It is still available on the BBC iPlayer until 28th July – click here. I shall be looking forward to next week’s final part.

PRESS RELEASE

24 March 2010

Rapproche launched to make dispute resolution more effective

Today sees the public launch of Rapproche, a dynamic new service that brings mediation and other conflict resolution techniques to people who wish to understand and resolve disputes and disagreements of all kinds in business, work and other professional settings.

Rapproche is founded by James Savory who gained 20 years top-flight legal experience as a Tax Partner with pre-eminent city law firm, Slaughter and May.  James combines his experience as a lawyer, mediator, business coach and leadership trainer with his qualifications and training in Neuro-Linguistic Programming and conflict resolution to offer a refreshing and effective approach to resolving disputes.

Rapproche’s range of skills offers a tailored approach to resolving disputes, whether formal legal proceedings have been issued or not.  Where disputants are seeking settlement of litigation, Rapproche can help them construct an effective solution.  Where they are looking to rebuild or enhance their business relationships, whether internally or with a supplier, customer or other business partner, Rapproche’s wide experience of working with communication and conflict resolution helps those involved find effective ways to move forward.

All too often disagreements and disputes lead to stress, paralysis, destructive conflict and litigation.  Rapproche has been set up to assist people to meet the challenge of their disputes, move away from the ill effects of conflict and refocus their energy constructively on the future. Rapproche establishes safe ways for those involved in a dispute to communicate their true interests and work out solutions that meet their needs.

Rapproche covers three main areas.  Dispute mediation is for where litigation has already begun or is imminent. This traditional mediation service leads towards settling of claims and can include addressing continuing business or family relationships, where appropriate.

Organisational mediation works towards the re-establishing of a shared aim or purpose, the rebuilding of relationships and the setting up of effective ways to deal with disagreement in the future.  Organisational mediation is particularly suited to small and medium sized enterprises, partnerships, families and not-for-profit organisations, or teams within larger organisations, which are able to gain the full value of Rapproche’s personal approach.  Organisational mediation is also invaluable between joint venturers and partner organisations in long-term contracts.

Finally, where conflict between two individuals is undermining their own, or their colleagues’, effectiveness, Personal mediation helps them build a new working relationship.  This embraces workplace mediation, among other similar situations.

Commenting on the launch of Rapproche, James says:

“We are very excited to be launching Rapproche now that mediation and facilitated conflict resolution is increasingly recognised as an alternative to litigation, destructive conflict or impasse. We are different because we have both the legal experience to help design effective solutions in a wide range of situations and the understanding that conflicts are resolved when peoples’ genuine and legitimate interests are addressed.  We appreciate that there are times when just settling the dispute is enough; we respect that choice and our approach operates effectively to that end.  We also offer much more to disputants who want a deeper, lasting resolution.”

-Ends-

For further information please contact:

James Savory, Rapproche                                                             01263 768607

Gus Sellitto, Byfield Consultancy                                                 0207 256 4912

Notes to Editors

James Savory

QUALIFICATIONS

NLP Trainer: John Grinder, Carmen Bostic St Clair and Michael Carroll (2007)

Community Mediator: Mediation UK (2006)

Accredited Mediator: Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (2005)

Diploma in Executive Coaching: Academy of Executive Coaching (2003)

NLP Practitioner and Master Practitioner: Integration Training Centre (1998 – 2002)

Associate Chartered Institute of Taxation: (1980)

Solicitor: admitted 1978

BA in Law: Queens’ College, Cambridge (1975)

James is a deeply skilled, experienced and practical mediator. Areas he covers include:

• Banking and Insurance

• Investment and Financial Services

• Company, Commercial and Contract law

• Share and Business valuation

• Director, Shareholder and Partner disputes

• Real Property and Building disputes

• Boundary and Neighbour disputes

• Employment and Workplace

• Family Property dispute

You may also be surprised that, in the recent Farm Assist case (click for .pdf of the judgment), the mediator was ordered to give evidence as to what happened in the mediation.  Does this undermine what you have been told? I would say, No!  But the position is not quite black and white – and if you read on you will probably be pleased!

One question is, Can what happens in a mediation ever get out? The answer, of course, is yes.  Someone may breach the undertaking as to confidentiality.  You may then have a right of redress, but that’s another case!

