Should we use Mediation service at STBX's sols?

Can anyone advise, stbx has asked to use the mediation service at her solicitors? Has anyone done this, my concern is could there be a conflict of interest? Thanks

Hi I was advised to try mediation (not at ex's solicitors) however, just be aware that at mediation neither of you are required to provide proof of financial disclosure. so, if you do not think you can trust ex partner to be truthful, it is not the ideal route to go down

Success rates of mediation? Of the cases I have dealt with, only 2 have not reached a successful conclusion. To be fair, I am not sure how many cases I have handled, but I have been mediating since 2002. Of course, the success rate may say more about my clients (and their inclintation to compromise and work together to solve a common problem) than it does about me!

As far as disclosure is concerned, whichever route you go down, there needs to be full disclosure by both sides; it is an absolute requirement. Often people think solicitors are in a better position to discover all the assets, whereas the reality is that they are in no better position than anybody else, unless you start employing private investigators etc.

It would be foolish of somebody not to make full disclosure as the penalties, should hidden assets be discovered later, could be very expensive.

I am sorry your daughter had such a bad time and I reallise this comment is too late to be of any use to her, but I am writing this comment for the benefit of others that might read this thread.

If she didn't like the way the mediator was handling matters, she should have changed mediators. It doesn't matter what her solicitor thought (he is working for her, and not her for him) - if she wasn't happy, she should have switched or stopped the process altogether. (I know it is easier said than done.)

Also, if she wasn't happy with the final agreement (especially if she felt it was based on lies and half truths), she shouldn't have signed it. She was not actually obliged to agree to anything. If she felt the agreement was completely unreasonable, she shouldn't have commited herself to it.

Of course, the alternative might have been to fight it out in court - at some considerable cost. So she might be better off with a poor agreement, rather than have the court decide and lose a large lump of her settlement in legal fees.

Mediation can and does work for many people, but it does depend on both sides being open and honest and prepared to compromise.

I can't speak for judges - I think they are in favour of both collaborative law and mediation.

As you probably know, collaborative law involves two lawyers and their clients sitting round a table thrashing out an agreement. So it should be quicker and cheaper than having them writing offensive letters to eachother. I'm not sure but I think collaborative law started when lawyers saw mediation encroaching on their territory.

Clearly some mediators are better than others. Some would appear to have no qualifications at all (but that doesn't necessarily make them bad mediators), and I know one who was a family division judge. Once upon a time, I qualified as a boring accountant and I work with somebody who became a barrister and used to practice family law - which I think is a useful combination of backgrounds.