INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#225 GddZ
Profession Lawyer
Self-image of a conflict counsellor.
I talk to Urs Egli about the importance of soft skills in legal advice, empathetic communication and the role of lawyers in mediation for cooperative dispute resolution.
In conversation with Dr Urs Egli
Dr. iur., business lawyer, consultant, mediator, organisational developer; works as a lawyer for Suter Howald Attorneys at Law; works as a consultant for Ioda Consulting GmbH
Hit it, forget it – and walk.
Contents
Chapter:
0:12 – Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit.
2:06 – Urs Egli: A modern lawyer
6:44 – The changing legal profession
14:33 – The importance of the client relationship
19:58 – Lawyers in mediation
22:26 – Partnership between mediators and lawyers
34:55 – Psychology in legal counselling
38:11 – Conclusion: The new lawyer approach
Summary of content
In this episode of the podcast "Gut durch die Zeit", I shed light on how lawyers see themselves and how the profession has changed in recent years. I have invited Urs Egli, an experienced lawyer from Zurich, as a guest. Together we will discuss how lawyers are rethinking their role and what this means for clients.
Urs talks about his career as a commercial lawyer with a technical focus and how his five years of further training in applied psychology led him to focus on soft skills in legal advice. I ask him what's new after so many years of experience in the law and he emphasises that learning the principles of advice plays a crucial role in clarifying the client relationship from the ground up. These principles enable lawyers to not only look at the legal aspects, but also to see the client as a whole individual.
We also reflect on the traditional image of lawyers. Urs explains that although legal knowledge is necessary, it is not the sole criterion for good counselling. It is much more about empathising with the client and helping the person to identify their actual needs - often these are not immediately obvious. In many cases, lawyers realise that they are acting as part of the problem if they bring too much of their own personality into the counselling.
We also talk about the challenges that the newly interpreted understanding of the profession poses for lawyers. It becomes necessary to convey to clients that not every situation requires a legal dispute. There are often less confrontational ways of solving problems. Urs emphasises how important it is to support the client in deciding what the best course of action is for them, without pushing them in a direction that may be harmful to them.
A central point of the discussion is the role of lawyers in mediation. While the prevailing image is often that lawyers cause problems in such proceedings, Urs makes it clear that they are actually partners in the process and actively work towards a solution. The lawyer therefore also has an influence on the choice of procedure and the support of the client.
In addition, we discuss the need for lawyers to undergo regular training and, where appropriate, supervision in order to further professionalise their role as advisors. The realisation that the legal profession is more than just the application of law, but also includes consideration of the social and psychological dimension, is important for the future development of the profession.
In this episode, it becomes clear that the understanding of law and counselling in the legal profession is changing. The realisation that lawyers and mediators are partners pursuing a common goal of conflict resolution is not only shaping the perception of the profession, but also the entire system of dispute resolution, which is increasingly based on cooperative collaboration.
Complete transcription
[0:00]How am I there for the client? In other words, being there, being present, looking at the issue that the client brings, that has for itself alone
[0:12]
Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit.
[0:10]is already very important. Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit. The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. A podcast from INKOVEMA. I'm Sascha Weigel and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. And today's episode is intended to introduce a profession and, above all, the self-image that is possible in this profession, but also wants to be cultivated, which could not be further removed from mediators than one might think in clichéd terms. The aim is to present the profession of lawyer and the changes that this understanding of the profession has undergone in recent years or even decades.
[0:59]And to approach this topic, I have invited a special lawyer. Not just because he is Swiss, but because he interprets the topic, the professionalism and the self-image of the legal profession in a modern way and also teaches that this is extremely interesting for lawyers, but not just for lawyers. I would like to welcome lawyer Urs Egli to the podcast studio. Hello Urs.
[1:28]Hello Sascha. Urs, I hope I haven't offended you too much or that I've correctly understood what your concern is. After all, the core of your concern does not relate to the legal side of your profession, where we lawyers have been trained for years and have trained ourselves.
[1:49]Rather, it concerns our understanding of our profession, our appearance as lawyers and the role we actually play.
