the conflict;
• consult all relevant parties for the resolution of the conflict;
• propose ideas and solutions to facilitate the resolution to the conflict

As in other mediations, the agreement of all parties to a dispute is required for United Nations Mediation to proceed and the mediated outcome is not binding, unless the Security Council takes actions to enforce the agreement. Final implementation of the mediated agreement rests upon the commitment of the parties.

Why use Mediation?

A United Nations mediation mandate is particularly useful to the parties as it gives them the opportunity to avail themselves of the experience and best practices that the United Nations, as an organization, has gained in the field of conflict resolution.

“The United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services, works to intervene in the intersection where creativity meets conflict and helps to channel these conflicts into productive solutions. We do this through conflict coaching, by giving feedback to UN offices, by using shuttle diplomacy, mediation and other tools of informal dispute resolution. We also seek to track the root causes to these difficulties and propose changes to minimize them in the future and to create a more harmonious workplace at the UN.”
Johnston Barkat, Assistant Secretary-General, United Nations Ombudsman & Mediation Services

On the 21st of September, on the opening day of the General Assembly’s annual session, Leaders from Europe and Africa gave their speeches stressing the important role that mediation can play in resolving conflicts before they become intractable.

Finland’s President Tarja Halonen said UN capabilities in conflict mediation must be strengthened to give the world body a greater role in the prevention and settlement of disputes, calling for mediation to be deployed at every phase of a conflict in an effort to stop it starting or continuing.

“We need to enhance the capabilities of the UN in this field. Training and guidance are pivotal” she said.

This year’s theme of the general debate is the role of mediation in the peaceful settlement of disputes, and earlier this year the General Assembly adopted a resolution – the joint initiative of Finland and Turkey – calling for a greater role for mediation.

President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal noted the use of mediation both in internal conflicts and in inter-State disputes. Among the former examples he cited the efforts of the presidents of Nigeria, Ghana and Senegal in resolving a serious internal crisis in Guinea-Bissau several years ago, and mediation initiatives under the aegis of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Niger and Guinea.

“For the world to move from a culture of response after conflict to that of a culture of prevention, the international community must muster the political will to promote preventive diplomacy, in particular through mediation,” said Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan.

He also proposed to the General Assembly the creation of a conflict mediation commission within the office of the United Nations Secretary-General to develop strategies for the resolution of disputes across the world.

Such a commission would be tasked with collating information on conflicts, identifying the parties to them and developing rules of engagement, including the sanctions that would apply to those who obstruct efforts to resolve disputes peacefully.

He announced that the UN Counter Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF) will launch its first project in Abuja in November intended to prevent conflict and counter the appeal of terrorism to youth through education and dialogue.

Mediation cannot be started “assuming that we have all the answers. The mediation process should be conducted in an objective, impartial and neutral manner, ensuring the involvement of stakeholders at all stages and their ownership of the process,” finally said Mozambique’s President Armando Emilio Guebuza.
United Nations Mediation Proceeding

A Mediation proceeding can be requested by the parties to the dispute or referred by management evaluation units, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT), the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), or other offices such as the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA).
All requests for mediation will be promptly reviewed by the Mediation Service to ensure that mediation is an appropriate method for resolving the dispute in this matter.

Timelines

A staff member or the Secretary-General or his designated representative may request initiation of mediation proceedings at any time. (Staff Rule 11.1 (b),)
Mediation may be requested before or even while the matter is pending before the UN Dispute or Appeals Tribunals.
In the case of a matter currently pending before the UN Dispute Tribunal, the case will be suspended by the Tribunal while the matter is proceeding in the mediation process. (Article 15.4 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure)
More over, the conduct of mediation proceedings may result in an extension of the timelines applicable to a management evaluation. (Staff Rules 11.1(c)).

The time-frame for completion of mediation proceedings normally will not exceed three months. However, in exceptional circumstances mediation proceedings can require an additional period of time.

Enforceability of mediation agreements

In accordance with Staff Rule 11.1(d) an Application shall not be receivable by the United Nations Dispute Tribunal if the dispute arising from a contested decision has been resolved by an agreement reached through mediation.
However, a staff member may submit an Application directly with the Dispute Tribunal to enforce the implementation of an agreement reached through mediation within ninety calendar days after the deadline for implementation has specified in the mediation agreement or, when the mediation agreement is silent on the matter, within ninety days after the 30th day from the date on which the agreement was signed.
A non-staff member who becomes a party to a Mediation Settlement Agreement may not file an Application to the UN Dispute Tribunal to enforce the Settlement Agreement because he/she is not covered under the formal administration of justice provisions. However, the non-staff member may contact the Mediation Service to request further mediation.

