Mediation is not a concept that the profession can now afford to ignore. Judicial and official support for it is, thankfully, too strong for it to wither on the vine as a passing fad. Experience shows that mediation does work in practice and it can bring real benefits to clients. Further, from January 2010 when Practice Direction 31 comes into effect, turning a blind eye will run the risk of judicial censure and an unreasonable refusal to mediate will risk adverse cost orders.

This article will look at mediation from a practitioner's perspective and offer some practical thoughts, based on experience, as to:

• how and why the mediation process works;
• how to assist your client in preparing for, and obtaining
• the most benefit from, a mediation;
• how to identify whether a dispute may or may not be suitable for mediation.

The mediation process is fundamentally different to litigation and arbitration. Lawyers may not be essential for mediation but they can have a legitimate and constructive role in the process. However, to help a client get the best out of mediation requires advisers to adopt a radically different mindset and approach from that of the traditional litigator.

Most commercial disputes are suitable for mediation and it should be sensibly tried. However, some individual disputes may not be suitable for mediation because of their particular features. Assessing this will, of course, be especially important if your client is considering refusing to mediate in a case in the courts. In that situation, a refusal to mediate is likely to be examined by the court which will evaluate whether it was reasonable or not.

Before considering these issues in detail, it is worth noting that there is already considerable mediation experience in certain commercial sectors in Hong Kong. A prime example is the construction industry, where the use of mediation has steadily grown over the last decade. Ten years ago, relatively few contractors (outside of a few large government projects) were familiar with mediation, and most attempts to encourage mediation were met with suspicion by clients who seemed to believe that it was a sign of weakness or of a lawyer that did not believe in the case. However, mediation has now become an increasingly mainstream dispute resolution technique for construction disputes, with clients increasingly interested in its benefits. A significant number of disputes, both large and small, are known to have settled in whole or in part as a result of mediation. For the firms involved, this has led to more satisfied clients and, as a result, to repeat work on other disputes.

The Underlying Objective

Mediation is ultimately a form of assisted negotiation. The mediator's role and objective is to help facilitate the parties to reach a settlement agreement. The mediator is generally not there to advise the parties. Nor is he or she there to try to ensure that the result of the mediation is fair or represents the most likely outcome of the case if it proceeded to trial. The mediator therefore approaches the case very differently to how a judge or arbitrator would.

It is vital for party representatives and lawyers to appreciate that the overriding concern for a commercial mediator (as distinct from a family mediator, who may be concerned with the children's welfare) is whether the parties have ultimately ended up with a binding agreement. A number of important points flow from this.

First, parties should not look to the mediator to protect their rights and entitlements. Mediation is a consensual process and all parties are free to end the mediation or to refuse to reach an agreement. A party does not have to agree to a settlement that it considers is unfair or even undesirable. If a party does not like how the mediation is unfolding, it can decide to have the dispute determined by the courts or an arbitral tribunal in the ordinary way.

Second, the mediator is not deciding the case and so his impression of the merits of the case is essentially irrelevant. Persuading the mediator that your client is right is therefore not a primary - or even necessary - objective. The key decision makers in a mediation are the parties themselves. It is the commercial decision makers that need to be influenced. It is therefore more important to provide the mediator with information that may influence the other side's decision makers and increase the prospect of them being willing to settle on terms that are within a range acceptable to your client.
Because the mediator is not deciding the case, he is not bound by the rules of natural justice as if he were sitting as an arbitrator, judge or adjudicator. A mediator, for example, is entitled to communicate privately with a party without telling the other party about it. Indeed, as is explained below, it is often private and confidential communication with the parties separately that makes mediation successful where other forms of settlement discussions fail.

The mediator will try to push both sides to change their negotiating positions in order to broker a deal. A mediator is therefore not necessarily being one-sided if he pushes your client or forcefully presents the other side's arguments. He is likely to be doing the same thing to the other side as well.

Because the outcome of a successful mediation is a settlement agreement, the parties and the mediator are not limited merely to remedies or outcomes that would be available to a court or arbitral tribunal. A settlement agreement arrived at by mediation can encompass any sort of agreement or outcome that the parties wish, provided that it is not unlawful or illegal. For example, a court or tribunal could not order or direct that one party award a new contract to the other party for an entirely unrelated project as part of a dispute concerning payment entitlements on an existing project. However, a mediated settlement agreement could include a provision that a new contract or order will be placed between the parties as a part of the settlement package.

How the Process Works

The mediation process is designed to help identify and bring about a negotiated settlement by the use of a number of techniques and tools. There is no detailed procedural rule book and the parties with the mediator are basically free to adopt whatever procedures they wish. Indeed, a vital ingredient in getting the best out of an attempted mediation is to recognise that one size does not fit all. The mediation procedures should be tailored to fit the individual dispute and to increase the prospects of that particular mediation leading to a successful settlement agreement. An experienced and skilled mediator will thus try to shape the process in a way that may create a better environment for reaching an agreement.

Whilst individual mediations may therefore differ there is a generally recognised shape to them. There are three key phases to most successful commercial mediations.

The opening phase
The first phase enables the parties to brief the mediator on the disputes and allows them to ventilate their respective opening positions and perspectives. This phase can often have two distinct parts: an exchange of written position papers in advance of the first mediation session, followed by a series of oral briefings at the start of the actual mediation sessions.

