International Mediation Institute


Actual Feedback


Name of Mediator: Tony Allen, UK                                  

Mediation Institution (if any): CEDR             

Start Date of Mediation: January 2008

End date of Mediation: January 2008             

Place of Mediation:   UK                 

Nature of mediated matter:  personal injury

Summary Questions


1.         On a scale of 1-5 (1 = low; 5 = high), how likely are you to use this Mediator again?

1    2     3     4    5           Not Applicable

Comment: The particular skills suited to facilitating the settlement of a complex and significant personal injury litigation.

2.         Would you recommend this Mediator to others?

            Yes             No              Not sure    

Comment:  (If Yes, why?  If No, why not?) Tony delivers.  We would highly recommend him in future cases.

3.         On a scale of 1-5 (1 = low; 5 = high), how would you rate the mediator's skill and ability?

1    2     3     4    5           Not Applicable

Comment: Tony’s handling of an exceedingly difficult and emotional mediation is an example of why parties become so appreciative of the process of mediation when they see it work well.  His intervention, and continued support of the resolution process well beyond the day of the mediation, was essential in leading the parties to a solution that I believe all parties agree was a superior result to the alternative of continuing the litigation.

Specific Questions

4.         How did you identify or appoint this mediator?

a.  IMI web portal

b.  Suggested by a colleague, law firm or other professional

c.  Appointed by an institution

d.  Suggested by one of the other parties

e.  Other__________________________

5.         If you perceive that the Mediator’s skills made a decisive difference in the outcome, which particular skills were they? 

              Comment: Tony’s skills need to be stated in the context of the particular challenges of this case, which involved virtually everything that makes litigation difficult to settle:  high emotional levels, a challenging/forceful counsel (in at least one case), insurance parties operating behind the scenes, and settlement efforts being initiated only in the late stages of litigation after each side had invested heavily in the dispute.  Not only was Tony at home and at ease in navigating this minefield, he was superbly capable of putting the parties themselves at ease and helping them overcome these barriers.

6.           How satisfied are you with the costs of the mediator?

(1=very dissatisfied; 2=dissatisfied; 3=neutral; 4=satisfied; 5=very satisfied) 

             1     2     3     4     5      Not Applicable

Comment: The inference is of a high level of satisfaction.

7.         How do you rate your overall satisfaction with the mediation process and the result obtained by the parties?

(1=very dissatisfied; 2=dissatisfied; 3=neutral; 4=satisfied; 5=very satisfied) 

 1     2     3     4     5      Not Applicable     

Comment: This was an insured litigation that came with a company that GE had purchased in the preceding year, and had been pending for several years and was being scheduled for trial.  Although the financial responsibility was borne by the legacy insurance carriers, the case was high visibility in the local business community, and it was important for GE to least demonstrate that we had made a genuine attempt to bring about a settlement.  Thus, the process mattered as much as the outcome.  At one stage of the mediation, when settlement looked like it might evade the parties, the plaintiff took me aside and told me that he was satisfied that GE had done everything it could to achieve a fair resolution, and that he was grateful for having his day in court (which is how he viewed it).  Had the mediator been someone without Tony’s particular skills, I am not certain we would have had the same degree of satisfaction even in the absence of a result.

8.   If a dispute resolution organization was involved in the selection and appointment of the mediator, please indicate how you rate your overall satisfaction with that body's support of the dispute resolution process?

(1=very dissatisfied; 2=dissatisfied; 3=neutral; 4=satisfied; 5=very satisfied) 

             1     2     3     4     5      Not Applicable

Comment:  (please identify the organization if you think it appropriate to do so) N/A – counsel chose the mediator

9.         Did you resolve most of your issues as a result of the mediation?

            Yes             No

Independently of whether the mediation resulted in a resolution, what was worthwhile about participating in mediation?


10.       Was this your first experience with the mediation process?

            Yes             No

11.       Are you willing to be mentioned as a reference on this  Mediator’s IMI Profile on the IMI web portal?   

            Yes             No

12.       Any other comments?


Contact details:

Name:  Michael McIlwrath

Organization:  GE Infrastructure - Oil & Gas, Florence

Position:  Senior Counsel - Litigation

Phone: +39 055 423 8445 







© The IMI logo is an internationally registered trademark of the International Mediation Institute Stichting.

Web design by Tribal Systems