 Sonia Gabbiano

Sonia Gabbiano Legal intern CPD Seminars, Dublin, Specialising in Alternate Dispute Resolution and Mediation

The first International Conference about: “Mediation in cross-border disputes” is taking place today and tomorrow in the luxurious Hilton Metropole Hotel in Florence.

Organized by Resolutia, an Italian ADR experts Association, in collaboration with the German Culture.communication and Steinbeis Beratungszentrum Wirtschaftsmediation.

The Conference has the aim to enhance the development of cross-border mediation and to expand its consistent use across Europe to solve conflicts faster, more effective and more cost-efficient than at conventional judicial proceedings.
Many experts on mediation from all over Europe signed up for this event.

William Ury, the co-founder of “Harvard’s Program on Negotiation” will give a keynote speech, and an additional workshop tomorrow at the end of the Conference:

“Techniques & Strategies for Effective Negotiations in Cross Border Disputes – Case Study Analysis”,

that represents a wonderful opportunity for those involved or interested in business Mediation to learn from the most famous expert in this matter, in his only visit to Italy in 2011. Mr Ury is also the famous author of the mediation bestseller “Getting to YES”. Recognized worldwide as the most effective and practical guide to Negotiation, this book has sold over two million copies worldwide in over 20 different languages and over 170.000 copies in the U.K. becoming a sort of “bible” for every good Mediator.

“Mediation, as modern instrument for dispute resolution, can’t be still ignored. Precisely in case of cross-border and intercultural conflicts, Mediation can provide solutions that will ensure the protection of everybody rights and needs.”
Said the Lower Saxony Ministry of Justice Secretary of the state, Jürgen Oehlerking.

In the corporate sector in particular, Mediation can be employed not only during a conflict between companies, but also prior to conflict, to prevent and settle conflicts within the same work teams, whose members belong to different cultural realities.

“The Florence Conference wants to meet the needs of many companies, organizations, professionals or citizens who have to face with foreign countries for the resolution of disputes, providing them practical and efficient methods and tools in the field of conflict management, including the new computerized management system.”

Said Cristiana Marucci, Italian Lawyer member of Resolutia, and communication manager of a Civil Justice project, whose main purpose is to create uniform standards for intercultural Mediation.

One of the project employed instrument is the “On-line Platform”.

“Our On-line Platform allows to cross boundaries between States and to reduce cultural and economical differences, promoting the success of Mediation.
It is now possible, thanks to this project, to set up a long-distance conciliation, and to finally find a solution to all the problems connected to physical and cultural distance.”

Recently the European Parliament pointed out that some countries, including Italy, have achieved very positive results in terms of efficiency of Alternative Dispute Resolutions.
Particularly in Italy, Mandatory Mediation seems to be reaching the aim to reduce congestion in courts.

Is therefore hoped that we can adopt of common rules for access to the Mediator profession, and a system of accreditation shared by all the European Nations.

Sonia Gabbiano

Sonia Gabbiano is a legal intern currently studying mediation and alternate dispute resolution studies in Dublin Ireland with CPD Seminars

How do you move 187 people from their homes in this timescale?

What are their rights? What if you don’t have €2000 or €3000 upfront to pay one month rent in advance and come up with references and at least €1000 deposit to your new landlord and the expense of moving out changing services such as your sky subscription, broadband, your post, and the “general inconvenience”! Something like this would take weeks or months to properly organise depending on your work schedule

So, have some sympathy for the officials in Dublin City Council who now have  to find alternative accommodation for those living at the Priory Hall apartments whilst essential remedial work is carried out and could take over for weeks. The president of the High Court, Mr Justice Kearns heard evidence from a Fire Safety inspector that the external walls would have to be removed from the structure in order to render it safe and hinted that the 187 apartment complex might have to be demolished unless this task was properly carried out immediately

This case should send alarm bells to developers of such complexes and the judge also made an order freezing the assets of the developers company, Coalport which originally developed Priory Hall back in 2006 and also directed that the matter be referred to the DPP !

The High Court did not seem very sympathetic to the developers and stressed that they, not Dublin City Council or the taxpayer should have to pay for this “disaster” which he said the members of this apartment complex were totally blameless and was certainly not impressed that both developers were out of the country yesterday and not impressed with their failure to deal with this problem which had a history.

