Let’s Change Our Limiting Self-Labeling Practices

Tweet

This article is intended as an invitation to reconsider your participation in a labeling trend that is serving neither mediators nor the dispute resolution field well.

In gatherings of mediators throughout the U.S., I’m noticing increasing usage of the terms “attorney-mediator” and “non-attorney mediator.” I’ve stopped using those labels and invite you to do the same.

The terms create confusion, contribute to an ingroup/outgroup mentality that has no place in our field, and are, at their very worst, insulting. Here’s why:

“Attorney-mediator” suggests that the two professional roles are performed simultaneously or that one is necessarily adjunct to the other. Either interpretation risks a conclusion by the public that the two go hand in hand. Of course, they don’t go hand in hand and mediator ethics statements and guidelines go to lengths to make that clear.

Adopting “attorney-mediator” language and its converse necessitates other hybrids in order to fairly acknowledge the rich diversity of background from which excellent mediators hail: therapist-mediator, educator-mediator, social worker-mediator, realtor-mediator. The list would become exhausting before it could become exhaustive, and would drift into the ridiculous: horse trainer-mediator, massage therapist-mediator and so on.

And perhaps most importantly of all, “non-attorney mediator” defines mediators who have degrees other than a J.D. by the absence of attorney-ness. It is the equivalent of referring to African-Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and others who are not Caucasian by the term “non-White,” a label now widely understood as race-centric and which tells us little of value about the “non-White” being described. No one should be defined by what they are not. “Non-attorney mediator” is a marginalizing label and has no place in our field.

What should we use instead? How about “mediator” or “professional mediator”? The latter may not apply to you if you mediate solely in a volunteer capacity, and so you may find the first option more inclusive and straightforward. “Mediator” embraces all who have the courage, capacity and constitution to sit in the mediator’s chair, regardless of profession of origin, academic degree, and preparatory history.

And as others before me have said, the term “mediator” conveys that the work of mediation is an activity worthy of standing on its own, with no reliance on another profession for its credibility.

The change, if you accept my invitation, is an easy one: Find a replacement term of merit and stop using the marginalizing and confusion-generating terms when you write and when you speak. I was able to make the switch in a single day and you can, too.

Biography

Tweet

Comments

Tweet

---

Free subscription to comments on this article

Add Brief Comment

John ,   Oakland CA	01/18/08
Follow Up Test
Hi Tammy, Our technical staff have worked on the problem and this is a follow up 'test' to see if you are receiving now comments? Please email me if you recieve this comment in you email inbox. Thanks, John Add New Comment

Tammy ,   Dublin NH	01/14/08
UPL or UPM or neither?
Paula, I look forward to our scheduled phone conversation this week. It's a meaty topic that I'd love to see more exchange about, both here on Mediate.com and in the blogosphere. Tammy Add New Comment

Tammy ,   Dublin NH	01/14/08
Double-talk?
Well, gee, Matt, why don't you tell me how you really feel? :) It seems I pressed some of your buttons, yes? Here's where I'm puzzling about your comments: I don't see myself singling out volunteer mediators as somehow unworthy of the "professional" label. Indeed, I and other good mediators I know who volunteer some of the time or all of the time, use that label and proudly so. So I hoped the spirit of my article didn't convey what you understood. I also know volunteer mediators who abhor the "professional mediator" label because they believe it describes something they're not and don't want to be: mediators who take pay to help people solve problems. This may be far from the realm you work in, but there are mediators who believe "volunteer mediator" is the only badge of honor we should be wearing. It sounds like my attempt to convey that didn't come off as clearly to your eyes as it did to mine. I appreciate your feedback about that because now I can see how you saw it. I only wish you could have offered your feedback with a bit more grace. Feedback delivered in a way that's so in-your-face (perhaps that's just my perception in this online place?) is much harder to digest and do something useful with. Tammy Add New Comment

Tammy Lenski,   Dublin NH	01/14/08
Comments
Hi, John - Just a quick note here to let you know I'm not receiving my article comments automatically. And readers who've kindly taken the time to comment, my apologies for not responding much sooner to most of them! I hope this will be fixed soon so I'll know when you've shared your thoughts. Tammy Add New Comment

Paula Young,   Grundy VA	pyoung@asl.edu      12/21/07
Benefits of a Diverse Field
I am writing a law review article on the unauthorized practice of law by (sorry) non-lawyer mediators. I had hoped to find additional citations that show why the field and parties benefit when mediators have diversity in their skills, backgrounds, professions of origin, and training. Short of bona fide article citations, I'd like to start a conversation about why we think this diversity is important to the field. We talk about cultural diversity a lot, but not about background/skill diversity. I am specifically responding to a comment that one of my faculty colleagues made: Don't you solve the UPL problem by making all mediators lawyers? I feel certain that many of the UPL regulators feel the same. Anyone familiar with the conversation that happened in Florida over the use of non-lawyer mediators in court-connected cases? Thanks. Add New Comment

See All 13 Comments

The views expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc., Mediate.com or of reviewing editors.