Mediation is best described as a process and not as a result. The main objective of mediation is to help the parties find a common solution through open communication. Even if no definitive solution is found, this does not mean that mediation has failed, as many intermediate and problematic problems have been resolved along the way. Any perspective may be valid, but there is no doubt that the difficulties of compromise lie in the discussions themselves and are currently highlighted in the discussions between Greece and the euro area, which have been included in our weekly information regime since the fall of the financial crash of 2008. The mediator works with the participants to facilitate a negotiated solution – he or she is not there to judge the case and does not make a binding decision at the end of the process. The parties retain full control over whether the matter is settled and, if so, decide the terms of the transaction. A private meeting during mediation between the Ombudsman and a page. « Information obtained during the caucus cannot be disclosed by another mediator without the consent of the revealing party. » [See Rule 10.360 (b), Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators]. Of course, throughout the mediation process, each party, at different stages, will want to conduct private consultations with its advisors and experts to discuss different aspects of mediation or to evaluate options. It goes without saying that such private consultations can take place during the mediation process. Mediation is not an appropriate dispute resolution procedure in all cases.
When it comes to forgery or deliberate piracy in bad faith, it is unlikely that both parties will cooperate. If a party is certain to have a clear case or if the objective of the parties or one of them is to obtain a neutral opinion on a question of actual difference, to set a precedent or to be publicly confirmed on a contentious issue, mediation may not be the appropriate procedure. Above all, there is a situation where there is no sense in settling a civil trial. If the plaintiff (the person presenting the case) attempts to challenge a law or set public order, the settlement will not achieve that objective because cases that are settled outside do not set a legal precedent. However, in almost all other civil cases, settling accounts is the best option. The problem is resolved quickly and financial rewards (if any) are much less consumed by court and legal fees. In addition, billing details can be kept completely private, but no matter what happens in a courtroom, it becomes public. Even a failure of mediation is an excellent learning process, so it is important to step back, breathe deeply and remember that all is not lost. They know the arguments of the other parties about how they feel and what they want.