Over the last 18 months, I’ve noticed a real shift. Like many mediators, I’m seeing more and more cases coming through as hybrid mediations or becoming hybrid as they evolve. In financial remedy work especially, it’s quickly becoming the norm. Clients want to stay in control, but they also want their solicitor closer to the action rather than just “on standby.”
One of the real strengths of mediation is its flexibility. We’re not boxed in by standard court directions, we can shape the process around the family, the issues, and the distinct facts involved in each case. In hybrid cases, I’ll usually start with a professionals’ meeting ahead of the first session. That’s where we map things out: what needs to happen, who’s doing what, and crucially by when. Disclosure, questionnaires, experts, ES2s … the usual suspects.
By the end of that stage, everyone should be clear on expectations. But here’s the issue.
As we all know, mediators don’t have the power to enforce a timetable. There are no sanctions, no costs threats hanging in the background. Mediation relies on something else entirely: buy-in. A shared commitment to the process. And when that commitment slips, things unravel quickly.
This isn’t about deadlines for the sake of it. The timetable is what makes the mediation work. Without it, sessions become unfocused, inefficient, and ultimately expensive.
Because let’s be honest, hybrid mediation isn’t “cheap” when it’s done properly. A full day with a mediator and two solicitors is a significant investment for any client. They’re entitled to expect that time to be used productively.
I was reminded of this recently when I attended a hybrid mediation as a solicitor rather than as the mediator. Within the first hour, it was obvious something wasn’t right. The other party hadn’t taken advice in advance (despite that being an agreed step), hadn’t provided key disclosure, and didn’t have a clear proposal to put forward.
Instead of using the day to negotiate, reality-test, and move things forward, the session was effectively taken over by the other party and their solicitor trying to catch up on what should have been done beforehand. The result? Very little progress. A hefty bill. And a frustrated client.
It’s a familiar story, and one that’s entirely avoidable.
Where lawyers are actively involved in the mediation process, particularly between sessions, their role becomes critical. Tasks need to be completed, advice needs to be given and momentum needs to be maintained. If that doesn’t happen, the whole process risks stalling or, worse, collapsing altogether.
Of course, things don’t always go to plan. We’ve all seen court timetables slip, and mediation is no different. But there’s a difference between a genuine need to adjust and simply letting deadlines drift because “it’s only mediation.”
In another case I’m currently mediating, it became clear ahead of the next session that key steps hadn’t been completed and that going ahead would be, frankly, a waste of everyone’s time and money. So we paused, we regrouped and we pushed the session back. That’s the flexibility mediation allows and it worked.
But the key point is this: the timetable still mattered. We didn’t ignore it, we adapted it.
So, here’s my plea to fellow family lawyers:
Treat the mediator’s timetable with the same respect you’d give court directions. The consequences of ignoring it might not come with a court order attached, but your client will feel them just the same in time, in cost, and in outcome.
And if something isn’t clear or you think the timetable needs tightening, say so. One of the real advantages of hybrid mediation is that we can use all the professional brains in the room to shape the process properly. Done well, it gives clients the best possible chance of resolving matters constructively. Done badly, it’s an expensive missed opportunity.
So yes, prepare for mediation or prepare to fail.
Laura Clapton
Director, Family Solicitor and Mediator, Consilia Legal