[2:06]
Urs Egli: A modern lawyer
[1:58]If we want to be legal counsellors and what we can actually be even beyond that. But first I want to ask you a bit about yourself and find out a bit about you in order to provide a bit of context, I think, because I suspect that this will give me access to why this is important to you. Who are you Urs? Yes, I'm Urs Eklig. I come from Zurich. I recently turned 60. I have a career as a business lawyer with a technical focus behind me. I was an IT lawyer, but I've always had a keen interest in the psychological factors in my profession. Five years ago, I took a course at the Institute of Applied Psychology in Zurich and was amazed to realise that you can learn to give advice. It's not just a given, you can actually do it, it's trained and you can learn it.
[3:06]And now, during my last quarter of my professional activity, or perhaps it is only a fifth, I would like to devote more time to the soft factors in the legal profession. And that's right in the middle of the topic. When you say advising, learning, after 30, 35 years as a legal advisor, what's new? What else can you learn from advising or what else could you learn from advising that you haven't yet experienced as a legal advisor? I don't think I was a bad counsellor. But I did it intuitively. And yes, there are indeed basic rules, such as clarifying the mandate at the beginning. That's the most important thing in the client relationship. I didn't realise that. Maybe I did it in most cases, sometimes maybe not. But I think these principles are very important. It gives you a framework to orientate yourself by. And so there are many things, knowledge and expertise that I would like to pass on to the next generation of lawyers. In other words, if we are legal advisors as lawyers and learn to penetrate the legal matter and categorise it according to claims and then also consider the enforcement options.
[4:28]What else needs to be clarified when the client comes in and says, I need someone to represent my legal interests? What is the traditional understanding or image of lawyers? Compared to what you have already indicated as an understanding of counselling.
[4:50]Yes, I often hear that about legal knowledge. Legal knowledge, I say, is like a driving licence. It's the licence, it's the entry ticket to this profession. You simply have to have it. But whether you're a good lawyer doesn't depend on it. It depends on what social skills you have, whether you can conduct a professional conversation, whether you see yourself as part of the counselling relationship. After all, something happens in the conversation with the client. That may all sound a bit far-fetched, but it's a concrete situation, that said, a new client arrives and I see the person for the first time. The most important thing for me is to find out what the person is looking for and what they need.
[5:43]And that's not always what she says at the beginning. She may not even know where the topic is located.
[5:52]She's in a situation, this person, that she can't deal with. She doesn't have that many options. There's my profession, lawyers or ours. There are also psychologists or social workers. It's a special approach, our profession, to such issues. You would also say, I'm going to exclude this a little bit, that it wasn't so relevant in the past or that lawyers simply didn't attach so much importance to it. Because you have now, so to speak, created a programme with a colleague for the Swiss, but probably also for the German-speaking area, where you approach lawyers directly and say, so here you can get further training with me, not so much in the legal area, but in the area of self-image,
[6:44]
The changing legal profession
[6:43]In other words, how you describe your profession. To understand your profession or to be able to understand what your profile is like, how you communicate. In other words, the whole context of legal counselling. And from my point of view, that suggests that you see a need, first of all among lawyers, that the counselling profession needs to be presented differently or needs to be made clear in a different way. Exactly.
[7:13]Exactly, so to put it positively, if you work on the clients you are there for, then you get into a good groove, then it works, then it flows. And on the negative side, when you're working in practice, you always come across situations where you realise that the lawyer is unfortunately part of the problem and not part of the solution because they bring too much of themselves into the case. And manoeuvring the client into a situation that they don't want to be in - I've experienced this many times. In all situations, it can be a court conflict situation, a trial, but it can also be a contract negotiation where the lawyer manages to derail the deal because they are too aggressive and don't realise it.
