Mediators are to assist in resolving the disputes and not to resolve them – it is down to the participants to decide when and how to put an end to their disagreement. Accordingly, the core emphasis should be directed at ‘assistance’ rather than anything else. And this is exactly what we are about.

Our pragmatism is also present in our philosophy of ‘unpressured mediation’. We will not artificially push for a settlement or direct the conversation in a way, which may create a feeling of discomfort due to running time and lack of progress. Good things take time and time is exactly what is needed to think things through and make a wise decision.

We will also not encourage you to mediate at all cost. Time is a finite asset for everyone. If you will feel that mediation is not for you or that it does not work in your case, we will simply stop the process.

A common view or even a misconception is that anyone can mediate a dispute. The proponents of this theory state that a mediator is a neutral third party who is present solely to facilitate the communications between the participants. Nothing more, nothing less.

We are, however, in the minority that thinks that there is one more element needed for the success – industry know-how. Throughout our careers we have witnessed many negotiations and assisted or supported resolution of the most complex disputes. And what was stark in the cases where negotiations were never fruitful? Poor industry know-how and sectorial experience.

Why is the industry know-how so important in our opinion? We firmly believe that the intricacies of each and every industry, its culture and business customs are elements that often define and shape our behaviours. They are also measures used to understand what is right and what is wrong.

Without a working knowledge of those factors a mediator is likely to experience significant trouble in understanding the nature of the dispute and thus mediate less effectively. This will then cascade onto difficulties with rephrasing the participant’s intentions and expectations during the individual sessions, and poorly navigating through any reflective dialogues. Not having the insider knowledge is also likely to lead to a situation where the participants will have a reduced confidence in the mediator’s capability to facilitate the dispute.

Ethics is incredibly important to us particularly knowing the sensitivity of matters that are normally referred to mediation. We therefore always maintain the highest of the highest standards of professional behaviour and confidentiality to ensure that the process is safe, reliable and unbiased.

Although mediation is not regulated in the UK, due to our affiliations with a number of professional and industry organisations, we are subjected to a set of stringent ethical and code of conduct rules imposed by these bodies.

At the same time we believe in compliance that is not obstructive or impeding. Therefore our conduct is always proportional and thoughtful. We have seen on multiple occasions how strict and formalistic adherence to some imaginary rules or expectations to sign endless  discouraged mediations before they even started.

Our conduct, being oriented at promoting mediation, is more pragmatic and adjusted to the everyday reality. It is also essential to us that we are authentic and that we develop a trusting relationship with clients and facilitate the development of similarly trusting relationships between people.

Dispute resolution methods always move with the times. So do we. That’s why in our practice we are happy to mediate face to face, but also to employ more sophisticated and technology-driven ways to enable communication between the participants. We feel as comfortable mediating in live-environment as on Microsoft Teams, Zoom or Skype. Similarly we can conduct long and complex facilitation and negotiation sessions through solutions like Mural.

We are also capable of advising the participants, which mediation method is likely to perform best in a given case. While it is frequently thought on-line mediations are no different to face to face mediations, we think that this is an overstatement. The former are devoid of non-verbal communications and emotional loads that often influence the shape and content of mediation. The latter, although less personal, are more convenient. Accordingly, in our view at least, the method of conducting the mediation should always be adjusted to the type of mediated dispute.