Life is a funny thing. Sitting in the magistrate's Court in Croydon on that Tuesday evening listening to John Burgess's presentation on mediation gave me little idea that by the end of the week I would myself be persuading a client of the benefits of mediation. But such is John's infective enthusiasm for the subject that almost anything can happen.

John started with an introduction of the principles of mediation and with an impressive statistic; 85% of mediations handled by CEDR lead to a settlement.

In commerce, negotiation is the standard method of settling problems and most disputes are resolved without any formal process. Some parties, for a whole range of reasons, find it difficult to negotiate but still genuinely want to reach settlement; hence the process of assisted negotiation, or mediation.

John emphasised at the outset that the mediator is there to assist the parties to reach an agreement, he is not there to impose a settlement. However, as John put it, the mediator must tread softly since he is walking into a fully grown dispute in which the parties may have taken up entrenched positions. The mediator must therefore gain the confidence of the parties and lead them gently through the mediation process.

In general, very few parties will have much knowledge of mediation. Consequently, one of the mediator's first tasks will be to ensure that the parties understand the process of mediation, the key features of which John set out as:

• The process is confidential; nothing that he said may be used in evidence elsewhere and the mediator may not later be called as a witness. This is intended to allow the parties to negotiate freely. This provision is set out in the mediation agreement which must be signed by the parties: John referred to the CEDR standard form as a model. John reported that such confidentiality clauses had been tested in USA and Australian courts and found to be effective.

• The mediator is not there to make any decision; his role is to act as a facilitator for a settlement to be achieved between the parties. He may speak to the parties separately or together. When in separate discussions, the parties must be sure that their conversations will remain confidential except to the extent that the mediator is specifically authorised to pass on information to the other party. The mediator should not be judgmental but may give an honest opinion on the strength and weaknesses of the cases if it is felt that such would assist in achieving a settlement. However, the mediator should be careful not to denigrate a party's case in the hope of achieving a settlement but neither should he unreasonably attempt to bolster it.

• Either party is free to abandon the process at any time. In consequence, their continued presence in the mediation process is evidence of a genuine desire to achieve a settlement. It is important that mediation should not be seen simply as a means of delaying arbitration or litigation.

• The mediation will "succeed" when the parties reach an agreement. The solution of the dispute will therefore be one which both parties can accept; neither party will have an unacceptable solution imposed upon them. Mediation is not about the rights and wrongs of the parties' cases; it is about finding a solution that is acceptable to both sides.

Being the good mediator that he is, John led his audience gently through the mediation process, highlighting the main points and giving useful tips along the way, until he reached the day of the meeting. At this point a three page scenario appeared, the audience was divided into two halves and we were invited to join into the role play of a fictitious dispute. Whilst this role play rapidly took on many features of a real dispute, those of confusion, misunderstanding and the taking of more time than was planned, John made many valuable points concerning the handling of such meetings.

He described the meeting itself, which usually starts with the signing of the mediation agreement, important to ensure the confidentiality of the proceedings, and a brief introduction from each party of the outline of their case. The mediator will have received some information beforehand though documentation is kept brief. The meeting then normally proceeds as a series of individual and joint sessions, the mediator meeting with the parties individually to tackle the points one at the time and then jointly if he feels that progress can be made. John's personal view is that lawyers are often of assistance to the mediation process in that they can help to define and condense the issues and advise the parties on procedure.

The importance of having the correct people at the mediation meeting was emphasised. Ideally, each party should have a representative with authority to settle the dispute; however it is recognised that central and local government bodies cannot work this way and this is acceptable provided their status is understood.

John emphasised that the mediator is there to help the parties reach agreement and matters such as body language and the characters of the individual participants are important. It is necessary to recognise that individuals may have different agendas to those of the companies that they represent in order to understand some behaviour. The mediator may have to deal with an emotional outburst but this should be handled carefully and it may even prove beneficial if it helps clear the air.

Unfortunately, due to the broad scope of John's discussions and interventions from the floor, we ran out of time and the mediation never reached a conclusion but was adjourned. Perhaps John could be persuaded to come back next year when we could then finish what would probably by then be the longest mediation in history.

James Mumford