Between Neutrality and Persuasion: Mediator Ethics in Civil and Common Law Traditions

This article provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of mediator ethics within civil and common law systems, emphasizing three pivotal dimensions: the mediator’s role in formulating settlement proposals, the relationship between facilitative and evaluative mediation approaches, and the ethical considerations guiding the advertising of mediation services. Focusing on Italy as the principal civil law case study, and placing it in dialogue with selected European civil law jurisdictions such as France and Germany, the article argues that mediator ethics should not be understood merely as a set of universal professional duties, but as the product of distinct regulatory, institutional, and cultural environments. To avoid a purely descriptive comparison, the article adopts a structured analytical framework based on five variables: source of ethical authority, degree of legal formalization, mediator intervention in settlement, accountability mechanisms, and market-facing professional communication. The discussion is further grounded in selected empirical literature and case-based illustrations concerning court-connected mediation, mediator pressure, party self-determination, and online or hybrid mediation.

mediation, mediator pressure, party self-determination, and online or hybrid mediation

1. Antich, F. (2012). The Ethics of the Mediator. In A. De Matteis (Ed.), Civil and Commercial Mediation: Points for Reflection (pp. 55–75). CELT. [In Italian] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Antill, J., & Cussens, A. (2018). Mediation and Civil Justice: Transformation and Integration. Hart Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Boulle, L. (2011). Mediation: Skills and Techniques (3rd ed.). LexisNexis Butterworths. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Centre de Médiation de l’Europe, de la Méditerranée et du Moyen-Orient (CEM) – Italian Delegation. (2024). Code of Ethics. Available at: https://centroeuropeodimediazione.org/ [in Italian] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. CEPEJ, European Handbook for Mediation Lawmaking, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Coben, J. (2004). Mediation Ethics: Cases and Commentaries. American Bar Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. European Commission. (2004). European Code of Conduct for Mediators. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/civil-justice/civil-justice-mediation_en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. European Parliament, ‘Rebooting’ the Mediation Directive, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Indisputably. (2026, April). Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators – revision update. Retrieved from http://indisputably.org/2026/04/model-standards-of-conduct-for-mediators/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. French materials on court-appointed mediation from the European e-Justice Portal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. German Mediation Act / Mediationsgesetz. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Giacalone, M., & Salehi, S. S. (2022). An Empirical Study on Mediation in Civil and Commercial Disputes in Europe: The Mediation Service Providers’ Perspective. Revista ítalo-española de Derecho Procesal, 2022(2), 11-54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. International Mediation Institute (IMI). (2018). IMI Code of Professional Conduct. https://imimediation.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Legislative Decree No. 28 of 2010. Italy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mayer, B. (2012). The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Moore, C. W. (2014). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Moore, C. W. (2017). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Reilly, P. (2023), The Unfulfilled Promise of Self-Determination in Court-Connected Mediation, 50 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 861. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Riskin, L. L. (2003). Understanding Mediators' Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 1(1), 7-51. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Riskin, L. L., & Westbrook, J. E. (2014). Dispute Resolution and Lawyers. Foundation Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Stempel, J. W. (1997). Beyond Formalism and False Dichotomies: The Need for Institutionalizing a Flexible Concept of the Mediator’s Role.” 24 Florida State University Law Review 949. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Welsh, N. A., & Hollett, D. (2000). Impartiality and Power in Mediation: Challenges for Self-Determination. Negotiation Journal, 16(2), 175-188. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Wissler, R. L. (2002), Court-Connected Mediation in General Civil Cases: What We Know from Empirical Research, Ohio Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 17:3 2002, 642-704. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.