Revista da EMERJ - V. 22 - N.1 - Janeiro/Março - 2020

 R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 1, p. 11 - 26, Janeiro-Março. 2020  20 is not an incentive for parties to engage in good faith to achieve a solution. That is probably one of the reasons why mediation by order of the court is the least likely conciliatory procedure to lead to an agreement: the settlement rate (14% for mandatory matters and 22% for non-mandatory matters) is even lower than in mandatory mediations (24%). As for mediators, studies 12 have proved that there is no correlation between the style of media- tion and the rate of achieved agreements, while, on the contrary, education in business and economics seems to positively affect the success rate. Finally, with regard to lawyers, the lack of ed- ucation in ADR and of confidence in these procedures have a negative impact over the result of mediation. SAVING MONEY, LOOSING PROFESSIONAL MOTIVATION What was peculiar in this reform was that no public fun- ds were destined to the promotion of mediation: the bill relied on the spontaneous creation of a mixed private-public market for the provision of mediation services. Public entities (such as the local Bar Association, professional associations or, more nota- bly, the Chambers of Commerce) were automatically considered worthy of establishing a mediation provider, while private com- mercial entities had to go through an accreditation process. The prices for the mediation services had to be approved by the Mi- nistry of Justice, and they tended to be in a rather low range, in order to promote mediation and to attract ‘customers’. After all, a reasonable price, along with a reasonable time, seemed to be the conditions to allow compulsory mediation, and to consider it compatible with rule-of-law constitutional guarantees, and, most of all, with the right to a day in court 13 . The legal reform, with the noticeable intention to promote the mediation, has compressed its fees. However, by not committing the financial resources to subsidise the service, it is derailing the market for ADR services. 12 Cominelli, L., C. Lucchiari (2017). “Italian Mediators in Action: The Impact of Style and Attitude”. Con- flict Resolution Quarterly , 35(2), 223-242. 13 Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010. Rosalba Alassini v Telecom Italia SpA (C-317/08), Filomena Califano v Wind SpA (C-318/08), Lucia Anna Giorgia Iacono v Telecom Italia SpA (C-319/08) and Multiservice Srl v Telecom Italia SpA (C-320/08).