| ADReport |
Alternative
Dispute Resolution Section Newsletter |
| Volume Two, Number
One |
Honorable
Melanie A. Vaughn, Chair
Mary Louise Preis, Editor
Jonathan S. Rosenthal, Co-Editor |
RAISING THE
BAR |
MACRO’s Quality Assurance
Committee Update & Status of the Committee’s Work
By Jonathan Rosenthal |
Throughout Maryland the use of mediation
continues to rise. As mediation becomes more familiar to the public in general,
and legal professionals in particular, the issues of mediation quality and
mediator qualifications will become more important in determining if parties
will have confidence in both the process of mediation, and the mediators. In
Maryland right now, anyone can "hang out a shingle" and provide
mediation services to the public. Although such an individual may be excluded
from receiving court referrals for mediation, an untrained and unskilled
individual can still operate as a mediator in Maryland. The perceived problem
with this scenario is that consumers receiving mediation services from such an
individual may have a bad experience and come away from that experience
believing mediation is not a good thing.
As members of the Bar, we have an interest
in maintaining a certain standard of quality for mediators that will guard
against such experiences for ourselves and for our clients.
Because this is such a crucial element to
the continued and expanded use of mediation, both within and outside of the
court system, the Maryland Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office, (MACRO),
has undertaken the task of exploring the need for, or possibility of,
establishing a quality assurance program for mediators statewide. If
implemented, such a program could conceivably be used for lawyer-mediators,
government mediators, mediators with social sciences backgrounds, and any other
entity providing mediation services within the state. In working toward this
goal, MACRO has formed an oversight committee comprised of representatives not
only from the legal world, but also from other stakeholder groups, including
community mediation programs, professional organizations, scholars, etc.
Ultimately, the committee hopes to communicate with, and invite the feedback
from, all stakeholders in the State to consider their concerns, the plausibility
of such a system, and principles and goals of implementing such a program.
To date the committee has studied quality
assurance programs from other states and Canada, including programs court
related, government related, and from other "non-affiliated"
organizations and entities. Additionally, the committee has made it a point to
seek input from as many experienced practitioners, scholars, attorneys, authors,
and others, from in state and from around the country, to explore what the
interests are, what the concerns are, and the broad spectrum of ideas as to what
should or should not be included in such a program.
Issues and considerations included in these
discussions to date are: (1) should such a program be mandatory or voluntary;
(2) should there be different levels of certification based on experience and
"expertise," or is one threshold sufficient; (3) should there be a
licensing process; (4) should there exist a "hurdle" to becoming a
recognized or certified mediator, and if so, should such a hurdle have a high,
medium, or low threshold. Initial hurdles might include various training
workshops, skills assessments analyses, written studies, etc.; (5) should a
certification program utilize a maintenance requirement, which might include
mentoring, skills assessment monitoring, continued training, etc.?
The committee is also examining the options for
administration of a program if one is enacted. Would it be appropriate for the
state government to sponsor and administer the program, or the courts, or should
each organization/entity (community mediation centers, courts, private
organizations) be responsible for their own administration? This list barely
scratches the surface of options and combinations that are possible.
As the work of this committee progresses, look
here in your newsletter for updates and possibly dates, times, and places for
open forums to discuss these issues. If you have an opinion about any of the
issues listed in this article, or about other points not discussed above, let us
know. Please contact Jonathan S. Rosenthal.
The views expressed in this article are those
of the author and they may not reflect the views of the ADR Section or its
counsel.