The main phase
The main portion of the process consists of caucusing and reality testing. The parties will be separated and asked to sit in separate rooms. The mediator will then shuttle between the rooms, talking to each party in turn.

Importantly, whatever a party says to the mediator in these sessions is confidential. The mediator can use the knowledge but cannot reveal it to the other party without the original party's express consent.

This is a key ingredient in enabling mediations to work, for a number of reasons. First, it encourages trust between the parties and the mediator and enables the parties to be more open and less guarded with the mediator. This in turn can enable the mediator to start understanding what each party's real perspectives, concerns and objectives are. Once again, the mediator can use his understanding to try to facilitate an agreement but he cannot reveal his understanding of one party's position to the other without express consent.

A good mediator will start to be able to see an overview of both sides of the dispute and both sides?private concerns and priorities. This is the start of the 'magic' of mediation.

At a basic level, for example, the mediator may start to appreciate that an element of the dispute is a simple - and honest - misunderstanding between the parties on some point or event. Having identified this misunderstanding, the mediator may be able to help clear it up. Whereas this is unlikely in itself to lead to a settlement, it may remove one of the stumbling blocks and thus help facilitate an eventual agreement.

The overview that the mediator develops may also enable him to start to identify potential solutions that the parties either cannot see themselves or feel that they cannot raise by themselves.

For example, consider a dispute between commercial parties in relation to payment entitlements on an existing project. Party A might confide to the mediator that he is being forced to take a tougher line to maximise his recovery on the existing project because his order book is empty as a result of the credit crunch. Thus Party A's priority is cash flow. Someone from Party B's team might separately confide to the mediator that she is frustrated because she really wants to place a new order with Party A but her board is saying she cannot while Party A is pursuing an arbitration and trying to squeeze every last cent out of Party B on a project where Party B has already made a substantial loss.

The mediator cannot reveal either side's confidences to the other, but he may start seeing a potential route to settlement; for example, if Party A accepts a lower figure on the existing project and Party B confirms that it will place the new order with Party A. The mediator can then start exploring this possible settlement route to see if it might provide the basis of an answer.

Alongside this search for common ground or creative solutions, the mediator will also engage each party in a process known as 'reality testing'.

In order to narrow the gap between the parties and close a deal, the mediator will almost inevitably need to persuade both parties to move their positions and adjust their expectations. To do so generally requires the mediator to persuade each party in turn either that it is being unrealistic in certain ways or at least that there are significant risks to that party of not reaching an agreement.

The mediator will therefore talk to Party A in confidence and try to get it to see the weaknesses in its own case and the risks that it faces if the dispute proceeds to trial. This process will take place in several caucus meetings as the mediator shuttles between Party A and Party B. The process is not one sided, however, and the mediator will be doing a similar thing with Party B in turn.

This is the second part of the magic of mediation. A skilled mediator will use this process of reality testing to try to create an environment of risk for both parties so that they appreciate that it may be in their interests to try a little harder to reach an agreement. The risks highlighted may be factual or legal issues connected with the case if it proceeds to trial, but may also be commercial or practical issues. They should be ones that might influence one of the parties and they should not be fanciful. The purpose is to try to cause each party to adjust its own expectations in order to narrow the gap between them and eventually reach an agreement.

The concluding phase
A successful mediation involves closing a deal and formalising a settlement agreement. Assuming a settlement is reached, the resulting agreement should be set down in writing and signed by the parties in a form that is binding, as in any other settlement. Ideally, this should be done while the parties are still physically still with the mediator to limit the chance of one or both of the parties changing their minds after leaving.

Of course, not all mediations succeed and some end without an agreement. Interestingly, however, a proportion of those cases where mediation failed will go onto settle a little later as a result of the lines of communication opened up in the mediation. The rest revert back to litigation or arbitration.

The Role of a Lawyer in Commercial Mediation

There is no requirement that parties in mediations be legally represented, and it is quite common for parties to dispense with their solicitors for the duration of a mediation. In some cases, this is a very sensible and cost-effective strategy. As a profession, we can sometimes hinder rather than help our clients when they are trying to conclude a deal that is legally unattractive but may be commercially sensible.

However, there is a very strong case for saying that lawyers can make a positive and constructive contribution to a mediation provided that they understand how the process works and how best to support their client.

A lawyer has three major roles in assisting a client in a commercial mediation:

• helping to set up the mediation process itself;
• helping the client to present material in the mediation that facilitates a deal that is within the client's range of acceptable outcomes;
• helping the client to evaluate the risks and opportunities presented by the options available, so as to rationally decide whether a deal on offer should be considered to be within an acceptable range of outcomes or not.

We will look briefly at each of these roles in turn.

Setting Up the Mediation Process

The starting point here will be Practice Direction 31 (PD 31) if the parties are already in litigation, or otherwise the contract between the parties.

Contracts increasingly contain sophisticated multi-tier dispute resolution clauses. These clauses may refer to mediation as either a voluntary or compulsory stage in the dispute resolution process.

This is important because a failure to comply with a compulsory mediation stage in a multi-tiered process may hinder attempts to commence judicial or arbitral proceedings. Much will depend on the wording of the clause itself.

