The issue: A new mediation law causes a job action by Italy’s legal community.
The problem: It’s a pocketbook issue. Parties don’t need attorneys under the sweeping new law.
Why you care: Italy is
only the beginning. Every EU nation will wrestle with adoption of new
cross-border mediation laws in its own way in the next few months.
Italy, a new legislative decree requiring mandatory pre-trial mediation
of civil and commercial cases was scheduled to go into effect on March
21, 2011, as this issue of Alternatives
went to press. Through this law, Italy applies the 2008 European
Commission Mediation Directive on cross-border mediation (see, e.g., “EC
Mediation Directive Means Changes on the Irish Home Front,” 29 Alternatives
2 (January 2011)), and goes beyond. The new law places mediation in
national disputes, in a country with a famously overburdened court
system. This law can be considered a caseload-reducing initiative, as
its goal is to combat congested courts.
But not everybody
approves of this initiative. Last month, Italy’s national union of
lawyers, referred to here as the OUA, opposed the legislation, which
calls for the mandatory mediation of disputes. The OUA has turned to the
court to change the new mediation law.
Additionally, the OUA
called for a national strike from March 16 to March 21 to protest the
enactment, which at press time was attracting little attention. Lawyers
across the country were asked to abstain from attending hearings in any
civil, criminal, tax, or administrative proceedings.
While mediation is the
cause of the strike, it is important to note that these lawyers are not
against mediation. They are against mandatory mediation, and mediation
without lawyers—the law outlines a simple procedure by which litigants
can try to settle their dispute without the use of lawyers, although
litigants are also not prevented from using counsel. Attorneys are
requesting changes that include making mediation optional for litigants,
and requiring “technical” (i.e., a “lawyer’s”) assistance during
The strong reaction
demonstrates that, far from being ignored, mediation is being viewed as a
serious threat by some lawyers, who fear a drop in revenue due to the
possibility of “lawyer-less” mediation. The Italian situation is
especially timely given the current alternative dispute resolution
climate in Europe, where European Union member states must apply the
Mediation Directive by May 2011. The Italian events demonstrate that the
EU has become an experimental laboratory for the development of
In fact, the European
Union Parliament will host a May 23 workshop in Brussels, two days after
the deadline for the implementation of the Mediation Directive, to
assess the respective 26 Member States’ Directive implementation
progress (Denmark has opted out). Italy and Slovenia have been singled
out by the Parliament as the most interesting cases to discuss, and the
countries that are setting an example for moving mediation forward.
and particularly the mediation training of lawyers is a priority for the
European Union. It has funded contracts valued at $1.1 million that
have been awarded to the ADR Center [the author is co-founder and
president of the ADR Center] for the mediation training of lawyers
throughout the Member States. The contracts, “Directions to the
Directive: Promoting European Mediation through Off-line and Online
Training Programs,” are part of the Civil Justice 2007-2013 program,
which focuses on promoting judicial cooperation in civil matters.
Awarding these contracts to the ADR Center—for an Italian organization
to oversee EU mediation training of advocates and judges—is another
paradox of Italy’s mediation situation, as noted in the interview below.
The Italian experience
also demonstrates that no revolution is painless. This reasoning,
however, cannot be the justification for inaction and continuing to
maintain the status quo.
In the interview, the
author asks Giuseppe Grechi, president emeritus of the Milan Court of
Appeals, a member of the ADR Center board of directors, and one of the
top judicial officers of Italy, to speak about this extraordinary
situation. Grechi suggests that mediation might now help the Italian bar
and government to reach a better outcome.
[For the background on
the new law, see Giuseppe De Palo and Leonardo D’Urso, “Explosion or
Bust? Italy’s New Mediation Model Targets Backlogs to ‘Eliminate’ One
Million Dispute,” 28 Alternatives 93 (April 2010).]