The developers, Mr McFeely and a Larry McMahony, who claims he should not be joined in these proceedings and that he is himself a bankrupt in England,were  ordered to appear personally before the President of the High Court on Monday 17th October!

However, Mr McFeely under direct cross-examination from the senior counsel from Dublin City Council was reluctant to say how much money he had in the bank to pay for these works to be carried out and after a short adjournment his legal team very clearly told the court that they quite simply do not have money to pay for alternative accommodation or the hotel accommodation that has been hastily organised for the residents at the Regency Airport Hotel on the Swords Road.

Dublin City Council told the judge a number of times that they were simply bringing this application and fire services and they did not have the resources to carry out the remedial work and it also transpired at this hearing on Monday that they did not anticipate that they would have to foot the hotel bills for hundreds of residents of the Priory Hall development for the next five weeks. Their barrister also told the court that it was costing over €42,000 per week to arrange to have a fire tender and a 24-hour shift of four firemen on the premises!

This development appears to have a chequered history and court were told that three fire safety notices were served on this company as far back as September 2009 and whilst a schedule of works was agreed upon to remedy the issues, it was not properly completed and the developers have already been before the District Court where they faced prosecutions and convictions in early 2011.

The first problems arose in the common areas of the complex but the situation became more serious in the early summer of 2011 when Dublin City Council housing department requested fire safety consultants to inspect individual apartments which the Council had bought and it was discovered that any fire which got into any of the external cavity walls could extend very quickly throughout the entire apartment complex without the protection of barriers or controls as the cavity barriers simply did not exist or where wholly unsatisfactory for purpose of fire prevention.

Accordingly, what will now take five weeks in what’s known as phase 1 of the project for the removal of the external leaf brick from the building and this requires the complete evacuation of the building followed later in phase 2 by an upgrading of the fire alarm system and the installation of smoke detectors and replacement doors to some of the units. It was agreed between the parties that in phase 2 a specially trained Fire Warden would maintain a presence in the complex 24 hours a day until the complex can be declared fully fire compliant!

This application arose outside the provisions of the Multiunit Developments Act 2011 and its inevitable that we will see more and more of these applications in the courts. The directors of the apartment management company for this complex “Priory Hall” had to inform their members that the insurance company had decided to cease cover will affect from 13th October following on from a comprehensive survey of the apartment complex and the management company had failed to find other insurers who might be in a position to provide cover for this development!

There is little or no indication from the official records filed in the companies registration office that there is a proper and well-organised management company in place acting on behalf of the interests of the 187 members of some 20 blocks of apartments. The last annual return filed in the companies registration office was made up to the end of August 2010 and published accounts in respect of the year ended 31 December 2009. The principal activity is described as the management of 20 blocks of apartments in Priory Hall, Donaghamede,Dublin13. It’s described as a company limited by guarantee and in that regard it needs the full statutory accounts to be sent to the members each year. Just wonder if each one of these members of 187 apartments have been receiving proper accounts from the directors of the management company.

Since first October, it is a statutory requirement that the developer must transfer over the common areas to the apartment management company. Failure to comply with this new statutory requirement in most circumstances will render the property unmarketable. Who will want to buy an apartment with the common areas still vested with the developer and what if the developer is struck off the register?

What chance has the owner ofapartments3in block 6, Priory Hall,Donaghamede, who has his two bedroomed apartment up for sale with the ReMax office in Santry with an asking price of €199,000. The ad goes on to say that they are delighted to bring this very well presented first floor two-bedroom apartment to the market and point out that the property has solid maple floors throughout! What about the walls that will now have to be torn apart and everybody moved out for a number of months until this essential fire safety work is carried out!

Just doing a quick tot on the property, this development is probably worth over €30 million and who is looking after their property interests!

In this case, the developer is Coalport Building Company Limited and what do you know, the filing in the companies registration office says that this company is strike off listed as it has not filed statutory returns since 2009 and it also says that a receiver has been appointed?

Non-compliant developers better watch out!

Owners and investors of apartment management complexes also need to wake up and smell the roses and better start reading the 34 sections of the Multiunit Developments Act 2011 and check out to see that their common areas have been transferred over to the management company or else they quite simply will not be able to sell their property until their “corporate housekeeping” has been taken care of and this may take years to complete!