[8:12]Which would be good for the clients. And you would also say, I dare to ask the question in such a way that you think the lawyer has put too much of their personality into it and it's not just that, so to speak, they have emphasised the legal aspects too much. Because in mediation and in the process counselling of supervisors and co. This is exactly what is important in counselling, to take yourself out, not to let your own trauma and history spill over. The client already has enough problems, they don't need to take their own desperators with them. The legal profession traditionally ignores this. But I found it interesting, so to speak, that you say, yes, that is too much of the lawyer's own personality, instead of saying that they insisted too much on the legal level or too much…
[9:11]Wanting to enforce your rights regardless of what's going on around you? Yes, I think this can best be explained by looking at conflict work. Part of our work as lawyers is concerned with conflict work. Now I can put it like this.
[9:32]Yes, Protestant origins, so of course, working on conflict always sounds right. Well, I wrote a dissertation on a topic in this area. I wrote a dissertation on process comparison from a legal sociological perspective. And I realised that, yes, there is not just one way of dealing with conflict. There are many different ways. Starting with judgement, then conciliation, then mediation, then there is negotiation, the involvement of interveners and finally there is avoidance. An essay by William Felsdiner in the early 1970s was a real eye-opener for me. There are different ways. When a client comes, I don't always have to take the most extreme option. I have to realise which path would be the right one for the client, not for the lawyer. That's an important point in my self-image. I do this for the client and can then also see that it is better not to insist on his rights now, but to choose other paths.
[10:50]Or do I say as a lawyer, I'm responsible for the legal interests and he has to manage the rest himself somehow. He should get a therapist or a coach, I don't care, the main thing is that he's on the safe side legally with me. That's something where you say that's where the professional understanding starts. Exactly, because the client may not be able to make a judgement on their own, or it must first be clarified with them whether they have chosen the right door. Whether he is in the right place with a lawyer or whether he should perhaps see a psychologist. He could go to a counsellor. Someone else might be better suited to the issue he has. We're just between us, Urs, you're a lawyer too.
[11:41]Can you remember a situation where you saw, confirmed or even realised that what is right is perhaps not the right and appropriate thing to do? So this is for our One, who has been trained that the right thing is the right thing. Exactly, that's what everyone actually does and I would like to hang this on the subject of bullying. A long time ago, before my training at the IAP, I once said to myself that I wouldn't represent victims of bullying. Why not? Because if you go to court as a victim of bullying, this bullying situation is perpetuated for another two or three years. In the form of legal documents. It gets even worse. The person has to listen to the employer's defence of what a bad person they were. So I've decided for myself that I don't really want to do that, especially with victims of bullying. Because I think a different way of dealing with this issue might be more appropriate. That's a bit absolute now.
[12:53]But this is an example where in any case it becomes clear and one familiar with the matter can immediately agree, until a judgement is pronounced, such a long time is to be kept in a state where the bullying victim is also considered a liar and as incomprehensible.
[13:16]A person who is being portrayed as a quisling. Permissibly, yes, you might say necessarily from a legal point of view, and you can't always be sure that the judgement will outweigh the whole thing in the end. Exactly, I think that's a memorable example to show this dilemma. There is a right, but the right is not always the right way. The right is also a concept of value. It is not the issue that the client needs, the type of care. What is it all about, I say, in the aftermath, when you take a case like this and then say, ah man, that's right, in this case I now realise that law is not always the right thing for this person. And I'm not talking about social conditions and considerations of justice at a social level. But that would not be appropriate for this client.
[14:11]What else has changed for you in the course of your understanding of being a lawyer? What you are, you are also intuitive, where you say that I have perhaps always been different from my colleagues. I don't know how you experienced that.
[14:33]
The importance of the client relationship
[14:27]I realised how important the personal relationship is. In the encounter with the client. Simply the moment of the conversation, the situation in the counselling room, how I react to what is being said, how I am there for the client. So being there, being present, looking at the issue that the client brings up, that in itself is of great importance. And I have realised that the more active and the more present I am, the better.
[15:07]The better the results from this consultation. And it's often already finished by then. It's also enough that someone has been able to describe the problem to me, that I can empathise, but with the background of the law, of course. After all, I'm a psychologist. I confront the subjective view of the client with the objectivity of the law. And that helps if you make it sympathetic. How do I realise as a client that I would experience this differently with you than with a, shall I say, clichéd colleague? Where do you see the need for change in colleagues, so to speak, or what are the advantages? To be a little more present? Yes, to see beyond the legal aspects and realise that there are people behind the issues that are presented to us.