* * *
Giuseppe De Palo: Many
mediation supporters and mediation organizations have turned to the
Italian administrative court for justice: is this a contradiction in
Not at all, it is the natural order of things that those who fight
against the opponents of the existing legislation on mediation of
disputes asked the judiciary to intervene.
De Palo: Please explain.
Two reasons. The first has to do with the close relationship between
the court—the judicial system—and mediation. Mediation becomes an
alternative to the court, as a means of acquiring justice, and expands
the range of possible choices and solutions for people. The role of
mediation in the legal system, however, remains a matter of
jurisdiction. Important judicial decisions are expected on mediation in
the future. For example, let’s think about the delicate issue of
confidentiality, especially when involving the terms of the judgment and
[a] mediator’s proposal.
De Palo: And the second reason?
The fact that we already have mediation bodies in the court is evidence
that mediation, and in particular the upcoming compulsory mediation, is
Just think about the possible outcomes of the proceedings related to
Italian mediation law: either cancellation or confirmation. Any other
solution is technically impossible. The essential value of mediation,
compared to the trial, lies in the opportunity for litigants to
determine their own solution, instead of letting a third party—the
judge— decide who does what and how.
lawyers who turned to the Italian administrative court in an attempt to
quash Ministry Decree 180 claim to want to help improve the discipline
of mediation. But their legal action will not result in any improvement
of the current legislation. It will either leave Ministry Decree 180 the
way it is, or go back to the status quo before the new mediation law.
(Ministry Decree 180 implements the new Mediation Law 28/2010 by
providing specific details regarding aspects of mediation
implementation, such as fees to be paid to ADR bodies. See www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_15.wp?previsiousPage=mg_2_7_5_1contentId=LEG153934 (in Italian).
even the mediation supporters would like the law to be improved. But to
prevent a return to the status quo, in court they can only plead to keep
the law as it is now. In economic terms, we can say that the outcome of
the Italian administrative court process will be in any case
suboptimal. That’s the symbolic value of this whole story: that getting
people to use mediation and resolve certain types of disputes are based
on the assumption that if you skip mediation, in most cases the parties
will end up with a suboptimal outcome.
De Palo: Okay,
what about the old claim that, if mediation has such powerful, built-in
added value, then it should not be mandatory, because rational people
will choose it voluntarily?
Grechi: “Video bona, proboque. . . .” [Editor’s note:
The full quote reflects a classic dilemma: “I see and approve of the
good things, but I follow the inferior things.”] There are many good
practices and policies. In order to make them common every day, the
polity really has to promote them.
For example, I know
many die-hard smokers who now would find it rude, and even annoying, to
smoke inside a restaurant and instead now prefer to smoke outside, due
in part to the promotion of a new habit—not smoking in restaurants. But a
law was needed, in 2005, to force people to stop smoking in
Going back to
mediation, numbers speak for themselves: When the parties sit down at
the professional mediation table, whatever the reason, the chances of
finding and achieving a negotiated agreement increase. In this context,
it would perhaps be desirable to mediate between the OUA and the
De Palo: But the government rejected talks with the OUA.
I do not agree with your characterization of events. Those who truly
want to negotiate do not ambush the other side with aggressive tactics.
The OUA’s protests “welcoming” Minister of Justice Angelino Alfano at
the [Genoa National Congress of Bar Associations last November] were
seen and heard throughout the EU, not just Italy.
One of the values of
mediation is to facilitate negotiation in order to prevent incapable
negotiators from reaching compromise agreements, or destroying
themselves, which is the reality today for many legal proceedings. In
these situations, everyone loses.
In other words, it is
really wrong to say, “We’re fighting because the other party ignores our
demands,” if, in reality, the party’s demands are presented in a truly
unacceptable and unappealing manner. If my negotiating is poor or if I
do not negotiate, I will likely not come to an agreement. Furthermore, I
am responsible for all who I represent. The leadership of the OUA
should keep this in mind.