There is a lot of fine detail in the new apartment management company law and in particular it is incumbent upon the directors of these management companies to ensure that the developer has complied with what’s known as the Schedules 3 documentation handover. This is a very comprehensive list of 13 major items which is equivalent to handing over the logbook of a Boeing 747 and it contains very useful information on the operating manuals of the electrics, the lifts, the pipe work the structure and all those specialist facilities that are required for the smooth enjoyment of living in an apartment complex with 20 blocks.

The difficulty being that we have over 9000 apartment management companies in Ireland and would an average of three directors per company we will need over 36,000 volunteer company directors who will upskill themselves in the practicalities and the legalities of the Multi Unit Developments Act 2011 and ensure developers are compliant with all the rules and regulations and in particular the structure and the fire safety regulations. Otherwise, apartment residents may find themselves having to relocate to temporary accommodation and local authorities like Dublin City Council may in future may be more hesitant in bringing these type of applications if they know they will need to foot the bill for the bed-and-breakfast, evening meals and expenses of apartment residents.

A European Mediation Directive (2008/52/EC) was published on 21 May 2008, as part of the European initiative to promote and regulate the development of Mediation throughout the EU:

  “the establishment of basic principles in this area is an essential step towards enabling the appropriate development and operation of extrajudicial procedures for the settlement of disputes in civil and commercial matters so as to simplify and improve access to justice.”

The European Union directive called on every E.U. nation (exceptDenmark), to pass a law providing for mediation of cross-border civil cases.

Members States were given three years in which to implement Directive terms.

IMPLEMENTATION IN ITALY:

In March 2010 the Directive was implemented inItaly, by means of Legislative Decree no. 28 of 4 March 2010, as part of an initiative to reduce the overload on the country’s legal system, which, according to a recent World Bank Report, ranks 157th for enforcing contracts.

The mediation procedures introduced by the Decree, which covers both cross-border and domestic disputes, only apply to claims/rights which can be freely disposed of by the relevant parties (“Diritti Disponibili”).

The Decree has introduced two kinds of mediation procedure:

- a non-mandatory procedure which applies to any civil and commercial litigation (introduced on the 20 March 2010)

-          a mandatory procedure which applies to any possible litigation in relation to insurance, banking and financial agreements, joint ownership, property rights, division of assets, hereditary and family law, leases in general, gratuitous loans, leases of going concern, medical liability or defamation/libel, effective since the 20 March 2011 (for compensation for damages due to car/nautical accidents and condominium disputes mediation will be mandatory from March 2012).

MANDATORY MEDIATION PROCEEDING:

Mandatory mediation means that all plaintiffs have to try to settle disputes falling within this “mandatory” category by mediation. However, where there are alternative mediation procedures available, the plaintiffs have the option to use either the procedure as set out in the Decree or the alternatives (the “Camera di Conciliazione e Arbitrato” and the “Arbitrato Bancario Finanziario”).

Legal advisers to the relevant parties have a duty to inform their clients about mediation and are under obligation to try to resolve disputes by way of mediation.

In September 2011 the Italian “Maxi Emendamento” modified the Legislative Decree 28/2010 introducing a sanction to be applied to the party who, without good cause, fails to participate at the procedure with the mediator.

It should be emphasized that while taking part at the Mediation proceeding is now mandatory, there is no imposition to accept the final resolution.

Making the use of mediation compulsory or subject to incentives or sanctions is not prejudiced by the European Directive, provided that such legislation does not prevent parties from exercising their right of access to the judicial system.

Actually, this right is included in Art. 24 of Italian Constitution (“Tutti possono agire in giudizio per la tutela dei propri diritti e interessi legittimi”) and Italian Constitutional Court has recently ruled this matter by declaring that conditioned forms of justice are to be considered legitimate as long as they are aimed at improving the functioning of the judicial system, and barriers to access to justice are not too preventative.

There are three different kinds of Mediators

-          Private Mediators (general jurisdiction)

-          Mediators in court (general jurisdiction)

-          Professional Association Mediators or Chamber of Commerce Mediators (specific skills)

The first meeting between the parties must be made within 15 days. The mediator will be then given 4 months to guide the parties through the problem solving process, look for the most acceptable solution by bridging gaps between the parties and pronounce his proposal resolution. The parties can decide to agree with it, or start a court proceeding. If both parties accept the resolution, it becomes binding  for them.

According to Art. 474 cpc (codice di procedura civile italiano)  the reached agreement, if approved by the court  (“omologazionedel tribunale”), is a valid enforcement order for the compulsory expropriation, for specific performance, and for registration of a mortgage court.

