Mediation and The Fake Rolex Syndrome
By Stephen G Anderson LL.B
November 18, 2013
What have mediation and Rolex watches got in common? They are both treated with suspicion by potential purchasers if their prices are too low.
You’re in the market for a new watch. You’ve decided you deserve only the best: a Rolex. You want the best price, and so you search Google. You’re looking for a combination of reputable seller and low price. But you’re no fool. You can spot a fake just by the price alone and you steer well clear of those that are simply too cheap. You end up buying from a well-known online retailer. They’re not the cheapest, nor the most expensive, but you can be sure the watch will be the genuine article.
As a family mediator, I experience scepticism about the prices I charge. I have clients telling me that their solicitors have given them cost estimates of between £15,000-£75,000 for their disputes. Assuming an hourly rate of around £200, they must know that this means their case is likely to take 75-375 hours. They believe that they have a very difficult case. They also know that their solicitor is very good and has done their job for many years. They haven’t forgotten either, that there are two solicitors involved.
So when I tell them that their matter may take up to 10 hours of mediation, with me and a financial mediator, for example, at a cost to them each of around £1,500, I can tell that some of them think that they can smell a rat. How can anything that inexpensive be genuine? If it’s that reliable and successful, why do their solicitors have to charge so much more?
There’s no easy answer. Clients can be reassured by their lawyers, but not every lawyer hoping to earn £75,000 from a case will want to see mediation succeed. The difference between my examples is that mediation is a genuine and tested service whereas a fake Rolex is, well, fake. Looking at it another way, with mediation users arguably get genuine Rolex quality for the price of a fake. As the public become more aware of mediation, I’m convinced the bargain that mediation offers, in terms of outcome, pace and price will become very clear, very soon.
I am Stephen G Anderson and I am a genuine professional mediator.
01473 487427
07702948410
stephen@andersonfamilymatters.com
www.andersonfamilymatters.com
7 Comments
Submit a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Continue Reading
MY 3 Top Tips for Mediating Online Successfully
Mediators' excuses I know there are lots of mediators at the moment who are really worried about mediating online over...
Why Skype and Teams are not suitable for online mediation
Skype and Teams are not suitable for mediation Picture this. Your clients are due to arrive at for their mediation...
“And who is the fee-earner dealing with your matter?”
Fee earner "And who is the fee-earner dealing with your matter?" asked the managing partner of a regional law...
Excellent article!
Thank you Rahim. Your feedback is really appreciated.
Really great article. I have some expriences with clients whom I’m not charging for mediation who have spent all the money they had on solicitors and court orders, made allegations of child welfare concerns and still they have ongoing difficulties in meeting their children’s needs for a relationship with the non-resident parent.
In one case recently where the father claims to have spent £65000 over the past 3 years battling in court, serious allegations have been made about by one against the other over years and been unfounded, he told me at the MIAM that if he had the money he would still be in court and his solicitor advised him against meeting me only days before. I asked him to consider why the solicitor might not think it a good idea to try and resolve the issues in mediation, he pondered for a few moments without answering and said lets mediate but you better be good.
These parents managed together to made a short term arrangement in their first mediation session last week.
Mabel, I don’t know what it is with some lawyers, but the short term benefits of fleecing their clients are now being visibly eroded by a lack of work. So many family solicitors are still working in businesses with almost Victorian-like business plans (if they have them at all) that it’s no surprise they are losing clients to mediators, socail workers, the internet and DIY.
Good point, Stephen. I’m not a mediator but manage to undertake a fair amount of collaborative law. I hope I am right in my view that over the years, family lawyers have grown more willing to refer their clients to mediation in the first instance, or later on in the legal process over discrete issues that cannot be resolved easily and which threaten the otherwise amicable progress of a divorce or separation. I admit there are still certain individuals and legal firms out there who don’t ‘get’ the value of mediation or collaborative alternatives for their clients. If you look at certain solicitors’ websites, you will find pages devoted to the options open to their clients including mediation and collaborative law but, strangely, none of the members of the firm will be accredited to offer these solutions. And, if you are unfortunate enough to have them on the other side of a case, there is stony silence if you suggest an early diversion to mediation. And then they issue proceedings, surprise, surprise. (Talk about passive aggressive!) It makes my blood boil and the sooner these dinosaurs disappear the better. To end on a positive note, at least in my locality of Brighton, the number of family lawyers who have committed to mediation and collaborative law is astonishingly high. I like to think the dinosaurs’ days are numbered.
Alan, your region sounds as if it should be the example of better practice that Cambridge is always wrongly held out to be. My own experience locally is not a great one. There are a few lawyers who do really try to refer properly to mediation, but the much bigger majority are reluctant referrers, and ignorant referrers (by which I mean they have no understanding of the process). But that’s their privilege. I don’t expect any lawyer to refer to me, but am very happy when they do. Having a record over the last 8 years or so of lambasting lawyers for their working practices, it’s not altogether surprising if I’m treated with immense suspicion. In spite of your hopes, it still feels like Jurassic Park around much of the jurisdiction.
Firstly, it is a mistake for any “traditional lawyer” to judge Stephen Anderson with suspicion. That would be defensive and not serve clients well or give them the “Rolls Royce” service and fees to match, which that lawyer hopes that such trumpeting would bring to them. Secondly, I trained as a mediator in 1989, (and since), and have been working ever since, with additional training as a collaborative solicitor in 2004 and since, to persaud clients, colleagues and the judiciary that such alternative dispute resolution in Family Law matters should be mainstream and the Courts should be the alternative, or better- the last resort.
I continue to work as a family law specialist and regrettably have been to Court with clients, (although a very small percentage of my caseload), and, yes have charged the clients in such circumstances.
I commend Stephen for his courage of his convictions; he is a true pioneer.
I have some difficulty in “giving up” my lawyer role as a collaborative and otherwise, but I hope to emulate his example in the not too distance future and look forward to attending his London course.
Personally, i prefer a more elegant classy timepiece than a Rolex, but my real aim is to help and support my clients in the best way available to them and not leave them to the mercy of those whose service is rather less than a rusty old pushbike that should have been recycled decades ago.