Of course, this does
not mean that the government would have to accept all or only some of
the requests of the advocacy, but one thing is certain: if these lawyers
negotiate with their heads down, they will get the same back:
action-reaction is a basic law of physics. In social sciences it is
De Palo: Speaking
of compromises, do you think that postponing the mandatory mediation
for some kinds of disputes for one year would be negative?
Definitely not, in this case. The polemical debate started when part of
the Italian bar, led by the OUA, prevented one of the main expected
mediation players, the lawyers themselves, from organizing their own
mediation centers. The result is that the ADR infrastructure in Italy,
namely the total number of the mediation organizations ready to handle
cases, is less than it could have been.
But the schedule for
reform, particularly such an important reform, cannot be dictated by the
slowest actors. Starting with mandatory mediation in March 2011—with a
large, but manageable volume of mediations—will provide the country with
valuable information in the following months. To stop everything would
be pure craziness, a national disaster, and a poor international
De Palo: Do you think that there is still a risk that the matter will be referred to the Italian Constitutional Court?
In a democratic system I do not think it is appropriate to call it a
risk. If the legislation introduced in Italy is [held to be]
unconstitutional, which personally I do not think will happen, I think
it is good that the Constitutional Court will decide this matter. The
real problem is whether the claim of unconstitutionality is well-founded
or just a desperate attempt to delay.
By the way, mediation
apart, here is another suggestion on how to improve justice in Italy: to
stop hiding behind the concept of “access to justice,” which in any
case does not mean immediate, direct access to the magistrate or judge.
[It] is a bad practice to flood the courts with unfounded and bizarre
De Palo: Do you think that the legal profession will finally surrender to the installation of more mediation?
I do not like to use war metaphors when speaking about important
reforms such as the mediation reform. I hope that the attorneys
understand that their protests are damaging, especially when they are
carried out in this way. It will likely lead to isolating lawyers from
I have seen [this] in
other countries and I think it applies in the Italian context as well:
the more destructive the lawyers are in their opposition to mediation,
the greater the power other professions will have in shaping mediation
in Italy. Also, the powerful Italian Employers Federation, known as
“Confindustria,” and virtually all of the national associations
representing the business community, have formally asked the government
to go ahead with mediation, to deny any request for changes, or delays,
to the law.
I frankly believe
that, ultimately, the vast majority of the bar associations will
gradually follow the examples of big cities like Rome, and also smaller
cities like Ancona and Pesaro, where lawyers decided to ride the wave,
instead of being crushed. They will establish their own mediation
centers, and ignore the OUA’s invitation not to create any mediation
centers as a way to boycott the mediation law. The paradox that faces
mediation in Italy today is that some Italian lawyers are fighting
mediation while the European Union chooses an Italian organization—the
ADR Center—to train lawyers in mediation throughout the EU. [See details
in the introduction above.]
Here’s a final thought
to remind those lawyers who do not want to mediate: Once the judge
renders a final decision, after one party has been declared in the
wrong, what will the lawyer say to the client if he had previously told
his client, with thundering arrogance, I never “send ambassadors”—that
is, accept a compromise? Hopefully, the government and the OUA will sit
down at a mediation table, albeit an informal one, to talk, given that
face-to-face negotiations have clearly failed. I know that one such,
high-level attempt to bring the two parties together is underway. . . .
De Palo, coauthor of Alternatives’
monthly Worldly Perspectives column, is co-founder and president of the
ADR Center, a member of Jams International. He is based in Rome. He
also is the first International Professor of ADR Law & Practice at
Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minn. Flavia Orecchini, of
the ADR Center International Projects Unit, assisted with research,
along with Ashley Feasley, who is a spring 2011 international fellow at
the ADR Center.
Sign-Up Now and Stay Informed!
Additional text goes here and here and here.
More text regarding the E-Alerts signup goes here.
© John Wiley & Sons, Professional Development Subscription Content
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94104-4594 | Phone: 800-835-6770
Terms and Conditions