[16:08]Sometimes the dialogue situation is with the client, and there are social systems behind it. So in a family law matter, divorce, these are partners, these are children, these are grandparents, these are whole systems, that you take them into account, think about them, take them seriously, don't immediately try to break them down to a legal norm, always try to subsume them, etc., but instead get involved in the first conversation with what the client is saying, really listen to them, in a counselling sense, with a systemic understanding of counselling in your backpack. Has it ever happened to you with this topic that clients have then said.
[16:56]Mr Eckli, I don't know what else to say now, I've already explained the matter, but that would go far too far, it's no longer legally relevant. No, that won't happen, because of course I'm not asking. I simply give space.
[17:12]I give them space and see what they put on the table. And I don't question the clients, I'm not responsible for that.
[17:22]You're not forced, so to speak, to say things that I wouldn't have prepared myself for as a client. There is also an expectation that comes across, or a presumed expectation. I think that the specialist counsellor, the lawyer, has a particular focus when they question me, I have to be able to answer. And I have to prepare myself legally, I have to be meaningful when they describe their problem so that I can provide legal information. Then you would say, yes, young colleague, that's not what the interview is about, legally. No, nobody can expect us to have all the answers in the first conversation. That's no good anyway, is it? So you shouldn't do that. You should listen first, understand, and then clients understand when you say, yes, I'd like to think about that for a day or two or a week or however long it takes or I need to read up on it. It's not like that at the doctor's either. Then they say, please go and have your blood taken, Mr Regli, and then come back in a week and we'll tell you what to do next. That's exactly what I do, just like the doctor. What do your clients say, so to speak, in further training, the lawyer colleagues who hear this from you? Nobody can expect you to provide legal information straight away. I imagine that you just have big eyes in the room.
[18:50]They don't even come to me for counselling. That is a certain selection. People who come to me already suspect that they need more than just legal knowledge. The others don't come. Yes, but I also mean in the training courses you offer for colleagues. They understand that. Especially the younger ones, they come with a different, I'd say, psychosocial rucksack. They've heard more about it than their older colleagues. And the older ones, on the other hand, naturally also have experience. Many have experienced such situations themselves. There are interesting conversations. So I don't encounter a lack of understanding. Hey, if you're listening to this podcast and you like it, why don't you give it five stars and leave some feedback so that others who haven't listened to it or found it yet can do so. And now we continue with the episode in the podcast, well through time.
[19:58]
Lawyers in mediation
[19:52]I'll pick up on this because we also have a mediation perspective at the core of the podcast. And most or many of the listeners are probably active and trained as mediators rather than lawyers. And we mediators, I'll put it this way, naturally also have images of lawyers in our heads. In my experience, the cliché of "oh, the lawyer in the mediation is just causing me problems and he's blowing up the mediation" is often not at all what is possible in mediations when lawyers are involved. This is characterised more by a great interest in the process and a very realistic view of what is possible, also with regard to their own clients. That's why I'm usually grateful to the mediation and the lawyers who are present or at least active in the background. But?
[20:51]Of course, I bring that experience to the table, also because I'm a lawyer, which lawyers know and that's why there's such a consonance. What do we mediators, who perhaps have an image of lawyers, where the problem is suspected, where you also say that they bring too much of their own personality into it or emphasise the law too much? What do we need to understand or accept with regard to the legal profession that has changed? Because let me put it this way, the mere fact that you and your colleague or others teach such soft skills is evidence that this profession, the understanding of the profession of lawyer, has changed enormously.
[21:43]And in Germany, this has become clear from the study on the decline in the number of lawsuits filed. You may also have heard in Switzerland that this has fallen enormously in recent decades. And the reason for this can be seen very significantly in the changed behaviour of lawyers. The legal profession has a very large part to play in this, much larger than mediators, by the way. What makes sense or what is a constructive image of the legal profession when it comes to mediation and consensual dispute resolution?
