Latest news about mediation in our blogs
Mediation is not a mere formality: it is an opportunity to better manage conflicts
How can we better manage conflicts? The entry into force of Organic Law 1/2025, of January 2, on measures regarding the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, has brought about a significant change in how certain conflicts in the civil and commercial spheres are addressed. The requirement to resort, in general and except for legally established exceptions, to an appropriate means of dispute resolution (ADR) before filing a lawsuit obliges professionals and citizens to incorporate a preliminary phase that, until now, was not always part of our procedural strategy. Given this new scenario, there is a risk… Read more
From "my court" to "our court": mediation as a tool for organizational transformation
Intra-organizational Mediation, Change Management, and Team Culture in the Courts of First Instance. The implementation of the Courts of First Instance represents one of the most significant organizational transformations in the administration of justice in recent decades. This is not simply a change of name, nor is it merely an operation limited to redistributing offices, schedules, or job positions. The reform introduces a different way of understanding judicial organization: it progressively abandons the operation based on relatively autonomous units and moves toward an integrated, cross-cutting, and functionally interdependent structure. This transition requires viewing the justice system not only as a set of bodies with defined powers, but as a true ecosystem of professional relationships. Judges, magistrates, court clerks, general staff, common services, specialized sections, external professionals, and citizens now interact within a much more intensive framework of coordination. The greater the interdependence, the greater the need to organize communication channels, clarify roles, prevent dysfunctions, and manage internal conflicts before they become structural problems. In this context, intra-organizational mediation emerges as a particularly useful tool for supporting change. It does not aim to replace jurisdictional, administrative, or procedural powers, nor to create informal spaces lacking safeguards. Its function is technical and organizational: to listen, organize, facilitate, clarify, and help build operational solutions in conflicts that arise within the judicial organization itself. 1. The Court of First Instance changes the structure and also the relationships. The traditional model of the single-judge court fostered a culture of autonomous operation for years. Each body developed its own organizational criteria, its own procedural models, its own scheduling practices, and its own way of distributing daily work. This autonomy often generated a high level of individual commitment and valuable specialized knowledge. However, it also produced organizational inequalities, duplication, excessive dependence on specific individuals, and a significant difficulty in obtaining a true overall view. The Court of First Instance introduces a different logic. The existence of shared services, specialized sections, management positions, department heads, coordinated units, and standardized criteria requires a shift from a "my court" culture to a "our court" culture. This change affects the distribution of workloads, the use of models, scheduling, the coordination of hearings, the relationship between sections, and how results are measured. Therefore, reform cannot be implemented solely through regulations. It also requires an organizational transition strategy. People must understand what is changing, why it is changing, what their new responsibilities are, and what channels exist for raising concerns. When this explanation is lacking, the reform can be perceived as a loss of autonomy or as an external imposition, even if its aim is to improve the efficiency of the public service. 2. Every organization has a visible and an invisible dimension. Every organization has a formal structure… Read more
Collective responsibility in mediation
What are we all failing to do? Towards true shared responsibility in mediation. There are words we repeat like mantras—best interests of the child, protection, coordination, responsible parenting—but which, in practice, become mere institutional window dressing. It sounds good. It looks good. But nothing changes. The uncomfortable truth is this: when a child is caught in a high-intensity conflict, it's not one person who fails. It's an entire system. The national sport is passing the buck. In difficult cases, every professional has a perfect refuge: “This is for the court.” “This is for social services.” “The psychologist will decide this.” “Mediation will resolve this.” ”The lawyers will sort this out.“ And while everyone protects themselves, the child is left unprotected. Collective responsibility begins when we stop playing the "this isn't mine" game and accept that if a child suffers, it's everyone's problem. Mediation in high-conflict situations is neither a prerequisite nor a mere formality. It's a space where what the system refuses to see is revealed—without filters. Mediation doesn't miraculously solve problems, but it does reveal them. And what it reveals is uncomfortable. That's why some prefer to avoid it. We all talk about professional ethics. But true ethics aren't found in codes of conduct, but in difficult decisions. Ethics isn't rhetoric. It's not a PowerPoint presentation. It's a boundary. And in high-conflict situations, setting boundaries saves children. The system… Read more
