The Fast Track Mediation Rules (FTMR), developed by the Milan Chamber of Arbitration (CAM), provide a streamlined, highly adaptable dispute resolution framework that operates independently of Italian Legislative Decree 28/2010 on mediation.
Designed for maximum flexibility, the FTMR allow parties to align the process with their strategic priorities — whether that means appointing a mutually trusted neutral, selecting specific technical expertise or international backgrounds, or reaching a settlement without the need for immediate enforceability in Italy. Parties adopting the FTMR gain access to a dedicated panel of international mediators.
What that flexibility looks like in practice is best explained by the mediators themselves. In this series, Roberta Regazzoni, International Mediation Officer at CAM, interviews three newly panel-listed mediators about their practical insights and perspectives on mediation. The interviews will be published monthly, in September, October and November, and we hope that together they will give readers a clearer sense of what mediation offers and where its advantages lie.
Meet the mediators
Between them, the three cover five working languages, three jurisdictions and areas of expertise ranging from patent litigation to cross-border succession — exactly the criteria parties weigh when appointing a mediator under the FTMR.
Jonathan Lux — An IMI-accredited mediator and member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Jonathan works across borders on cross-cultural commercial disputes. Fluent in English, French and German, he moves easily between legal cultures as well as languages. He is also an international trainer and speaker, and brings that global outlook to his work in alternative dispute resolution.
Gordon Harris — Accredited by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), Gordon has also completed specialist training with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). His caseload includes a major patent infringement dispute over medical instrument technology and the closing stages of a large multinational trademark dispute concerning online flower sales.
Amance Perrot — A French attorney also admitted to practise in Italy, Amance is a certified mediator working in a genuinely multicultural setting, in Italian, French, English, German and Spanish. Her expertise spans international dispute resolution, insolvency and restructuring, cross-border succession, estate planning and real estate.
First in the series is Jonathan Lux, who answers four questions on the misconceptions he encounters, the value institutions add to the process, and what parties and their counsel need to bring to the table.
- The Common Myth
“In your daily practice, what is the most common misconception or myth about mediation that you find yourself having to debunk?
The most common misconception or myth is that it is the mediator who creates the possibilities for settlement rather than, as is the case, facilitating the parties to achieve their own settlement.
- The Institutional Value
“In your opinion, what concrete advantages does a structured mediation provider offer to the parties when managing the mediation process?”
The concrete advantages run from the beginning to the end of the process – e.g. at the beginning, selection of and appointment of the mediator and, at the end, guiding the parties on e.g. whether to convert the mediation settlement agreement into an arbitration award or, on the other hand, seek enforcement of the mediation settlement agreement under the Singapore Mediation Convention. Alternatively, if the mediation has been unsuccessful (and in the UK approaching 90% are successful) then assisting the parties to identify next steps e.g. hybrid process/arbitration/court.
- (not only) Time & Cost Management
“Mediation is often praised for saving time and money. How does the flexibility of this process also help preserve long-term commercial relationships between the parties?”
Mediation certainly does save both time and cost. My professors at Harvard put this at no less than 80% of the cost of proceeding to a full scale arbitration or court hearing. Yet more important is the preservation of long-term commercial relationships between the parties and this is closely connected with my answer at 1. Above. In Court and Arbitration proceedings (at least in the UK) the parties are like opposing armies hurling missiles at each other in the form of hostile emails. In mediation the parties have to work together if a settlement is to be achieved and because the resolution of the dispute was arrived at with the knowing consent of both parties (it is their settlement) there is nothing to inhibit the continuation and indeed flourishing of their commercial relationship.
- The Key to Success. And By the Way: What is a Successful Mediation?
“What is the indispensable quality or mindset that the parties (and their legal counsel) need to bring to the table to ensure a successful agreement?”
The key to success rests on the distinction between legal positions, on the one hand, and underlying interests, on the other hand. Very often in my mediations there is almost a lightbulb moment when the parties get this and the whole focus then shifts in a constructive direction. To illustrate the distinction between the two I like to refer to the case of the shipload of oranges. The claimants argue that the oranges are theirs; & the respondents argue the reverse. What could a judge or arbitrator do in this situation: award the oranges to the claimants; alternatively to the respondents; divide the oranges between the two 50/50 or in some other proportions; or, I guess, in a corrupt jurisdiction, the judge or arbitrator could decide to keep the oranges! In mediation the skilled mediator drills down with each party in private caucus session and discovers that the claimants want the fruit of the orange to make orange juice and the respondents want the rind or skin of the orange to make marmalade. Lo and behold, whereas their positions were diametrically opposed, their interests can be accommodated from the same cargo of oranges. It must be said that it will be very rare indeed to find the two parties’ interests aligning quite so neatly. However, this is I think a good illustration of the distinction between positions and interests and it is focus on the latter which leads to successful outcomes time after time.
