Mediator standards of conduct: A commentary to the revised National Mediator Accreditation System Practice Standards

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This article concerns the National Mediator Accreditation System (NMAS)Practice Standards which were extensively revised in 2015. According to theChair of the Mediator Standards Board, the standards now "specify clearly theminimum practice and competency requirements" for NMAS accreditedmediators. The study undertaken in this article, in which the revised PracticeStandards are compared with those that they replace, suggests otherwise.Numerous gaps (for example, as to the mediator's duty of confidentiality) anduncertainties (for example, as to the meaning of "impartiality") in the revisedstandards are identified. The author concludes that the revised standardsprovide little guidance to mediators faced with a choice between contradictorycourses of action and conflicting values. The usefulness of the standards as atool to educate mediators (and to instil in them a sense of the values ofmediation), participants and potential participants has been compromised bythe recent revisions. The article offers possible solutions for overcomingshortcomings in the standards.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)109-147
Number of pages39
JournalJournal of Civil Litigation and Practice
Volume5
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

accreditation
Values

Cite this

@article{5ec81e372d8445c999d6e8c62a2cbbb5,
title = "Mediator standards of conduct: A commentary to the revised National Mediator Accreditation System Practice Standards",
abstract = "This article concerns the National Mediator Accreditation System (NMAS)Practice Standards which were extensively revised in 2015. According to theChair of the Mediator Standards Board, the standards now {"}specify clearly theminimum practice and competency requirements{"} for NMAS accreditedmediators. The study undertaken in this article, in which the revised PracticeStandards are compared with those that they replace, suggests otherwise.Numerous gaps (for example, as to the mediator's duty of confidentiality) anduncertainties (for example, as to the meaning of {"}impartiality{"}) in the revisedstandards are identified. The author concludes that the revised standardsprovide little guidance to mediators faced with a choice between contradictorycourses of action and conflicting values. The usefulness of the standards as atool to educate mediators (and to instil in them a sense of the values ofmediation), participants and potential participants has been compromised bythe recent revisions. The article offers possible solutions for overcomingshortcomings in the standards.",
author = "Bobette Wolski",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "109--147",
journal = "Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice",
issn = "1839-4574",
number = "2",

}

Mediator standards of conduct : A commentary to the revised National Mediator Accreditation System Practice Standards. / Wolski, Bobette.

In: Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2016, p. 109-147.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mediator standards of conduct

T2 - A commentary to the revised National Mediator Accreditation System Practice Standards

AU - Wolski, Bobette

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - This article concerns the National Mediator Accreditation System (NMAS)Practice Standards which were extensively revised in 2015. According to theChair of the Mediator Standards Board, the standards now "specify clearly theminimum practice and competency requirements" for NMAS accreditedmediators. The study undertaken in this article, in which the revised PracticeStandards are compared with those that they replace, suggests otherwise.Numerous gaps (for example, as to the mediator's duty of confidentiality) anduncertainties (for example, as to the meaning of "impartiality") in the revisedstandards are identified. The author concludes that the revised standardsprovide little guidance to mediators faced with a choice between contradictorycourses of action and conflicting values. The usefulness of the standards as atool to educate mediators (and to instil in them a sense of the values ofmediation), participants and potential participants has been compromised bythe recent revisions. The article offers possible solutions for overcomingshortcomings in the standards.

AB - This article concerns the National Mediator Accreditation System (NMAS)Practice Standards which were extensively revised in 2015. According to theChair of the Mediator Standards Board, the standards now "specify clearly theminimum practice and competency requirements" for NMAS accreditedmediators. The study undertaken in this article, in which the revised PracticeStandards are compared with those that they replace, suggests otherwise.Numerous gaps (for example, as to the mediator's duty of confidentiality) anduncertainties (for example, as to the meaning of "impartiality") in the revisedstandards are identified. The author concludes that the revised standardsprovide little guidance to mediators faced with a choice between contradictorycourses of action and conflicting values. The usefulness of the standards as atool to educate mediators (and to instil in them a sense of the values ofmediation), participants and potential participants has been compromised bythe recent revisions. The article offers possible solutions for overcomingshortcomings in the standards.

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 109

EP - 147

JO - Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice

JF - Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice

SN - 1839-4574

IS - 2

ER -