ITALIAN REACTION:

Proactive local chambers of commerce have been sponsoring initiatives to promote the introduction of mediation, and mediation providers have been gearing up to meet the demand for training and services.

On the contrary, the response ofItaly’s national lawyers union (Organismo Unitario dell’Avvocatura Italiana) was to call for a national strike from March 16 to March 21, 2011.  Lawyers across the country were asked to abstain from attending hearings in any civil, criminal, tax, or administrative proceedings, and to send clients letters urging them to sign a firm letter protesting the new law, and demanding changes that include eliminating the mandatory requirement to attempt mediation before accessing civil proceedings.

Italian lawyers may be afraid that ADR really stands for “Alarming Drop in Revenues” (as the old saying goes), as the law imposes a simple procedure by which disputants can try to settle without the use of lawyers, although they are also not prevented from using counsel. But lawyers here also know that there is an inexorable trend towards more efficient dispute resolution procedures, especially mediation.  So in order to avoid the drop in revenue, they are not calling for the law to be overturned, but for changes that would substantially cripple it.  For example, they are asking for a change that would make mediation optional for litigants rather than obligatory, and another change that would require “technical” (read that “lawyer”) assistance at the mediations.

On the other hand, according to another source, the strike may be itself confirmation of the need for a law requiring mediation.

Riccardo Buizza, a Milan-based lawyer for Withers LLP, supports the change.

“There has been lots of criticism from Italian lawyers, particularly over the fact that mediation will now be compulsory. But the strike was an own goal because the perception of the general public in Italy is that the civil justice system does not work perfectly. […]  Most people thought introducing mediation was a positive way of avoiding waiting two years and paying lawyers’ fees.”

“Sometimes inItalywe go from the Middle Ages to the future without stopping,” said Buizza, who specialises in complex insurance claims and has been interested in mediation for many years.

Many lawyers fear they will be losing business, thinking that you are paid for litigation if you go to court. But, according to Mr. Buizza, this is a shortsighted view, because lawyers also get paid for mediation work.

 “From my point of view, any dispute – even the bloodiest – has a point of compromise.”

While this might sound like an “only inItaly” story, it’s actually illustrative of the deep hostility towards mediation that we users often face when crossing borders.

Especially in Europe, we are seeing more and more ADR mandatory laws coming into effect in many different areas of law – most notably divorce inEnglandand now commercial cases inItaly– both done within the last year.

What is going to happen to the rest of European Countries? Does Italian Mandatory Mediation represent only the beginning of a big change process that will involve the whole ofEurope? Also in Ireland Mediation seems to be on the verge of a breakthrough.

Over the last few years Government has introduced Mediation into various Statutes and is now actively encouraging mediation and looking for ways to mainstream it into various areas. Moreover, recently, it has been looking at ways in which mediation might become more mainstream and have started a number of initiatives, such as the Consultation Paper ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’, or the Symposium of the Attorney General of Ireland to look at various forms of alternative dispute resolution, or the institution of professional bodies.

Karen Erwin, President of  “The Mediators’ Institute of Ireland” thinks that the number of initiatives above shows the Government’s interest in the process, and that it is a wonderful time for Mediators to be involved closely in the policy making : “I have no doubt that mediation is the coming, favored dispute resolution process in Ireland”.

TheUKJustice Minister, Jonathan Djanogly, a former City solicitor, gave a resounding endorsement to the principle of mediation atManchesterconference: “Why get involved in an expensive, long-winded and often stressful litigious process and have your dispute decided by someone else when you could remain in control and shape the outcome through mediation?”

Instead of being threatened, lawyers should embrace the move into ADR and move with it. Not only will they find more peace at work, less burn-out and more job satisfaction, but their work will take on a more positive role.

A good portion of lawyers can really make good mediators or perhaps, even facilitators. Collaborative law and more mandatory facilitation should become a more common way to settle all kinds of disputes. If our schools start focusing on teaching lawyers as facilitators and neutrals in law school and our State Bars make room for lawyers to practice ADR more commonly in their practice, we can make some real positive changes to our society and to our world through the way we handle conflict.

Sonia Gabbiano

Legal Intern, CPD Seminars, Dublin, Ireland.

Sonia Gabbiano is a fifth year law student from theUniversity of Pisa participating in the European Union Erasmus program with CPD Seminars inDublinmajoring in Alternative Dispute Resolution