PRIVATE MEDIATOR

”I have seen lots of disputes and ways to resolve them, but I haven’t ever met a better mediator than Pirita or a better way for resolving disputes than the U.S. type of mediation.

 

Over the past 10 years, I have been resolving disputes. First at a law firm and then, in different construction companies. During this time, I have seen different ways of resolving disputes, of which the U.S. type of mediation offered by Pirita is clearly the best and most cost-effective.

 

Usually, I want to negotiate first on my own, but if negotiations do not result in a rational outcome, the U.S. type of mediation service offered by Pirita is the primary method I want to use to resolve a dispute.  

 

All in all, Pirita’s mediation was an eye-opening experience. I especially appreciated that Pirita researched every detail of the case and as a neutral and objective party, gave me a comprehensive understanding of the risks of the case. Parties usually trust too much on their own case and it’s difficult to evaluate cases objectively when one is working in-house. Pirita’s objective perspective gave parties realism.

 

The negotiation process carried out in mediation was also different from traditional negotiations and overall, interesting. During the mediation day we were able to test the best possible solution for Jatke.

 

I emphasize, that in addition to the mediation service offered by Pirita, I have also experience from other private mediation services in Finland and also from court-annexed mediation. The mediation service offered by Pirita differs significantly from other mediation services in Finland.  These other mediation services – whether they would be private or court-annexed – are all the very same type of mediation, i.e., facilitative mediation. In facilitative mediation, parties are gathered around the same table to discuss the matter and mediator acts as a chair person. I have also reached settlements in facilitative mediation, but the impact of mediation itself on achieving a settlement has been quite small. Parties could have organized a similar discussion on their own anyway. 

 

On the contrary, in mediation service offered by Pirita we reached the settlement precisely because of mediation. This was due to the different and active role of the mediator, the joint preparation process guided by the mediator and a different kind of mediation day, during which we focused on negotiations lead by Pirita.

 

I also appreciated that in Pirita’s mediation we did not “split the baby”. On the contrary, the settlement was negotiated based on the risks of the case. I was also able to ensure that the outcome of the case was the best possible for Jatke. As a general counsel, this is exactly what I want.