Blog Comments
Blog Comments
User Rating
You are not logged in. Please login to review this user.
Feedback digest
Mediator’s Feedback Digest Reviewer: Russ Bleemer Editor, Alternatives CPR Institute New York City www.cpradr.org This Feedback Digest is based on five feedbacks in five mediations, with the initial submissions in 2009. This Feedback Digest has been supplemented in 2012 by another five recommendation letters. This Digest initially was based on comments in three mediations that occurred during 2009, and two on dates that were unspecified by the participants commenting on Peter's work. Three of the five matters initially constituting this Feedback Digest involved franchising issues. Two of the 2012 recommendations refer to participating in multiple mediations with Peter as the neutral; the other three refer to a sole mediation experience. All four of the reviewers using the IMI-supplied form gave Peter the highest rating when asked whether they would use Peter’s services again, and all said they would recommend Peter to others. In the 2012 group, all also strongly recommended Peter's work, and all either stated or suggested based on satisfaction with their experience that they would enlist Peter's mediation services again. None of the 2012 recommendations, all of which were written in December 2011, were prepared on the IMI form. Peter received the highest rating for skills and abilities from all four of the IMI form reviewers. One commented that Peter “was very skillful at explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the positions taken by each side,” while another cited his ability to move parties forward. As a result of the outcome and Peter’s work, all of the four parties using the IMI comment form walked away from the mediation with the highest possible satisfaction ratings for the process itself, and the results. All four of the parties indicated that they had had previous mediation experience. One of the four 2009 parties indicated that it did not resolve most of its issues as a result of the mediation, but still gave the highest possible satisfaction ratings about the process and Peter's work. That party wrote, "[I]t is my view that the parties are almost always better off reaching their own agreement than having a third party make a determination for them. Mediation gives them the opportunity to do this." The fifth 2009 reviewer chose to submit a short E-mail note to assess Peter's mediator work. The note reflected a similar satisfaction with the process Peter conducted. The reviewer is a contractor often associated with new building development. The reviewer, noting that Peter "successfully mediated a four-party case involving some very interesting and convoluted issues," concluded, "I found Mr. Phillips to be very persuasive and thorough in the two-week follow-up after the mediation in getting the case resolved." One of the 2012 recommendation letter writers was updating his 2009 comments, and had worked with Peter in two additional matters. "Both matters involved complex trademark and contractual issues," the commenter wrote, "which Mr. Phillips skillfully navigated to assist the parties. During the course of mediating these matters, Mr. Phillips adeptly handled a broad range of problems, character issues, and personality conflicts." One 2012 recommender stated that he had "voluminous experience" with many neutrals, and Peter had what he "consider[s] some of the best skills in a mediator." He noted, in particular, the environment Peter created for the parties that encouraged a party-directed drive to a mediation solution. Every 2012 recommendation letter discussed and complimented Peter's ability to relate to the parties and counsel and his effect as a mediator on setting a tone for the ADR sessions. Four of the mediation recommenders have agreed to be available as references. Please contact the Mediator's Feedback Digest Reviewer at the E-mail address above for the contacts. No negative comments have been received since Peter’s designation as an IMI Certified Mediator. This review was updated on April 20, 2012.
This feedback digest was last updated 20 April 2012.
This feedback digest was last updated 20 April 2012.