Characteristics of the activities of advocate and their mistakes in the mediation process

Characteristics of Effective Advocates is characterized by some common features including objectivity, independent judgment, sensitivity, understanding, perseverance, patience, knowledge, self-confidence, ethics and respect for others. Effective representation of clients in mediation requires the same level of preparation, diligence and assertiveness as is required in presenting a jury trial. The outcome of a mediation session depends, to a large degree, on the performance of counsel. In the vast majority of instances, the parties on both sides are better off settling then taking their chances before a judge, jury or arbitrator. However, the key to achieving a reasonable settlement for а client is to clear state that counsel is ready and able to try the case. A lawyer should be prepared for a similar treatment by the intermediary during a closed meeting with his own client. Often there are parties that must be submitted through mediation, which can not be officially indicated in the lawsuit. One of the biggest frustrations for lawyers, parties and mediators is to spend long hours in achieving agreement in principle, only to learn for the first time that the proposed settlement needs to be presented to a company officer or committee for approval and ratification. The mediation process is most effective when the mediator has the opportunity to talk, face-to-face, with the decision-maker for each party.Since, each case is different, and it is difficult to formulate rigid and fast rules as to when mediation should be considered. Sometimes it makes sense to take immediate mediation in solving urgent problems, especially when the parties have a permanent relationship that they want to protect. It is impossible to prepare the case properly. Mediation is nothing more than accelerated, facilitated negotiations. Experienced litigators never take their clients to deposition or trial without thorough preparation. The same should go for mediation. The client should understand ahead of time the general nature of the process, including the rules of privilege and confidentiality in mediation. The client must understand in advance the general nature of the process, including the rules of privileges and confidentiality in mediation. More importantly, the client must have the advantage of being mediator in assessing him or her lawyer, and potential pitfalls and shortcomings. Clients appreciate aggressiveness and diligence on their behalf, but also respect honesty and candor from their lawyers.

Analyzing the problem in the field of advocacy and their mistakes in the mediation process, I came to the conclusion that the activities of lawyers should be characterized by such features as objectivity, independent judgment, sensitivity, understanding, perseverance, patience, knowledge, self-confidence, ethics and respect for others. Thanks to these traits does achieved success in business, mutual understand with customers.

Language adviser: A.V. Voevodinа

Scientific adviser: Ia. L. Khusnutdinova

Andrey Andreevich Lysenko

Donbass Law Academy

The Concept of Human Rights

We are here to discuss Human Rights in the theoretical aspect. The case is quite different for economic, cultural and social rights. All of these necessarily express values with regard to the forms of society. This is because they move beyond individual choices to consider the purposes or goals of our existence together. As collective, they affect the society as a whole. The same holds for the UN sponsored rights of a person: “to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.” For a society to honor these rights involves specific choices with regard to its social content and collective organization. Such choices embody a particular value—in the UN’s words, that of the “social security” of the individual. Freedom, here, is freedom for specific social goals. Since these goals are collective, they have an impact on our individual choices. Thus, while my right to express my opinion mustn’t impact yours, this is not the case for the economic rights the UN covenant endorses.

The nature of the relationship between these two types of rights is understandable. Their differences are clear. Civil and political rights, in abstracting from specific content, are value-neutral. As such, they express an abstract freedom, generally understood as a freedom from government interference. Economic, cultural and social rights, by contrast, are value-laden. The freedom that they embody is not abstract since it is, by definition, directed towards specific societal goals. Given this, can we really call both types “rights”? Civil and political rights, because of their abstract quality, claim to be universal. Can the same be said of value-laden rights? Since values are necessarily embedded in a culture, does not the inclusion of such rights relativize them to specific cultures? Doesn’t it thereby undermine any claim they might have toward universality? To answer these questions, we have to understand the relation between rights and freedom. Understanding freedom as the goal rather than the ground of rights gives us an insight into how the two types of rights function together.

Language adviser: А. G. Makhsma

Scientific adviser: M. V. Zavizionova