[22:20]So I share your view on the role of the legal profession in mediation proceedings. I also think they are partners and they support this.
[22:32]Otherwise it wouldn't have come to that. If one party is represented by a lawyer and there is mediation, then the lawyer is responsible for it. Otherwise it wouldn't have come to that. Otherwise the case would have gone to court. Then they want the mediation to be successful, don't they? Ah, that's an important point. In other words, the mere fact that mediation is taking place and a lawyer is even there is an unbeatable argument in favour of it being wanted. You can't, and that's what the courts have, in Switzerland there's a settlement justice system, that's the issue in the end.
[23:10]We rarely get judgements, there are always judgements, and the judges see in the lawyers what you have now described of the mediators, they see the settlement preventers. And what I've realised is that it's not possible to drive a wedge between lawyer and client. The court has the idea that all I have to do now is say how it is and then the client will realise that his lawyer is representing him badly. It's not like that. The lawyer is always very close to the client and he has to allow that. So to the mediators, see the lawyers as partners. They will help you. Also, so to speak, because the experience is that you now see a mediation, you see that it's not going so well or it could be going well, but the lawyers have expressed concerns again or want another individual discussion and immediately you have this image, oh now the lawyers are the problem, they are now preventing the agreement. But that's just a small part of it. Just by being there, they have also sat down at the negotiating table and are practically just as interested in a result as everyone else who has agreed to mediation. Exactly, that's my view. Now you've also asked, yes, things have changed in the last 10 or 20 years. One more small question, exactly.
[24:40]Yes, perhaps it really is the case that this basic socio-psychological understanding is working its way into our profession. It's actually surprising that it hasn't been there for a long time. I always compare it a bit with psychologists who have to do supervision. They have to be constantly supervised. We don't have to. Yet we work with exactly the same subject matter. We work with people. Why don't we do that? We've always ignored that. It's only about paragraphs. But that's not it. It's possible that this will change. That would be very nice. That's my hope.
[25:25]That's a true word. I can also say that from my side, supervision is simply totally helpful. I've never been in the situation of having to take supervision on a legal case, on a lawyer's case on my part, because I've never practised as a lawyer, as a legal adviser. But I would also assume that it's rather unusual. I did that once. I was once in a supervision group for about five years. That was very exciting because it was cross-firm. We simply knew each other privately and we hired a supervisor, five or six people, and then we exchanged our cases there, but not on a legal level, but more in terms of access to the wrong. And most of them worked in the field of family law. As a commercial lawyer, I'm a bit exotic. I then cancelled it, but I think the group still exists. It was a great experience.
[26:26]And I can also imagine this in the constellations you mentioned. Our mutual colleague Jörg Schneider-Brotmann, who is also an IT lawyer, has also made it clear to me what kind of constellations these are, where people are closely connected over a long period of time. There's a lot at stake and you're literally caught up in the process. And supervision isn't the worst idea, even if you're an accompanying person.
[27:00]So I can well imagine that if these software projects take two or three years or longer, that you are also involved as a neutral person in such a way that involvement is likely. That does something to you. Yes, you also make decisions, don't you? You make judgements and at that moment you're right in the middle of it. Then you're suddenly part of the issue. And at some point at the end of the case, you even have a major stake in the issue. And then you find yourself in a situation where, if only I hadn't done it differently at the beginning, this hindsight bias that I mentioned in a short post today. It shouldn't be about what we didn't do right at the beginning. I think that's a bad development. But you have a nice saying from your life as a golfer. Exactly. Can I get rid of that? Yes, with pleasure. What do golfers say? Well, in golf they say, hit it, so hit the ball, forget it, so forget where it went, and walk.
[28:13]And keep running. Exactly, no matter where you've just shot. You have to run across. That's a wise saying for counselling practice, that we don't get into the wrong or aggravating regrets. We should be part of the solution and not part of the problem. That's not always the case, is it? Of course, there are also other colleagues who are part of the problem. There are, but in my professional practice, that's the one tenant. I always give clients the benefit of the doubt. I give them the benefit of the doubt. And it's often good that we as lawyers manage to understand that we're working on the same issue. And a leap of faith with regard to your own client or the other side? That he really means it, that he also has the issue, we are now working on the conflict with each other on two sides, but the issue is the same. It is the same life situation and we are both interested in ensuring that this conflict is handled as well as possible. And it usually works.