It is important in this context to be aware, however, that a clause that purports to require compulsory mediation may be inadequately drafted and unenforceable. In order to be enforceable, a clause should not only refer to mediation but also adopt a set of mediation rules (such as those issued by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre or the Law Society) and incorporate a default procedure for appointing the mediator if the parties can not agree on the choice.

It is perhaps regrettable that a bare mediation clause - simply stating that the parties shall mediate any disputes before legal proceedings are commenced - is not enforceable. However, the difficulty arises from the fact that courts in common law countries have tended to classify mediation as a form of assisted negotiation without a separate legal identity of its own. As a result, a bare mediation clause is generally considered to be agreement to agree and thus too uncertain to be enforceable.

To rescue a contractual mediation clause so that it is enforceable is relatively simple. The clause should simply adopt a set of mediation rules and include a default mechanism for the appointment of the mediator. Both the HKIAC and the Law Society publish suggested standard mediation clauses.

If there is no enforceable mediation clause, the parties are nevertheless free to agree to mediate in any event at any time. It is helpful but not essential if this is recorded in a short written agreement.

Where mediation is being undertaken against the backdrop of court proceedings, it should be noted that PD 31 will create its own framework for mediating, effective from January 2010. The parties will have to file certificates stating that they have been advised about mediation. The PD also provides for a party to serve a Mediation Notice setting out its proposals for mediation. If this is done, the other side then must serve a Mediation Response giving its position. If it refuses to mediate, the responding party must set out why.

Assuming, however, that the parties agree to mediate, they should try to agree the relevant arrangements. The court can resolve some limited issues by direction if no agreement is reached.

Once there is an agreement to mediate, however reached, the other key decision to be made is the choice of mediator. This can be a lawyer but frequently it is not. The most important factors to take into account when making a recommendation are that the person should be: (i) a trained mediator; (ii) someone that both parties will respect; and (iii) someone with a general understanding of the types of issues arising in the dispute. This third attribute, however, is not essential as the mediator is not deciding the dispute. Mediation skills are much more important than technical knowledge of the subject matter of the dispute.

Presenting Material in the Mediation

In terms of presenting material that facilitates a deal being agreed, it requires a significant professional mind shift in order to appreciate that there is little real value in persuading the mediator that your client is right and should win.

As explained earlier, the real audiences in a mediation are the respective commercial decision makers from both parties. Broadly speaking, almost anything said to the mediator or the other party in the mediation should therefore be done with one of six objectives in mind:

• to try to persuade the other party to move closer to a deal that is acceptable to your client;
• to provide information to the mediator that might help him to identify a route to a settlement agreement;
• to provide information to the mediator that might help him to persuade the other party to move closer to a deal that is acceptable to your client;
• to try to show the mediator that, irrespective of your team's assessment behind closed doors, your client is not overly concerned by the risks that the mediator is pointing out, in order to encourage the mediator to pressure the other side (rather than your client) a little harder to try to close the gap towards an agreement;
• to allow your client's emotions and position to be ventilated so that they are understood and also so that they don掐 fester and cloud your client's rational commercial judgment;
• to facilitate the chances of an acceptable deal being reached; for example, some concessions or movement in the client's position may be wise at particular points in order to move the process along.

In this context, a good lawyer can make a valuable contribution to his client's prospects in a mediation by helping to identify the real issues, formulating arguments that may have an impact on the mediator's work or on the other side's commercial thinking, and by assisting in a clear and effective presentation of these.

Detailed trial submissions are generally inappropriate and can be counter-productive. What is important is to persuade the other side that there is a sufficient risk that they may lose that it is worth buying that risk off. Broad preparation and lateral thinking can therefore pay dividends. This is again something that lawyers are well equipped to assist with.

It is also important to advise the client to have the right people from its own organisation present at the mediation. Broadly speaking, two different types of people may be needed.
The first is someone who knows the facts of the dispute first hand. This person may be able to assist by identifying facts that cause difficulties and risks for the other side and by countering factual allegations made by the other party or the mediator. Where a point is factually incorrect, first hand knowledge - ideally backed up by documentation - may help reverse the pressure and send it back to the other side.

The second type of person that the client must send is someone with sufficient authority to conclude an agreement at the mediation. Where any additional authority may be needed, arrangements should be made for this to be obtainable immediately by telephone or email. The mediation will almost certainly fail if no one is present with the authority to settle the dispute.

Helping the Client Evaluate Risk and Opportunity

A lawyer can make a valuable contribution by helping the client analyse the risks and opportunities presented by the options made available during the mediation. At one level this is, of course, something that we do throughout the normal litigation or arbitration process and whenever settlement options are being canvassed.

There is, however, an additional and different dimension to this role in the mediation process, as a result of the function that 'reality testing' plays in mediations. In this context, the lawyer should adopt the role of a 'trusted advisor' to the client after the mediator has left room at the end of a caucus, helping the client to assess the implications of what has been said. It may be a question of advising the client that it should take a particular risk seriously when assessing its strategy (whatever is being said to the mediator) or advising that another risk is less significant and can be discounted. In other words, the lawyer can be a valuable resource for making sure that clients do carry out a proper reality test and risk assessment behind closed doors.

