Article 3 of Law No. 51/1995 on the practice of the legal profession provides that a lawyer may carry out mediation/conciliation activities.

In practice, this means facilitating communication between parties in conflict and assisting them in expressing and representing their interests and viewpoints within a civilized framework of dialogue. The aim is to help the parties listen to and understand each other’s positions so that, through mutual concessions, they may reach an agreement that is satisfactory to both sides.

Even in such cases, the lawyer’s role is not to make decisions on behalf of the client. The decision always remains with the client. The lawyer supports communication and helps clients recognize why cooperation and settlement are in their own interest, and to determine what concessions they are willing to make in order to reach an agreement.

In these situations, the lawyer acts as an intermediary between opposing interests, jointly seeking a mutually beneficial solution that avoids loss of prestige and, wherever possible, preserves the relationship between the parties.

These settlement negotiations involve opposing positions, but not hostility. Together, we look for common ground that can form the basis of constructive negotiations.

We should not seek to destroy the other party or to achieve a crushing victory over them.

Agreements that benefit only one side are usually short-lived. The more one-sided a contract is, the stronger the incentive for the disadvantaged party to escape the constraints of the agreement.

I firmly believe in the power of dialogue..

We often lose sight of the fact that a judge can make mistakes just as we can, and has weaknesses just like us. So why should we not take control of our own lives? Why should we not decide for ourselves about our own matters and problems? Why should someone else decide in our place? (Although relinquishing the right to decide is itself a decision—our decision.)