Interesting excerpt of Belgian law:
(fr)
§ 3. La fonction de membre du service de médiation est incompatible avec :
1° un mandat public rémunéré;
2° un mandat public conféré par des élections;
3° la profession d’avocat;
4° la fonction de notaire, magistrat ou huissier de justice;
5° un mandat ou une fonction au sein : …
(en; machine translation)
§ 3. The member of the mediation service is incompatible with:
1° a paid public mandate;
2° a public mandate conferred by elections;
3° the legal profession;
4° the function of notary, magistrate or judicial officer;
5° a warrant or function within: …
Item ③ is a bit surprising. I think I would want mediators to have as much legal background as possible since it is those skills that are used. What am I missing?
Or is it just that mediators cannot work in the legal field in parallel to their mediation gig due to potential conflicts of interest like representing an entity who may need mediation?
https://justice.belgium.be/fr/themes_et_dossiers/mediation/mediateurs
That’s interesting. Thanks for the info!
Can’t say I agree though. I don’t think a lawyer is necessarily counter conducive to the needed qualities. In the US there are small claims judges who (I believe) generally become lawyers before becoming judges. A small claims judge has a legal background but is expected to be forgiving toward pro se litigants who are non-lawyer normies. Judges need to tolerate lack of knowledge in legal nuances to some extent. They are supposed to give a longer leash to non-lawyers especially when a non-lawyer is up against a lawyer.
Although some small claims judges hate pro se litigants… they hate nannying amateur hour and have a tendency to treat non-lawyers harshly. Perhaps that’s Belgium’s motivation. To avoid that altogether.