This role can be particularly important in disputes where the client's decision makers may have had relatively little first hand involvement with the project or dispute before the mediation. In those circumstances, it is not uncommon for senior members of the client to discover for the first time that the dispute is not as black and white as they had been led to believe by their own team. For example, events which had previously been reported to them as being caused by the other party may turn out to be the result of actions from their own team. This sort of discovery can undermine the client's confidence in its own assessment of risk, and the steady, analytical assessment of the lawyer can greatly assist here. In other words, the lawyer should assist the client with the necessary framework in order to assess and analyse risks and opportunities when making commercial decisions.

Should you Mediate this Particular Dispute?

Mediation works in a lot of cases and there tends to be relatively little downside to trying it. Mediations should be both without prejudice and confidential. Costs are relatively low. The mediator's costs and associated charges such as room hire are generally split between the parties and the parties bear their own legal costs.

That having been said, mediation is not a universal panacea. It will fail in a number of cases and some individual disputes may not be suitable for mediation. This recognition is enshrined in the forthcoming PD 31. This provides that a refusal to mediate should not automatically lead to censure or adverse cost orders; rather it is only an 'unreasonable refusal' that will do so.

In the absence of any Hong Kong authority, it is reasonable to assume, however, that the courts (at least at an appellate level) will take a fairly robust line and will seek to enforce mediation by restricting the types of situation in which a refusal to mediate is seen as reasonable. That said, it is likely to take some time for the Hong Kong courts to develop a consistent approach.

In the interim, a degree of guidance can be obtained by reference to decisions in other common law jurisdictions. The English courts, for example, have, in line with the prediction above, sought to enforce mediation and have been generally unsympathetic to attempts to justify a refusal to mediate. On occasions, however, they have held that an individual refusal to mediate was reasonable when taking into account the following factors on the facts of the case.

The nature of the dispute
Most disputes are amenable to mediation but some may not be. A case that turns on the resolution of a pure point of law, for example, may properly require a binding decision from the courts - particularly if the point of law is genuinely unclear and affects the rights of the parties. The English courts, however, have generally been slow to release parties from the obligation to attempt mediation on the basis of the nature of the relevant dispute.

The merits of the case
This is another factor that the English courts have taken into account on occasions but have generally been sceptical about in most cases. The fact that your client has good prospects of success at trial is not likely to justify a refusal to attempt mediation. In those rare cases where the merits of a case are completely overwhelming, this may support a refusal to mediate.

Other settlement attempts have been made
The fact that other settlement attempts have failed does not generally mean that mediation will also fail. Mediation has a number of distinct features that mean that it often stands a higher chance of success. However, the previous conduct of the parties and history of the case may, in exceptional circumstances, mean that it is possible to persuade a court either that adequate settlement attempts have already been made or that there is no reasonable prospect of the mediation being successful.

Mediation would be disproportionally costly or cause unacceptable delay
These are good reasons to refuse to mediate but in practice are likely only to arise in rare cases. The costs of mediation are comparatively low and mediation can, if the parties wish, be conducted at short notice and quickly.

Although a refusal to mediate will sometimes be reasonable, it would be wise - based on English case law - to assume that a client must have very good and cogent reasons to refuse to mediate when PD 31 is in play. This, of course, does not affect disputes in arbitration or pre-action disputes.

Conclusion

Those practitioners who handle litigation will have no choice but to become familiar with mediation from January 2010 when PD 31 comes in to force. Whilst not being a panacea for all ills, mediation does work and should be welcomed. It is also to be hoped that the growth of a mediation culture will increase the use of mediation in arbitral matters even though PD 31 will have no application in that context.



Julian Cohen
Barrister (England and Wales)
jacohen@me.com


At the time of writing the author was a partner at Pinsent Masons in Hong Kong.

讓調解成為你的商業客戶的幫助
雖然調解是頗新的一種解決爭議方法，但事實證明它能以其自身的成熟技巧和策略有效地解決商業糾紛—高涵律師與我們分享他的經驗。

調解是法律界人士現時絕不能忽略的概念。從司法部門和政府對它所表現的重視，看來它絕非只屬於一時的時尚。經驗證明，調解確實有它實際的效用，為當事人帶來真正的利益。此外，當《實務指示31》於2010年1月生效後，倘我們對這視而不見，便有可能會受到法庭的譴責；不合理地拒絕進行調解，便將會面對被法庭頒發不利訟費令的風險。

本文會從執業者的角度探討調解的功用，並會根據個人經驗就以下各點提出一些實際意見：

• 調解如何及為何能夠產生作用；
• 如何協助你的當事人為調解作準備並從中取得最大利益；
• 如何識別某一項爭議是否適宜進行調解。

基本上，調解與訴訟和仲裁有所不同。在調解過程中律師的存在並非是必要的，但在有關過程中他們的確可以扮演一個適合和具建設性的角色。然而，要協助當事人從調解過程中取得最大的利益，律師便需要作出調整，採取與傳統訴訟截然不同的心態和策略。

大多數商業糾紛均可考慮以調解方式解決，亦應合理地嘗試以調解方式解決。然而，個別的爭議可能會基於其獨特情況而不適宜進行調解。當然，假如你的當事人不允就其交付法院進行審訊的案件進行調解，對有關情況作出估量便相當重要。法庭會就拒絕接受調解的情況進行審查，以衡量此舉是否合理。

在詳細討論此等問題之前，有一點值得我們注意的是，在香港商界的一些範疇中，事實上已經對調解的使用具有相當經驗。一個很明顯的例子是建造業。在該行業中，對調解的運用，在過去的10年間有穩定的增長。10年前，只有相對較少的承建商（少數大型政府工程項目除外）認識調解，大多數鼓勵調解的做法，都會被當事人報以懷疑的眼光。他們似乎認為，這是向對方示弱，又或是律師對這件案件信心不夠。然而，現時在建造業所發生的糾紛中，調解卻逐漸成為了解決爭議的主流方法，有愈來愈多當事人對其效用感到興趣。現時已知有很多不論大或少的爭議，都是藉調解來達至爭議的全部或部分和解。這對參與有關工作的律師行而言，由於能夠令更多客戶對結果感到滿意，因而在其他爭議中也可以再度實行。

基本目的

調解最終只是一種協助進行談判的手段。調解員所扮演的角色及其目的，是為了協助雙方達成和解，而並非向它們提供意見。調解員亦不是要嘗試確保調解能達至公平公正的結果，或取得法庭審訊中最有可能達至的結果。因此，調解員在處理一宗個案時，與法官或仲裁員的處理方式非常不同。

爭議方的代理人或律師必須明白，商業調解員（其有別於家事調解員，後者可能更需要關注兒童的福利）所最關心的，是雙方是否已達成了具約束力的最終協議，故有一些重點需要我們對其特別關注。

首先，爭議雙方不應期望調解員會保障它們的權利和利益。調解是一個建基於雙方同意的程序，雙方可以隨時終止調解的進行，或是拒絕達成任何協議。假如一方認為和解建議對它不公平，甚至是它對其不感興趣，該方便無須對任何和解主張表示贊成。假如其中一方對於調解的開展方式不以為然，它可以決定讓法庭或仲裁庭來就有關爭議作出裁決。

第二，調解員並非要對案件作出裁定，因此他不須過於理會案件的是非曲直。因此，要說服調解員相信你的當事人並沒有犯錯，這不應是你的主要目的，甚至可以說是沒有這樣的需要。在調解過程中，主要的決策者是爭議雙方自己，所以需要影響的人，應該是該些商業決策者。因此更重要的，是要向調解員提供更多可對另一方的決策者構成影響的資料，從而使他們願意依據該些在你的當事人接受範圍內的條款來進行和解的機會增加。

由於調解員並非要對案件作出裁定，因此他並非像仲裁員、法官或審裁官一樣，受自然公正的法則約束。例如，調解員有權私底下與其中一方溝通而無須先行知會另一方。如以下所說明的一般，當其他的和解商議方式無法達成解決爭議之目的時，調解卻能夠成功地解決該等爭議，而這往往是歸功於與爭議雙方個別私下進行保密的溝通。

調解員為了促成雙方的和解，會試圖推動雙方改變其談判立場。因此，假如調解員催促你的當事人，或是向它強烈地陳述另一方的論據時，這並非必然意味他是偏袒另一方，而事實上他可能亦向著另一方做同樣的事情。

成功調解的最終結果，是雙方簽訂和解協議，因此爭議雙方及調解員無須達至如法院或仲裁庭所作出的補救或所裁定的結果一般。透過調解達成的和解協議，可以是雙方希望達至的任何類別的協議或結果，只要它並非是不合法或非法。例如，法院或審裁處不能命令或指示其中一方須將一份與案件完全無關的新項目合約批給另一方，作為與現行項目的支付權利有關的爭議的一部分。然而，透過調解而達成的和解協議，當中可以包含一項條款，規定雙方需要訂定一份新的合約或訂單，作為和解的整體方案的其中一部分。

程序的實施

調解的設計，是要透過對若干技術和工具的運用，協助爭議雙方進行辨識和經過談判後達成和解。現時並沒有關於調解程序的詳細規則，故爭議雙方及調解員基本上可以自由採用任何他們有意採用的程序。事實上，要從擬進行的調解中取得最佳的成果，很重要的一點是要認識到：一個尺碼並不能符合全部人的需要。調解程序須因應個別的爭議而制定，以增加其成功地達成和解的機會。因此，一位富經驗和技巧的調解員，會嘗試建立一個能夠形成更佳環境並有助達成協議的程序。

雖然每宗調解會因著各別的情況而有所不同，但它們也有著可被識別的共同狀況。大多數成功的商業調解，均包含如下三個主要階段。

開首階段
在開首階段，先讓雙方就爭議向調解員作出扼要陳述，並讓它們就其各自的狀況和看法表達意見。這一階段通常包含兩個部分﹕在第一次調解會議召開前，先行交換雙方的立場文件，然後是實際調解會議召開時所作的一系列口頭扼要陳述。

主要階段
這程序的主要部分，包含秘密會議和事實驗證。爭議雙方會被安排在不同的房間內，而調解員會往來於這些房間，並輪流與雙方談話。

必須注意的是，在該等會議中，任何一方無論與調解員談了甚麼話都必須保密。雖然調解員可運用其知識，但未獲原來一方的明確同意前，不得向另一方透露其談話內容。

基於某些原因，這一點是促使調解產生作用的主要因素。首先，它有助爭議雙方與調解員之間建立互信，並讓雙方採取更為開放的態度，對調解員所存的戒心因而減少；反過來，它亦可以促使調解員開始了解各方的真正看法、關注點及目的。同樣，調解員可以運用其對案件的理解來試圖促成雙方達成協議。然而，在未獲原來一方的明確同意前，他不能向另一方透露對這一方的立場的了解。

一名好的調解員，他在一開始時便應該對雙方的爭議以及雙方的關注點和優先性形成一個總的看法，而這就是調解「魔法」的開始。

例如，在基礎層面中，調解員開始明白爭議的成因，只是於由雙方在一些問題或事情上，存在簡單而誠實的誤解。在分辨出誤會的所在後，調解員也許能夠協助將該等誤會釐清。雖然此舉不大可能會導致和解的馬上達成，但總可去除其中一塊絆腳石，從而有助促使協議的最終達成。

調解員所形成的概觀，亦有助他開始能夠辨識到該等爭議雙方自己無法察覺，或是認為自己無法作出建議的可能解決辦法。

讓我們以一宗雙方就現行項目的支付權利產生爭議的商業交易作為例子。甲方可能會告知調解員，他是被迫採取強硬立場，試圖就現行項目追討最大程度的賠償，因為基於信貸收縮，他完全接不到訂單。故此，甲方所首要考慮的是現金流問題。另外，乙方的人士可能會告知調解員，她感到有點兒沮喪，因為她其實很想向甲方下新的訂單，但她的董事會不許她這樣做，因為甲方正在提起仲裁，並就一個乙方在當中蒙受了重大損失的投資項目，試圖向乙方榨取最後的一分一毫。

調解員此刻不能向任何一方透露對方的秘密，但他可藉此看到可能遵循的和解路線。例如，假如甲方在現行項目中願意接受一個較低金額，而乙方確認它會向甲方訂貨。那麼，調解員便可以開始尋求可能的和解路線，以明瞭它是否可以提供一個基本的答案。

在尋求共同立場或具有創意的解決方法的過程中，調解員亦會引領雙方進入一個稱為「事實驗證」的程序。

為了將雙方的分歧收窄及達成和解，調解員差不多無可避免地，需要說服雙方改變其立場及調整他們的期望。一般而言，調解員需要輪番向雙方指出，它們在某些方面的想法是不切實際的，又或是，至少對不肯達成協議的該方而言，它將會面對重大風險。

因此，調解員會和甲方進行秘密商談，並嘗試讓它看到它在案中的弱點，以及假如將爭議交給法庭裁決時它可能面對的風險。這一程序會在數次秘密會議中，藉調解員周旋於甲方和乙方之間而進行。然而，這一過程並非偏向一方，調解員之後亦會向乙方進行類似的調解。

這是調解魔法的第二部分。一位技術良好的調解員會運用這一事實驗證程序來試圖為雙方建立一個風險環境，使它們明瞭多花一些努力來達成協議是符合它們利益的。所強調的風險可以是在訴諸法庭時，與案件有關的事實或法律問題，但亦可以是商業或實務問題，但它們應該是可能影響其中一方的而並非想像的問題，其目的是試圖促使各方調整其自身的期望，從而收窄雙方之間的分歧，並最終達成協議。

最後階段
成功的調解包含了結爭議和簽定正式和解協議。假設達成了一項和解，所產生的協議應該以書面記錄下來，並由雙方以具約束力的形式簽署，與任何其他的和解一般。較為理想的做法是，這一舉措應於調解員仍然在場的時候進行，以避免任何一方或雙方在離開後有改變意向的機會發生。

當然，並非所有的調解都成功，有一些確是在沒有達成協議的情況下終結的。然而有趣的是，部分調解未能成功的案件，會因著調解的過程為它們打開了溝通的門路，致使它們能夠在不久之後便達成和解。其餘的案件則會訴之於訴訟或仲裁來解決。

律師在商業調解中的角色

調解並沒有要求爭議雙方必須有法律代表出席，而很多時在調解過程中雙方都沒有延聘律師作為代表。在一些案件中，這是明智和具成本效益的策略。作為專業法律人員，當我們的當事人試圖達成一個在法律上不可接受但在商業上卻是明智的和解方案時，我們有時會成為了它們的妨礙而非幫助。

然而，假如我們了解調解程序的運作以及如何給予當事人最有用的支援，那麼可以非常肯定地說，律師可以為調解帶來正面和具建設性的貢獻。

在向進行商業調解的當事人提供協助方面，律師具有以下三種主要職能：

• 協助建立調解程序；
• 協助當事人在調解過程中提交資料，促使達成在當事人可接受結果的範圍內之協議；
• 協助當事人根據所提供的選擇，評估所涉及的風險和機會，從而合理地確定一項交易建議是否應視作在可接受結果的範圍內。

以下我們會對該等職能逐一探究。

建立調解程序

假如爭議雙方已在訴訟程序之下，又或是基於雙方之間的合約規定，那麼便應以《實務指示31》作為起步點。

合約中的爭議解決條款現時愈來愈趨於複雜和多層次。該等條款可能指調解是爭議解決程序中的一個自願性或強迫性階段。

這一點是很重要的，因為在多層次的程序中，強迫性的調解階段如未被遵循，這會對開展司法或仲裁程序構成妨礙，而這相當程度須視乎有關條款的內容而定。

但須注意的是，一項指明需要進行強迫性調解的條款，可能它的草擬並不夠充分及無法強制執行。要使一項條款得以強制執行，便不應只是單純地提述調解，而是需要同時採納一套調解規則（例如香港國際仲裁中心或律師會所發布的規則），並加入一項假如雙方未能就調解員的選定達成協議時須實行的委任調解員的特定程序。

