Here in Massachusetts the Trial Court Department oversees the mediation firms and neutrals providing services in court-connected, court-approved programs. The Trial Court can revoke that approval and remove mediators from the court panels. Whether the mediators are attorneys or not makes no difference.

As far as Scott v. Harris is concerned, did you read the scholarly article and study I pointed you to? I’m scratching my head and trying to figure out why you think Scott v. Harris supports you. A jury never got to see the tape; a group of mostly white guys decided that they didn’t need to. Objective evidence really isn’t, even a videotape.

FYI, Jeff, Florida courts used to permit only attorneys to serve on its civil mediation panels but in response to widespread criticism they’ve changed that rule. Florida gets it; why doesn’t New York?

As for the me v. we point, I simply believe that any argument for or against accreditation should be based upon what is prudent and beneficial for the profession as a whole. That’s one of the things being a professional is all about. Doing what’s good for the game, not just what’s good for me as a player.

Chris, thanks so much for your comment. I have long thought that videotapes are useful for helping people learn. However, I’m not so confident about the objective value of videotaped mediations in evaluation. The problem is that we can all look at so-called objective evidence and what each of us sees is largely determined by who is doing the looking. Perception itself is culturally and socially constructed. The Scott v. Harris case is I think an instructive example of this. Unless cultural and social biases can be counteracted, and we are willing to have the honesty to confront them together, the videotapes will have limited usefulness.

In candor, I am troubled by your dismissal of criticisms of credentialing schemes as “more about ‘Is it good for me?’ rather than ‘Is it good for the profession?’” In my experience, I haven’t heard that. In the discussions online and in person that I have taken part in, I have heard good people, motivated by sincere and very real concerns, give voice to legitimate objections. These objections will not and should not go away; if our field moves forward toward public licensing or credentialing schemes or toward national private accreditation by organizations like ACR, these are objections that will have to be answered and resolved. I have a lot of respect for the naysayers. (For what it’s worth, I don’t in any event see anything wrong with anyone expressing a little honest self-interest; it’s perfectly normal to wonder, “What’s in it for me?” Why’s that so bad? Why shouldn’t any of us ask how something might impact us directly?)

The whole point about accrediting mediators is that it will covert what is now a practice into a profession. Transition, like all transitions, can be messy, and I could see implementing accreditation by godfathering all current mediators with a certain experience level. That is the way of the world when change of this type is sought. When I read through most complaints about accreditation and I use “active listening”, I sense that objections to accreditation are more about “Is it good for me?” rather than “Is it good for the profession?” So, don’t fret mediators, it likely won’t be about you.

There really seems to be a divide increasing between the “Haves” and “Have Nots”. The “Haves” being the mediators with a law degree.
I recently wrote how a Court ADR program here in NY is now paying mediators ($600 for the first 4 hours, $250 each additional). That’s the good new.
The bad news is the rule states in order to be on the mediator roster, one has to also be an attorney (also described as being reasonable).
Certification could possibly be what helps level the playing field.

I don’t trust evaluation for the big reason I outlined in this post; you’ve raised other good concerns – namely, the very real bias against mediators who aren’t attorneys. Despite the ABA’s opinion issued several years ago making it plain that mediation does not constitute the practice of law, I have met mediating lawyers who think otherwise. They remain determined to protect their turf and bar the door to mediators who don’t have a bar card. I even heard respected leaders in our field say so while I was at the ABA Section on DR spring conference in NYC.

Too bad. Some of the most talented mediators I know and work with aren’t lawyers. And at the beginning of my mediation career I often felt that my legal training was a handicap, not a plus in my favor.