[29:32]If you look into the future like that, then at the end of the conversation, where would that lead? How would lawyers be perceived if this succeeds, if it sets a precedent, if it becomes more consistent, not just in the, I'm almost saying it, cliché area of family law, which is really like one.
[30:00]Experimental kitchen, where this is allowed. And in other areas, people are more likely to say, no, that's not possible. The fronts are hardened there, the interests are clear, etc., etc. But in family law, it's like a pioneering position. How would you experience or describe the legal profession if this became mainstream, if it really seeped into the lawyers' understanding of the profession? They would do supervision? Yes, they would have a holistic understanding of their profession, beyond the law, the understanding that they are counsellors. They are advisors for a very significant part of the mandate. And then at some point they become an advocate, which is the person who presents interests. But that only comes at the end and only when it is really necessary. The path to this should be a very conscious one and the client should understand that there are several ways out of this situation. That we as lawyers support this holistic counselling. And always, let's not get the wrong idea, we are lawyers. It's about the law, it's not about life counselling. But I think it's important to have this background, this horizon.
[31:28]That's another bichtig hint and I have to admit that I can't fully categorise it. But this, I'll say it again, we are not life counsellors, we are legal and jurists in this case and nevertheless this is another shift in emphasis to others who also have a basic profession, psychologists, pedagogues and then in the field of counselling.
[31:55]Working on a social problem, on a social conflict, which you could certainly say, well, that's a kind of life counselling in a critical situation. But I have the impression that you mean it in a more focussed way. Yes, I'm not a psychologist. I tell the client that I'm going to argue what the right is. The law is the objective. That is a general understanding that has been moulded into law. And the client comes with a very subjective view. This process of mirroring his subjective view with the objectivity of the law helps him. But this further help, this progress, is a matter for the client. That's not my job. I only have to mirror. I just have to say, if that's the case, that's right. And then it happens with the client themselves. The client learns in contact with me, but it's not explicit. It's different to a psychologist. It happens automatically. Yes, and I also assume that the type of presentation, the present mirroring and categorisation allows the client to assess themselves realistically, i.e. to assess their own position realistically. Exactly.
[33:14]Seeing that could also be the case. That helps the client much more than if you say in the first few sentences, yes, that's not possible and we'll go to court. Then the client hasn't had this process at all. He hasn't had the chance to see himself as part of the issue.
[33:33]Yes, exciting. I know, it's difficult. Well, no, I think the conclusion is the same as the lawyers' descriptions in the report on the complaints received, where the lawyers were also interviewed. And they also say, just to give you a rough idea, that the work has changed. It's no longer about being in court and litigating, but more counselling work, more time with clients, which has become more complex. The counselling there has become more complex, because that could be and unfolding the complexity in the legal context is another form of communication with clients, because now I only need the mandate to litigate on your behalf and then I am your legal counsel in court. And it's also very enjoyable work. So it was always very satisfying for me. My benchmark was always when I accompanied people to the door when they left, when they were more relieved, more satisfied, more relieved than when they arrived. And after the time they spent with me, I did a good job. So it was usually the case that these were good farewells. Although we didn't talk about psychology, but about the case. So I would like to make a note of that.
[34:55]
Psychology in legal counselling
[34:55]So we are actually psychologists, but not pronounced. So we have a similar function, but yes, the subject matter is different.
[35:10]Yes, and I think that access, namely via a problem, via a specific factual problem, allows me to use psychological functions. You don't have to be a registered doctor to do that, and that's what lawyers do in the traditional sense.