也許令人遺憾的是，單純的調解條款—只規定雙方須在法律程序開展前就其爭議進行調解—並不能強制執行。然而難處卻在於，普通法國家中的法院傾向將調解分類為屬於協助性的商議手段，不具自己的獨立法律地位。因此，單純的調解條款一般只被視為一項同意協議，並不具備使其可以強制執行的充分確定性。

要補救合約中的調解條款使其可以強制執行，其實亦並不太難，只要該條款加入一套調解規則，並包含一個委任調解員的特定機制便可。香港國際仲裁中心及律師會均刊行了建議的標準調解條款。

假如雙方並沒有訂立任何調解條款，則它們可不論何時及在任何情況下自由同意進行調解。假如它被記錄於一份簡短的書面協議中，這將會有一定幫助，縱使此舉並非必須。

若調解是在涉及法院程序的背景下進行，便應當注意自2010年1月開始，《實務指示31》將會形成自己的調解框架，那時爭議雙方需要提交證明書，聲明它們已就調解程序的運用獲得提供意見。《實務指示》亦規定爭議一方須送達調解通知書，述明其調解建議。在如此實行後，另一方便必須送達一份調解回應書申明其立場。假如回應的一方拒絕調解，它便必須述明理由。

然而，假定雙方均同意進行調解，它們便應嘗試同意相關的安排。假如雙方未能達成協議，法庭可以有局限性地藉發出指示來解決一些問題。

調解協議一旦達成，則不論它是以如何方法達成，另一個重要決定便是選任調解員。調解員可以由律師擔任，但通常並非如此。在作出考慮時，最主要的因素是該名人士是否：

(i) 一位受過訓練的調解員﹔(ii) 一位獲得雙方尊重的人；及(iii)對所涉及的爭議問題具一般性了解。但第三項因素並非必要，因為調解員並非要為有關爭議作出裁定。較對爭議標的具技術性層面的認識更為重要的，是調解員所具備的調解技能。

在調解過程中提交資料

我們在提交資料以促使就爭議達成和解時，需要在專業態度上作出明顯的轉移。我們需要理解到，試圖說服調解員相信你的當事人並沒有犯錯，因而它應該勝訴，此舉事實上並沒有多大意義。

正如在上文指出的，調解程序的真正聽眾是雙方各自的商業決策者。廣泛而言，向調解員或調解的另一方提及的差不多任何事情，都應該預期要達至下列六個目的中的其中一個﹕

• 嘗試說服另一方更積極地考慮接納你的當事人認為是可接受的協議；
• 向調解員提供資料，協助他辨識達成和解協議的路線；
• 向調解員提供資料，協助他說服另一方願意更積極地考慮接納你的當事人認為是可接受的協議；
• 嘗試向調解員證明（不管你的伙伴們在背後如何作出評估），你的當事人對調解員所陳述的風險並不太過顧慮，從而促使調解員轉而向另一方（而非你的當事人）施加稍大的壓力，以縮窄雙方達成協議的距離；
• 容許你的當事人表達其感情和狀況，使它們能夠被了解，從而不會對它們的理性商業判斷造成損害和蒙蔽；
• 提高達成可接受的協議的機會；例如：讓當事人就爭議作出一些讓步或採取一些行動，這在某個時機下，有時會是一個明智的做法，從而讓調解程序得以持續進行下去。

在這情況下，一位好的律師會藉著協助辨識真正的問題、構思對調解員的工作或是另一方的商業思維能產生影響的論據，以及作出清晰而有效的陳述，從而為其當事人的調解前景帶來具有相當價值的貢獻。

冗長的審訊式般陳詞，在調解過程中並不適合，並可能會產生反效果。最重要的，是說服另一方同意，它們正面對很高的敗訴風險，因此很值得達成和解以消弭該等風險。所以，具備廣泛的準備工夫和水平線的思考能力，將可以為當事人帶來額外得益，而這亦是律師們充分裝備自己以準備提供協助的東西。

此外，我們亦需要告知當事人，它需要在自己機構中尋找適當的人選來出席有關的調解程序。一般而言，我們可能需要兩類不同的人。

第一類是知悉第一手爭議事實的人。他有能力分辨出該些給另一方導致困難和風險的情況，及抵禦另一方或調解員所提出的事實指控。假如有一個論點事實上是不正確的，他所具備的第一手知識（最好是有文件作支持），將可有助將所承受的壓力逆轉，並將其推向另一方。

被當事人差派的第二類人，是獲得充分授權可以在調解過程中簽定協議的人士。假如該名代表需要獲得額外的授權，當事人便應作出安排，使有關的授權可以藉電話或電郵即時取得。假如出席調解的代表並沒有獲得授權就雙方的爭議進行和解，那麼有關的調解便注定會失敗。

協助當事人評估風險和機會

律師可以就調解過程中產生的各個選項，協助當事人就其所涉及的風險和機會進行分析，從而為當事人作出有價值的貢獻。在某層面上，這當然亦是我們在平常的訴訟或仲裁程序中，以及不論何時在尋求和解的選項時所需要做的事情。

然而在調解程序中，基於「事實驗證」在調解過程中的效能，這一職能存在著額外和不同的空間尺度。在有關境況中，律師應在調解員於秘密會議結束和離開房間後，扮演當事人的「受託顧問」角色，協助當事人就所談及的事情含義作出評估。這可能是，他需要告知當事人在它評估其策略時（不論它向調解員說了甚麼話），應認真地正視其可能需要承擔的特殊風險，或是告知它別的風險並沒有那麼明顯而可以加以忽視。換言之，律師可以作為當事人的有用資源，確保當事人在調解過程的背後，進行了適當的事實驗證和風險評估。

對於有關的項目或爭議，假如當事人的決策者在調解開始前，只具有程度相對較少的第一手參與，則律師的角色便尤為重要。在這情況下，通常當事人的高層成員會初次發現，有關的爭議並非如自己一方的人員所告知他們般那麼是非黑白分明。例如，以往他們的人員告知他們，事件的引發是由另一方所導致。然而，最終他們會發現，事件的發生其實是由自己一方的人員所引起。這一發現，可能會損害當事人在評估自己一方所面對的風險時的信心。倘律師在這時候能提供扎實而又具分析性的評估，將能帶來莫大的幫助。換言之，律師應協助其當事人構建所須的框架，以便在作出商業決策時，能評估及分析有關的風險和機會。

是否應就特殊的爭議進行調解﹖

在很多案件中調解都能發揮效用，因此運用它來解決爭議，並不會產生不良的後果。進行調解，應該不存在任何偏頗並須加以保密。調解所須的費用相對較低，調解員的費用和相關支出，例如房租等，一般而言會由雙方分擔，而法律費用則由雙方各自承擔。

話雖如此，調解亦並非靈丹妙藥。在一些案件中也會有調解失敗的情況，而一些個別爭議亦可能不適宜進行調解。這一認知，在即將發布的《實務指示31》中有所述明。該指示規定，拒絕進行調解並非必然會招致法庭的譴責，或是被法庭頒發不利的訟費令；只有「不合理地拒絕」，才會導致上述情況的發生。

然而，在缺乏任何相關香港判例的情況下，我們可以合理地假定，法庭（至少在上訴層次）將會採取頗為堅定的立場推行對調解的使用，而只有在有限的、看來是合理的情況下，才會批准當事人拒絕進行調解。即便如此，香港法庭還需要若干時間發展出穩妥的方針。

在這過渡時期，我們可以在某程度上參考其他普通法司法管轄區的裁決以作為指引。英國法院努力推行對調解的使用，對於砌詞拒絕進行調解的企圖，一般會毫不留情地以嚴肅的態度處理。然而在某些情況下，於考慮到與案件事實有關的下列因素後，法庭會認定個別的拒絕進行調解理由是合理的。

爭議的性質
大多數的爭議可以藉調解來解決，但有一些則不能。例如，該些需要純粹就法律觀點來解決的案件，可能需要由法庭作出具約束力的裁決—特別是假如有關的法律觀點確實不清晰並影響著雙方的權利時。然而，英國法院一般是不會輕易讓各方以相關爭議所涉及的性質為由，而獲得免除嘗試進行調解。

案件的理據
這是英國法院間或會考慮的一項因素，但亦在大多數的案件中受到質疑。假如你的當事人在審訊中具有很高的勝訴機會，這仍非一項可以作為拒絕進行調解的理由。只有在非常罕有的情況下，當事人對案中理據的掌握具有完全的壓倒性優勢時，才可以此作為拒絕進行調解的支持理據。

已經作出了其他方面的和解努力
儘管其他和解努力未能成功，但這並不表示調解亦會失敗。調解具有其自己的特性，這意味著它往往具有較高的成功機會。然而，在例外情況下，代表律師可以根據雙方的過往行為及案件的紀錄，提出理由使法庭相信，當事人已經在本案中作出了充分的和解努力，或是調解在本案中並沒有合理的成功機會。

調解可能是不相稱、昂貴或導致不可接受的延誤
這是拒絕進行調解的有效理由，但在現實情況中會很少發生。相對而言調解的費用是較低，而假如雙方願意的話，可以在給予很短的通知期後便迅速啟動調解程序。

儘管拒絕進行調解的情況有時是合理的，但根據英國的案例，較為明智的做法是，在《實務指示31》生效後，我們應當假定當事人必須具有非常良好和強而有力的理由，才可以拒絕進行調解。當然，這並不影響在仲裁程序中或是訴訟前的爭議。

結論

從事訴訟工作的執業者別無選擇，必須於2010年1月當《實務指示31》開始生效後熟悉調解的運作。雖然調解並非靈丹妙藥，但它確實具有一定的功用並應該受到歡迎。我們亦希望，當調解文化逐漸成長，即使仲裁案件亦將會增加對調解的使用，儘管《實務指示31》的適用範圍並沒有伸延至這一部分。

高涵
Barrister (England and Wales)
jacohen@me.com


在撰寫本文時，作者乃香港品誠梅森律師事務所的合伙人。