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?
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.