News

Constant litigation in courts depletes not only the finances of the disputing parties but also their emotional energy. To encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes, mediation is increasingly discussed—a process that allows parties to find a mutually beneficial solution themselves. We talk about the advantages of mediation, which cases are most suitable for it, and how judges manage to reconcile the mandatory role of decision-making with the role of a court mediator, with Panevėžys Regional Court Judge-Mediator Loreta Miltenytė.

What does your workday look like when you have to combine the duties of a judge and a court mediator? How much time do you dedicate to each area?

Since the duties of a court mediator are in addition to the duties of a judge, the usual daily schedule revolves primarily around direct judicial work: familiarising myself with case materials, resolving various requests, and organising and conducting court hearings. Only after completing these tasks do I allocate time for judicial mediation cases. Then, I study the transferred case, check for contacts of individuals who have agreed to resolve the dispute in this manner, and coordinate the time for the judicial mediation session. Time allocation depends on the situation: sometimes mediation work takes less time than the judge's work, but in complex dispute cases, I might have to dedicate equal time to both.

What are the biggest differences you see between making decisions in court and during the court mediation process?

The biggest difference is that during mediation, the disputing parties themselves make the decision. The court mediator only helps them find a consensus and can draw attention to details of the agreement that contradict the law. In contrast, in the court process, the decision is made by the judge after evaluating the parties' arguments and analysing the presented evidence.

Which cases, in your opinion, are most suitable for mediation and why? Are there any that are completely unsuitable?

I believe that mediation is best suited for cases where the litigants have completely ceased communication with each other. Often during mediation, by meeting and talking, both sides finally hear what is important or "painful" for the other party. This creates an excellent opportunity for mutual understanding. Mediation is completely unsuitable when both parties fundamentally refuse to negotiate, do not want to concede, or propose alternative solutions to the dispute. In such a case, the attempt to find a compromise is usually futile.

What is the benefit of mediation compared to the traditional court process?

The main benefit of mediation is that both sides have the opportunity to maintain friendly or at least respectful relations, as they peacefully agree on the resolution of the dispute themselves. Unlike court, where the decision is made by the court, mediation allows avoiding a situation where one or both sides remain dissatisfied and decide to appeal the court's decision. Such an appeal inevitably means a longer dispute resolution time and higher costs. Mediation allows this to be avoided.

What advice would you give to those considering mediation as a method of dispute resolution?

If you are considering pre-court mediation, do not hesitate and take advantage of it. Mediation allows the dispute to be resolved in the best and most acceptable way for both parties. Moreover, it saves time, as the court process can take a long time - a year or even longer.

If you are considering judicial mediation when the dispute has already reached the court, I also highly recommend choosing it. Often, the real interests and needs of the disputing parties are not reflected in the procedural documents. During judicial mediation, participants have an excellent opportunity to tell their story in simple words, and the mediator helps draw attention to the true essence of the dispute. Judicial mediation allows for more flexible solutions than those requested in the statement of claim. Furthermore, another important advantage is that judicial mediation is free of charge.

What prompted you to become a court mediator? Was it a natural continuation of your judicial career or a conscious choice?

I knew about mediation even before becoming a judge, and the process immediately interested me greatly. Therefore, upon becoming a judge, the choice to also become a court mediator was a very natural continuation—I accepted it without any deliberation about its benefit or expediency.

What is the most difficult aspect of a mediator's work? Do you manage to detach yourself from the emotions that often accompany the disputing parties?

The most difficult aspect of a mediator's work, in my opinion, is psychological fatigue. Disputing parties are often "bursting" with their own grievances, which they vent on each other. Whether you want it or not, the mediator inevitably absorbs some of these negative emotions.

No matter how hard I try, some residual negative emotions from the disputing parties still remain after mediation sessions. Active movement or a beloved activity that distracts my thoughts from the experiences helps me cope with them.

Thank you for the conversation.

When quoting or otherwise distributing this information, please indicate the source of the information.

Contact for the media: