With the rise of the mega case – often funded class actions – a unique challenge for mediation is emerging.

It is just as Danny McFadden says in his recent post on China’s modern day silk road initiative Big Projects, Big Disputes – Bring in the Mediators;

“mediation is a proven dispute resolution tool for disputes involving vast sums of money, multiple and diverse stakeholders and complex commercial and personal issues”

I would go further and say that mediation is the only dispute resolution process that can, from a practical perspective, handle these big cases effectively and efficiently – where there are tens of thousands of claimants and multiple responding parties divided into a number of natural groupings. These claims are nearly always litigated in some form – often done with half an eye to conditioning them for mediation a long way off into their future.

And of course, while all those  participants don’t ever turn up to the eventual mediation, when these mega cases do arrive in the mediation room, large numbers of people nevertheless arrive with them.

I have always considered the optimum number of participants at the mediation table in a commercial dispute to be around 15 – 20. It seems to me, in terms of pure numbers, this brings a critical mass to the mediation that keeps the energy up, allows a variety of voices to be heard but retains the intimacy that so often fuels mediation, both in joint session and when the parties retire for private discussions.

But the mega case is in a completely different league – while there comes a point when it is no longer a mediation and more like a town hall meeting, these cases attract large teams of lawyers, third-party funders, experts of all hues, often an elected mediation committee or two for the claiming parties and of course, representatives from the normally corporate responding parties – and numbers can climb: very commonly to 50+ seats around the table but not unheard of to have 100 at the mediation.

Recently, mediator Bill Wood QC and I were involved in a mediation with around 70 people attending. The only convenient venue for the parties was at the Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building located off Fetter Lane, Central London. There we had access to one of UK’s ‘super courts’ designed to handle the largest international and national high value disputes together with around 15 of the 55 consultation rooms. And while every mediator knows the court house may not be the ideal venue for a mediation, often the parties are comfortable there and it can be the only place that offers the kinds of facilities mega mediations require – as well as lending a certain vibe to the mediation that sometimes works for and sometimes works against getting to ‘yes’.

With these numbers come extraordinary challenges for the mediation process, both logistical and practical.

Enter the co-mediators.

While conventional wisdom has co-mediation being considered for a variety of reasons, including combining complimentary skills and expertise, providing a balance in terms of gender, age, culture and language where appropriate, my experience  is that co-mediation is considered primarily in two situations in the commercial sector;

  1. in mega cases
  2. where the claimant and responding groups are incapable of agreeing the identity of a single mediator – so they appoint one mediator each, arbitration style

Clearly, while claiming and responding groups appointing a mediator each cuts across much of what we hold dear in mediation and belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the mediator’s role, the process is all but doomed if the mediators see themselves as mediator for ‘their party’ and much more could be written on this topic.

However, I am happy to report, this is rarely the case for mediators but appointment in these circumstances is a development to be watched and, in my view, discouraged. For one thing, it often means mediators of different stripes (both philosophical and style) find themselves working together and quickly tripping over each other. Much better to appoint mediators who have worked together before and are hand in glove.

As one party once said to me when considering my co-mediator,  “we need to avoid 2+2 = 3”

In fact, it needs to equal five.

For an insight into one of these mega-cases and a 2+2=5 combination, take a look at Eric Green and Jonathan Marks’ short article about their co-mediation of the Microsoft anti-trust case of a few years ago;

Mediators never kiss and tell. But within the bounds of appropriate confidentiality, lessons can be learned from the three-week mediation marathon that led to Microsoft’s settlement with the Department of Justice and with at least nine States…

To make sure you don’t miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Mediation Blog, please subscribe here.


To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Mediation Blog, please subscribe here.

Profile Navigator and Relationship Indicator
Access 17,000+ data-driven profiles of arbitrators, expert witnesses, and counsels, derived from Kluwer Arbitration's comprehensive collection of international cases and awards and appointment data of leading arbitral institutions, to uncover potential conflicts of interest.

Learn how Kluwer Arbitration can support you.

Kluwer Arbitration
This page as PDF


  1. Geoff, great post!

    I, and I’m sure others who are called to co-mediate commercial matters on occasion, would love to hear more technical details of how you worked with your co-mediator and managed the process with the 70 attendees.

    Was there much in the way of pre-mediation consultation with the parties? How did you develop the process plan with your co-mediator. Was one of the mediators designated as the “lead”, or how did you divide the work? How much time in joint session and how much in caucus? Did you caucus separately or together, as a team? Did you use email / text messaging with the parties during the process to keep people posted on your whereabouts?

    While there’s a lot of material our there on co-mediation was there anything you found particularly useful as you prepared for this mandate?

    My own experience has led me to conclude that it is crucial for the co-mediators to have a good working relationship characterized by similar philosophies about the mediation process and strong mutual respect developed in significant pre-mediation planning discussions.

    Any comments you care to pass along would be appreciated and perhaps others with similar experience would share their experiences here.

  2. Geoff and Rick, here in Germany I am used to co-mediation for the last 20 years, may it be in cases with 5 to more than 100 attendies, sometimes more, e.g. in city development mediations. As we are all trained and experienced in transformative mediation, we have a couple of techniques that are helpful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *