Mediation 2 posts

Standard advice tells every in-house team to try mediation before anything else. That advice holds often enough to become reflexive, and reflexive advice is exactly where good judgment stops. Certain disputes are structurally unsuited to mediation, whatever a step clause requires, or whatever the applicable procedural rule requires. Recognizing which ones early saves the one advantage mediation actually offers: timing.

When in-house counsel select a mediator for a commercial dispute, the default approach is to check credentials, confirm neutrality, and move on. This misses the question that determines outcome: does this mediator have the commercial experience and substantive depth to do more than manage dialogue, and can they manage decision-makers who are not in the room?