Blog Comments
Blog Comments
User Rating
You are not logged in. Please login to review this user.
Review
This Feedback Digest has been updated to include 29 Feedbacks since the end of 2014.
The mediations have been done between the end of 2014 and the end of 2017.
The feedbacks come mostly from the lawyers (21 out of 29) and from the parties .The mediations were addressed by the Court, which implies always that some parties are here “because the judge firmly proposed the mediation” . Thus, the mediation process is always with lawyers and parties are more or less in a desire to mediate.
M Amar is mostly rated at a 5 level , and a few 4 level, never under 4.
On the question “would you recommend M Amar”, all the answers were yes.
The quality most quoted in the feedbacks is the Art of listening.
The second one would be his skills as a mediator. He is said to be really professional.
He shows a real involvement during the mediation.
It is said that M Amar is a mediator dynamic and – farseeing – which enable the dialogue to take place.
He is described as a bright man.
The profile of M Amar as a mediator seems to be a one daring to suggest solutions if needed, even go as far as to make recommendations .
Because in some matter he is also skilled in the field of the mediation, he can lead the parties to reach a solution, helping them not only on the process but also on the object of the dispute.
And on the question to the satisfaction regarding the process of mediation and the result of the mediation, the answers go from 3 to 5 because some mediations did not reach an agreement but the parties and lawyers do not seem to put it on M Amar ‘s behalf but rather on the responsibilities of the other parties.
It is always interesting to read that the parties would consider M Amar as an excellent mediator even though the mediation did not succeed and that they would recommend him, thus perfectly understanding the process of mediation and being able to separate the mediator and the mediation.
Once again, no reportable negative comments have arisen.
The mediations have been done between the end of 2014 and the end of 2017.
The feedbacks come mostly from the lawyers (21 out of 29) and from the parties .The mediations were addressed by the Court, which implies always that some parties are here “because the judge firmly proposed the mediation” . Thus, the mediation process is always with lawyers and parties are more or less in a desire to mediate.
M Amar is mostly rated at a 5 level , and a few 4 level, never under 4.
On the question “would you recommend M Amar”, all the answers were yes.
The quality most quoted in the feedbacks is the Art of listening.
The second one would be his skills as a mediator. He is said to be really professional.
He shows a real involvement during the mediation.
It is said that M Amar is a mediator dynamic and – farseeing – which enable the dialogue to take place.
He is described as a bright man.
The profile of M Amar as a mediator seems to be a one daring to suggest solutions if needed, even go as far as to make recommendations .
Because in some matter he is also skilled in the field of the mediation, he can lead the parties to reach a solution, helping them not only on the process but also on the object of the dispute.
And on the question to the satisfaction regarding the process of mediation and the result of the mediation, the answers go from 3 to 5 because some mediations did not reach an agreement but the parties and lawyers do not seem to put it on M Amar ‘s behalf but rather on the responsibilities of the other parties.
It is always interesting to read that the parties would consider M Amar as an excellent mediator even though the mediation did not succeed and that they would recommend him, thus perfectly understanding the process of mediation and being able to separate the mediator and the mediation.
Once again, no reportable negative comments have arisen.