We consider that This study provides a partial and biased view of the value of mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (MASC). The data provided, obtained in the first months of the implementation of Law 1/2025, do not reflect the true effectiveness of the Mine Action Committee, nor do they analyze fundamental aspects such as user satisfaction, reduction of the judicial burden in the medium term, or the evolution of decisions.
In this sense, it is hasty to conclude the effectiveness of the system in its initial phase based solely on the subjective experience of part of the legal profession. AMM considers it The ICAM study overlooks key elements, Such as the value of assisting in negotiation, preventing future litigation, and saving time and resources, it does not provide a complete or balanced diagnosis.
The official statements issued by the CGPJ leave no doubt: the procedural burden of the Spanish courts is unsustainable. In the first quarter of 2025, 2,288,305 cases were filed (15.6% more than in 2024), with a national average litigation rate of 40.07 cases per 1,000 inhabitants (in Madrid it reaches 50.99).
In the civilian area, the flood was greater, with a 31.5% annual increase in new cases. In this context, the duration of a dual-level civil case is on average 17 months. The most alarming consequence is that only 25% of favorable rulings are implemented.
These official statements are alarming: they reflect judicial collapse, structural delays and huge costs for the state and citizens. In the face of this critical situation, mediation and Mine action subgroups are not a luxury: they are an urgent need to relieve court congestion and restore the effectiveness of the public justice service.
Mediation is a legitimate and effective means of resolving disputes that offers clear advantages to citizens and improves the efficiency of the judicial system. First, comparative experiments show significant savings in time and costs. Spanish studies indicate that the average time for a civil lawsuit is about 560 days, compared to 50 days in the mediation process, and the average cost for judicial administration is 8,000 euros, compared to 1,833 euros for parties in mediation.
With this reality on the table, the conclusions of the ICAM study are surprising. The panel survey primarily reflects attorneys’ perceptions, not verifiable results, and its numbers directly contradict actual statistics.
The same document states that “only 10% of attempts at early resolution of the conflict ended in agreement.” But it completely ignores the success rates adopted in organized reconciliations or usual extrajudicial agreements.
In judicial practice in 2023, agreement was reached in only 11% of family mediations and 16% of civil mediations, apparently modest figures that ICAM uses to conclude that “efficiency objectives are not achieved”.
But this logic is fallacious. This 10% is not a substantive limit for the brokerage, but rather a reflection of its still infancy application and the resistance of many operators to its use. The study suffers from selection bias: it consulted only lawyers (1,164 lawyers, 89% of medium-sized firms), without collecting the voice of expert mediators, judges or users benefiting from the agreements, nor comparing them to contested deadlines.
Nor does it consider rejection of “more work” mediation to be an internal indicator of the survey, rather than a social statistic. Instead of empirical data, it offers subjective opinions, which translate into “0” scores on reform.
AMM objects to this methodology: intermediation cannot be delegitimized by surveying companies. If the study says that only 8.2% of the lawyers surveyed choose mediation, this reveals the lack of mediation tradition among them, and not the fundamental effectiveness of this method. On the other hand, there is abundant national and European evidence (CGPJ, INE, Ministries) that when mediation is encouraged, litigation decreases and citizen satisfaction increases. Citing 10% without context or contradiction with official data is misleading.
Corporate opposition is a historical constant that cannot determine the implementation of measures in the public interest. The introduction of MASC seeks to realize a fundamental right of citizens: faster and more humane access to justice. The public interest must prevail over the trade union interest.
The ICAM report represents resistance to change, not an irrefutable diagnosis. In other fundamental reforms (free justice, single bar, etc.) the same thing happened: the initial criticisms disappeared when quality objectives turned out to be unavoidable.
Therefore, we at AMM insist that we will not support any report that gives greater weight to the interests of the Union than the right of citizens to resolve their disputes quickly. Every day of delay in court means new costs and suffering. Even more so, as the Constitutional Court points out, when the workload of the courts is beyond the citizen’s control and cannot justify an indefinite delay. In short, a defense of mediation is a defense of the public interest.
Mine action does not constitute an additional burden, but rather an opportunity to modernize the judiciary. They constitute a Progress in protecting citizen rights By offering flexible and discreet alternative methods that focus on users’ interests. It allows the courts to be less congested, leading to greater speed in truly controversial cases.
Brokerage is also driving the transformation of legal operators: it requires it Best trained and specialized professionalsEnhances the lawyer’s personality as a negotiating advisor and enhances his professional standing through effective conflict resolution.
Extending the validity of the MASC does not weaken the role of the lawyer, but on the contrary: it enriches it. In the mediation process, the lawyer assumes the role of expert advisor and legal support for his client; He was no longer just a litigant in court, but rather a facilitator of the agreement.
Their participation in mediation ensures legal fairness, verifies that agreements are balanced and legally enforceable, and protects the client from giving up his fundamental rights.
It is not about replacing a lawyer, but about transforming his practice for the benefit of society. For this reason, the AMM considers it incorrect to say that mediation takes the “business” out of the legal profession: what is changing is the economic model (transactional rather than procedural), with ample training and professional opportunities for lawyers. In any case, a lawyer’s profession should always be about resolving disputes, and today MASCs are the best tool available.
In summary, MASCs provide added value to the system; They do not weaken it.
AMM recognizes that the implementation of Law 1/2025 may lead to real technical deficiencies: lack of adequate structures and resources, disparities in judges’ decisions when evaluating mediation certificates, and deficiencies in information for users and professionals. However, these problems can be corrected through institutional will, ongoing training, and the establishment of clear protocols.
In fact, European institutions agree on the need to establish minimum standards for the quality of mediation services. The mere existence of operational difficulties neither excuses nor offends the spirit of the Mine Action Subcommittee. On the contrary, as the European Parliament points out, Law 1/2025 (in line with Article 5.2 of Directive 2008/52) allows for the establishment of mandatory mediation as long as it does not impede access to justice. Our defense is therefore clear: technical problems must be met with concrete solutions, not with dogmatic rejection of mandatory mediation.
Finally, the Madrid Mediation Association calls for a constructive dialogue between all institutions involved: judicial bodies, professional associations, public administrations and legal professionals.
We agree with European recommendations to intensify cooperation to enhance mediation. We are calling Madrid Bar Association, to cgpg, to Ministry of Justice actually Other living organisms to Working together to improve the deployment of MASCs.
We share an interest in correcting implementation errors, but we insist that this should not mean going backwards or abandoning progress made. Mine action represents a necessary development towards more accessible and efficient justice, in line with European standards; Abandoning them would be a setback.
AMM reaffirms its commitment to mediation and mine action as a legitimate, effective and modern means of resolving disputes. We reject messages that underestimate its value based on partial data. Through political will, institutional strengthening, and professional dialogue, the implementation of Law No. 1/2025 can be improved without abandoning its goals.
the Well-designed mediation benefits society Indeed its own advocacy, transformation justice In a More flexible, fair, and in line with European demands. Our Association will continue to actively cooperate until MASC reaches this potential, always respecting legality and fundamental rights.
By the Madrid Mediation Association