What makes a good mediator? Why Dirk Oldenburg?

A good mediator for complex cases needs to possess the following qualities, among others:

Dirk Oldenburg possesses the character and personality of integrity, which makes him the right person to lead the parties through the necessary phases of the mediation process with patience and empathy towards achieving an amicable resolution. His career path highlights his extensive experience and skills that are essential for the task at hand. Moreover, his detailed approach to preparing, organizing, and steering a mediation case is clearly elucidated in the below extract of his article in LawyerIssue (link to the full article can be found below), demonstrating his specific and methodical expertise in the field:

“ … the mediation process can be broken down into the following rough phases:

• • • • • Preparing for the mediation, including setting down rules of procedure, logistics, etc.
        • “Opening” the mediation hearing, with an introduction to the basic principles and features of the mediation procedure, the facts of the matter, and the status of the dispute; under some circumstances, an informal meeting may be held ahead of time.
        • Jointly working out all subjects in dispute from a factual and legal standpoint and otherwise.
        • Jointly working out and identifying the actual underlying interests and needs of the parties to the conflict and their relative importance and significance to the respective parties.
        • Jointly working out, in creative form, all theoretically conceivable approaches that might be taken to achieve a resolution, initially without evaluating or assessing them at the same time.
        • Jointly working out all theoretically conceivable scenarios in which an amicable resolution is not reached, initially without evaluating or assessing them.
        • Evaluating and comparing all of the identified scenarios in which an amicable resolution is not reached on the one hand and all possible approaches for reaching an amicable resolution on the other.
        • Working toward realistic models of achieving an amicable resolution.
          …

II. The “who, where, how” of a mediation hearing

• • • • • Mediation’s eventual success or failure is determined to a large extent early on, during the planning and conceptualization of the mediation procedure.
        • Who is the most important point for the mediation procedure—that is, determining the size and composition of the parties’ representation. What are the crucial criteria when it comes to the question of who should participate as the parties’ representatives?
        • Under no circumstances should there be too many people involved. The most reasonable number is between one and five per side. The delegations should be at least roughly the same size.
        • There must be sufficient knowledge of the matter represented on all sides in the delegation, or this knowledge must be available to the delegation on short notice.
        • There must be persons with adequate decision-making authority at the table. The level of the hierarchy above the one where the case is being handled and, if at all possible, decision makers from outside the legal department should also be represented. The main decision makers should be able to view each other as equals in terms of the corporate hierarchy, so they can talk to each other as equals as well.

Only if these conditions are met does the mediation have optimum prospects of success. A certain amount of distance from the matter itself and not having had too much prior involvement greatly enhance the parties’ objectivity in assessing their own prospects and risks. On the other hand, it is also necessary to ensure that the representatives are familiar with all matters and aspects that are favorable to their party and can bring them into the proceedings so that they do not agree to a solution that unreasonably disadvantages their party for lack of awareness of these points.

It should be pointed out that decision makers from outside legal departments often display a more pragmatic, more realistic view, basing their assessment on whether a potential approach to achieve a solution seems appropriate and reasonable on the whole rather than following a particular—and chiefly legal—analysis…

The mediator also needs to take great care with the aspects of where and how early on, reviewing where, in what physical setting, and on what schedule the mediation is to take place. Depending on the nature and subject matter of the dispute, a wide range of different concepts may be appropriate and promising in this regard. These outward circumstances must be appropriate to the complexity of the matter, the economic or other importance of the case, and the persons involved. Only if the critical persons on all sides view these conditions as being appropriate and comfortable is it possible to create a discussion atmosphere that permits and even fosters the building of trust between the relevant decision makers in a relatively short time—and without that, the prospects of successful mediation are poor.“