[35:33]For example, those who act through outrage and steer towards a lawsuit, but also lawyers who don't do that and take a more sober approach and consider what makes sense for the next step. And sometimes it really is the opposite, i.e. someone comes in outraged and wants to sue and then goes out differently, but perhaps the other way round. I also know cases where people are very accommodating and reserved and then they say, no, that's their right, I'd think about it again. So there's no need to hold back for the sake of peace. And that's also good counselling. So going to court can also be good advice and not the result of bad advice. Absolutely, absolutely, yes exactly. And the process itself also has a healing effect, i.e. that you exchange ideas in a structured process. There are cases where this is necessary, that it happens, that there is, let's say, pacification in inverted commas, that happens.
[36:41]What happens? So I also think it's enormously important that you don't think too simply and say, okay, court is bad and is evil and is an escalation and talking about it and finding an agreement is great and is socially competent and is socially pacified. But it's not that simple, it can also be contrary and it can be very good counselling for someone who wants to resolve a difficult situation peacefully, peacefully, and then realises that yes, I'm going to court, I'm not going to put up with it, I'm going to get what's right. And that's emancipation, liberation and enlightenment right there. Can we talk about legitimisation through procedures by Niklas Luhmann.
[37:35]That's a cool approach that describes to me the effect of the process itself. Yes, and often, I would say in a clichéd way, the starting points are the therapists who, for example, have the wife in therapy and then say, well, they don't have to put up with everything. Then they get a lawyer and then they do it. And then it's a self-empowerment process that doesn't escalate into something nasty.
[38:11]
Conclusion: The new lawyer approach
[38:08]is, but one absolute social Necessity. Exactly. Urs, many Thanks to for the Insight in Counselling practice one Lawyer the Conflict counselling in the best senses.
[38:24]So one Conflict situation has one legal Impact, has other Effects and there sober, unexcited, clear to advise, the is clear become. Many Thanks to in favour. Sincerely Thanks to you, Sascha. The find I also a very exciting Conversation. Thank you you. Good Time for you and until to the next Times.
[38:49]Bye bye. Ciao. The was Lawyer Urs Egli from Zurich. I have with him about the Professional understanding from Lawyers spoken, what itself Changed has and what it required, at good Counselling to be carried out. And we have clear worked out, that it at Conflict counselling goes with one legal Starting point. That it but not one Counselling be should, with the the Overcommitment of the Legal adviser towards to one Court procession, to one Conviction lead should, but that the Counselling the social Problem in the View retains and checks, which Procedure, which next Step the suitable is. We have natural still about several details spoken, but clear is me in the Conversation become and with pleasure also Feedback from yours and yours Page, like it you went, that itself the Professional understanding converted has and compatible also with the Ideas and Approaches from Mediators or other Conflict counsellors also itself together, compatible is.
[40:15]So that also for us Mediators within the Mediation, and the was the special Focus then in our Conversation also, that for Mediators, the with Lawyers on the Conflicting parties to do have.
[40:31]Important is to understand, that this Procedure realisation comes, because the Lawyer this Procedure contributes and also on one Solution interested is. Also when it possibly at times in the Mediation procedure the Appearance have may, as be the Lawyers the Preventer. The is but a necessary and clever Counterweight, situational and question-related and not one fundamental Attitude question. The so seems me, when I the Mediation literature to the Topic Advocacy right interpret, one necessary Realisation to be, the it applies to be noted. And in the Senses are Lawyers and Mediators Partner in one Mediation. And this Result, the was Yes also already with the austrian Lawyer Alfred Nemetschke. The Conversation found here already before some Time in the Podcast instead, but the is also there already clear become and in favour has Alfred then Yes also pleaded, in good time Lawyers switch on. Sometimes also, because Lawyers the Experience made have, their Clients also before the own unwise Ideas to protect.
[41:53]As far as to this Matter from mine Page. I wish you only the Best. I happy me, that her again here with thereby was, that you you the Time taken have, this Podcast to listen to. And when he you please has, happy I me natural also about one Five-star rating and a Feedback, so that also other this Podcast find, the him so far still not listen can or found have. Comes good through the Time. I am Sascha Weigel, the Host from INKOVEMA, the Institute for Conflict and Negotiation management in Leipzig and Partner for professional Mediation and Coaching training.
Leave A Comment