Indeed, what is said in a mediation may even become evidence in litigation or the reason for a court acting.  Would you really expect to be able to protect yourself against criminal prosecution because you committed the offense while at a mediation?

Well Jo Francis, of the apparently well-known ‘Girls Gone Wild’ video series, thought so when he shouted,  “We will bury you and your clients. I’m going to ruin you, your clients and all of your ambulance-chasing partners.”  He then charged bodily at the plaintiffs’ counsel who testified subsequently “I thought he was going to slug me.”   But that’s a different story!

Coming down to the prosaic concerns of parties to litigation in England and Wales, what protection is there for mediations?

First, there is ‘without prejudice’. ‘Without Prejudice’ is a rule of evidence designed to allow parties to litigation to communicate in an attempt to settle actual or potential litigation without their discussions then being used in evidence.  As a protection against your honesty being used against you, this is strong and applies whatever the mediation agreement says.

Secondly, mediation agreements often contain provisions of confidentiality between the parties and the mediator and undertakings not to call the mediator as a witness.  If so these can generally be relied on by all parties.  But it is subject to a rule that a court can, in the interests of justice, override provisions of confidentiality.

Thirdly, if you show a mediator something that is itself ‘privileged’, perhaps because it is advice from your lawyer, you will not, by doing so, have waived that privilege.

Fourthly, some argue that a new type of ‘privilege’ is being developed – ‘mediation privilege’.  But that is not currently something to rely on – make sure your mediation agreement covers your concerns.

So what did the court decide in the Farm Assist case.  The most significant point is that this was about the extent the mediator herself could enforce confidentiality – both parties agreed that they wanted the mediator’s testimony.

The judge confirmed that the ‘without prejudice’ rule would not prevent her giving evidence.  This is a privilege of the parties and they had both waived it.  If there is a ‘mediation privilege’, the same was true for that.  It is for the protection of the parties, not the mediator, so if the parties agree it is overruled.

As to the explicit provisions of the mediation agreement on confidentiality and not calling the mediator as a witness, the judge concluded as follows.  There was a right to confidentiality owed to the mediator and she was entitled to rely on it.  However, all such rights are subject to the general rule that the court can override them in the interests of justice.

Since this was a case where one party was alleging that they had entered into the settlement agreement under duress, the evidence of what happened at the mediation was core and the interests of justice required it to be heard.

Finally the judge decided that the restriction on calling the mediator as a witness only applied, on the words of this agreement, to being called in a hearing relating to the dispute that had been mediated.  This case was about a different dispute, so it did not apply.  If it had applied, however, he would have been entitled to override it in the interests of justice, and would have done so.

So there is a real question as to whether the Farm Assist case has undermined mediation confidentiality.  What can we now say to parties about confidentiality to reassure them?  There is also the wider question of whether we need some statutory blanket confidentiality protection.

It seems to me that a blanket confidentiality protection is neither necessary, desirable nor likely in the near future – so we have to live with what we have.  And what we have seems to be judges developing a pragmatic and helpful path between giving mediation the protections it needs to prosper and the wider interests of justice.

While we should be ready to inform parties of the limits of confidentiality, they seem to me to have enough protection to encourage them to be honest and open in their discussions – but not so much that they could escape the consequences of making a fraudulent misrepresentation, let alone assaulting anyone!

Some familiar themes were addressed, including what can we do to further popularise mediation, and well known views on the hot topic of mediator confidentiality were expressed.

The highlight was, of course, my short workshop on NLP!  Despite battling slightly with timing and the environment I gave a brief demonstration of ‘Perceptual Positions’ and then the delegates were able to try it out for themselves – testing out the technique on a real dispute or disagreement they have with someone.  A number of people told me the exercise had helped them see things differently and there was general agreement that this could be used to help a participant in a mediation to see the other party’s point of view more clearly.  Go to Publications for the handout I prepared for the workshop.

Thank you to all who came to my session and contributed to it being a success!

We are a new kind of mediation and conflict resolution service.  What distinguishes us is that we combine top level legal experience with a strong understanding that disputes are resolved by people.  Sometimes just settling the dispute is adequate, and the legal background of our mediators is well suited to that.  But we are also aware that disputants often want something else from the process too and we are skilled at unearthing and exploring that as well.

We hope you enjoy the site and would be delighted to read your comments.