In a profession where every word is a tool and every action is a legal risk, mediation becomes for a lawyer not only a way to resolve conflicts, but also a format of a new legal identity. Where judicial pressure ends and the possibility of dialogue begins, a lawyer can be not only a defender or representative, but also a mediator in restoring communication between parties. Modern legal practice requires not just knowledge of norms, but the ability for flexible communication, active listening, empathy, and strategic thinking. And in this context, mediation ceases to be optional.
Mediation is not just a procedure, but a system of principles. Voluntariness, confidentiality, mediator neutrality, equality of parties, process flexibility — all this forms a separate legal culture that is much closer to legal ethics than to adversarial proceedings.
An attorney acting as a mediator does not decide disputes, propose settlements, or give advice. They refrain from judgments and act as a catalyst — helping parties formulate decisions themselves. This is the key difference between a representative attorney and a mediator attorney.
It is worth noting that Ukrainian legislation does not explicitly prohibit an attorney from providing mediation services. Moreover, the Rules of Professional Ethics for Attorneys (Art. 8) even recommend seeking ways for extrajudicial dispute resolution if it does not contradict the client’s interests. The ‘Law on Advocacy and Legal Practice’ also does not prohibit combining professional legal activities with mediation practice. At the same time, the mediator’s status must be confirmed by appropriate certification, and the activity must be formalized in accordance with tax regulations (NACE 74.90). This allows an attorney to legally act as a mediator in a dispute without losing their professional status.
However, not every dispute is suitable for mediation. Mediability is a combination of objective and subjective factors: absence of legislative prohibitions, relative equality of parties, willingness to compromise, need for confidentiality, interdependence of parties. Even a high level of emotional tension is not an obstacle if the parties have a good will to engage in dialogue. At the same time, excessive escalation, signs of mental disorders, or categorical unwillingness to negotiate can make mediation futile.
The judicial system gradually recognizes and even supports mediation. In particular, according to Art. 197 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court is obliged to ascertain whether the parties wish to conduct mediation and, in case of agreement, to suspend the proceedings. The same norms apply in the Commercial Procedure Code (Art. 182) and the Administrative Court Procedure Code (Art. 180, 181). Significant practice has already been formed, where courts give parties time for mediation, and the process itself is recognized as a reason to suspend proceedings.
For example, in case No. 754/14210/24, the Malinovsky District Court of Odesa satisfied the joint motion of the parties to suspend the proceedings due to mediation. Similar approaches are implemented in commercial litigation: in case No. 910/911/24, the Commercial Court of Kyiv, upon receiving a joint motion from the parties, suspended the hearing for 90 days. In case No. 910/18802/21, the Supreme Court ruled to close the proceedings after reaching an agreement through mediation. However, in case No. 910/11396/22, the court refused to suspend the proceedings because not all parties participated in mediation — underscoring the importance of formal requirements.
The practice of conducting mediation in commercial disputes is actively evolving. There are a number of successful decisions where the procedure was effective: No. 908/1846/22 (Commercial Court of Zaporizhia Oblast), No. 927/394/23, No. 910/22017/21, No. 927/396/23, and so on. Decisions on suspending proceedings due to mediation are increasingly appearing in the Unified Register of Court Decisions, and this trend seems irreversible.
It is also important that outside the formal process, an attorney can not only be a mediator, but also a guide for the client in deciding to use this tool. This is especially relevant in situations where the conflict has the potential for further relationships (business partnerships, family matters, employment relationships), or when open court proceedings harm the parties’ reputation. In such cases, confidentiality and voluntariness are aspects that significantly surpass a judicial decision.
However, mediation is not without challenges. Lack of proper knowledge among judges, attorneys, and parties; uneven availability of qualified mediators in regions; underdeveloped support infrastructure — all these are obstacles that need to be overcome through the legal environment. Legislative recognition of mediation, particularly through the ‘Law of Ukraine on Mediation,’ creates a legal basis for this, but institutional trust is formed only through practice.
Mediation is not a substitute for court, but an addition to the professional arsenal of an attorney. It is not just a technology, but a mindset that allows avoiding defeat even in seemingly hopeless conflicts. For attorneys who aspire not just to win, but to resolve, mediation can be the key that opens the doors to justice without a protocol, and to agreement without coercion.