22 Jul Is It Correct to Speak of “Mediation” When Acting in Favour of One of the Parties?
Is It Correct to Speak of “Mediation” When Acting in Favour of One of the Parties?
A reflection on the difference between mediation, intermediation and influence, from the perspective of a lawyer and conflict mediator in Barcelona
Over the past few days, I have repeatedly heard an expression used in television news reports that has made me reflect as both a lawyer and a conflict mediator. Journalists often say that certain individuals “mediated” to obtain public funding, “mediated” with public authorities, or “acted as mediators” to facilitate a particular business transaction.
My intention is not to enter into the political debate or comment on the judicial proceedings referred to in those reports. It is for the courts to determine what actually happened and whether any unlawful conduct took place.
My concern lies elsewhere.
What concerns me is the use of a word that identifies a regulated profession to describe actions that some media outlets associate with obtaining advantages for one party or even with alleged influence peddling.
Curious about whether this usage was actually incorrect, I consulted the Dictionary of the Spanish Language published by the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE). To my surprise, the answer was not as straightforward as I had expected.
The RAE includes the traditional meaning of the Spanish verb mediar: to intervene between two or more people in order to help them reach an agreement or reconcile. However, it also includes another definition: to intercede or intervene on someone’s behalf.
From a purely linguistic perspective, therefore, journalists are not using the verb incorrectly when they say that someone “mediated” in order to promote the interests of a company. The dictionary accepts that meaning.
However, the fact that a word is linguistically correct does not necessarily mean that it is the most appropriate choice in every context.
And that, in my opinion, is where the real issue begins.
When people repeatedly hear that someone “mediated” to secure public funding, influence an administrative decision or benefit a particular company, it becomes easy to associate mediation with the use of personal connections, influence or persuasion in favour of one side.
That image bears little resemblance to professional mediation.
Professional mediators do not represent private interests. We do not defend the position of the person who hires us, nor do we intervene to obtain advantages for one party over another. Our role is precisely the opposite: to create a balanced environment for dialogue, facilitate communication and help the parties themselves build a mutually acceptable solution to their conflict.
A mediator does not decide who is right.
A mediator does not speak on behalf of either party.
A mediator does not try to persuade one party to accept the other’s position.
Our commitment is to the process itself and to the principles that underpin it: voluntariness, equality of the parties, confidentiality, neutrality and impartiality.
For that very reason, those of us who practise mediation also have a responsibility to explain clearly what our role really is. Public confidence in mediation depends largely on understanding that a mediator does not represent either party but ensures that both can participate in the process on equal terms.
This is why I believe the discussion is not merely about terminology.
Words do more than describe reality; they also shape the way society understands professions.
If the verb to mediate gradually becomes associated with actions intended exclusively to favour one party—or even with conduct that, in certain circumstances, may become the subject of a criminal investigation—we risk projecting onto mediation an image that is entirely foreign to its true purpose.
That harms not only those of us who practise mediation professionally, but also the citizens who could benefit from it.
Perhaps, in these contexts, more precise language would serve us all better.
When someone acts on behalf of another person in an attempt to obtain a particular administrative decision, expressions such as to intercede, to act as an intermediary, to represent someone’s interests, to make representations, or to act as a liaison describe that reality far more accurately.
Not because the Royal Spanish Academy is wrong, but because those expressions avoid confusing advocacy or representation with a profession whose defining characteristic is precisely that it represents no one.
I have not written these lines to criticise journalists or to question an ongoing judicial investigation whose outcome I do not know.
I have written them because I believe that those of us who work in mediation also have a duty to explain what we do—and, just as importantly, what we do not do.
Mediation is a regulated profession governed by demanding legal and ethical principles. It is founded on neutrality, impartiality, confidentiality and the voluntary participation of the parties.
That is why I believe it is important to avoid language that, even unintentionally, associates mediation with influencing decision-makers, representing private interests or carrying out actions designed to benefit one side. Those activities belong to an entirely different sphere and, in some circumstances, may themselves become the subject of judicial investigation.
Words matter.
And it also matters to preserve the true meaning of those that define professions whose credibility ultimately depends on public trust.
A mediator does not influence. A mediator creates balance.
Daniel Sererols Villalón
Lawyer & Conflict Mediator – Barcelona
If you would like to learn how mediation works or find out whether a family, neighbourhood, civil, commercial, shareholder or community dispute could be resolved through dialogue before going to court, I would be delighted to assist you.
📞 Telephone: +34 661 46 33 06
📧 Email: daniel@mediadorconflictos.com
🌐 Website: www.mediadorconflictos.com
📍 Barcelona, Spain
