Mediation and
Conflict Resolution
in Vienna

Mediation is a structured process for resolving conflicts, tailored to the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the issues to be addressed.

• The first step is to define a shared goal. This does not require the parties to know what the outcome should look like. Rather, it helps establish whether mediation is the right process in the first place. If, for example, one party wishes to preserve the relationship while the other is determined to end it, mediation is unlikely to be appropriate.
• The issues that need to be addressed are then identified and structured. Together, we determine what needs to be discussed in order to achieve that goal, creating a clear framework for the mediation.
• The focus then shifts from positions to the interests that underlie them. Rather than asking only what each party wants, mediation explores why it matters. Whether the issue is reliable childcare arrangements, clearly defined responsibilities between business partners, a fair allocation of work within a team, or financial certainty, it is these underlying interests that create the scope for solutions that would otherwise remain out of reach.
• Mediation can help where communication has reached an impasse. By then, the same conversations have often been repeated many times, familiar patterns have become entrenched, and the parties no longer feel heard or understood. My role is to interrupt these dynamics and help restore a constructive dialogue.
• The aim is not a quick compromise, but a solution that is both workable and sustainable. The focus is on an outcome that reflects the interests of everyone involved and is capable of lasting over time.

Mediation is a flexible process designed around your needs, helping you move efficiently toward a solution. Here’s how it generally works:

Phase 1 – Setting the Framework

• Initial Meeting: Clarify what the conflict is about and who is involved.
• Suitability: We assess whether mediation is the right process for your situation.
• Goal Setting: Define what should be achieved through mediation.
• Process & Schedule: Agree on the procedure, timetable, and practical arrangements, including any necessary preparation.
• Consent: All parties agree to take part in the mediation.
• Mediation Agreement: A contract sets the basic rules for the mediation process and our collaboration.

Phase 2 – What’s on the Table

• What needs to be discussed to reach your shared goal?
• You present your concerns and topics.
• I structure the discussions, facilitate a balanced exchange, and ensure an orderly process.
• The topics are organised, and the order of discussion is determined.
• The process moves at a pace that is appropriate for both the conflict and the parties involved.

Phase 3 – Getting to the Why

• This phase uncovers the reasons behind each position.
• Essentially, we move from “What do I want?” to “Why does this matter to me?”
• For example: “I want to keep the car,” —> “I need a reliable way to get to work.”
• As the parties' interests and needs become clearer, so does their understanding of one another. This often broadens the scope for negotiation and opens up solutions that were not apparent at the outset.

Phase 4 – Exploring Possibilities

• Looking ahead together: What’s possible? What could work?
• Different options are developed together.
• The focus is not on who is right, but on finding solutions that best reflect the interests and needs of everyone involved.
• As mediation is not confined to legal remedies, it can produce solutions such as bespoke arrangements for future cooperation that would not emerge from litigation.
• Together, we evaluate and refine these options to ensure they are practical and workable.

Phase 5 – Agreement and Next Steps

• Ideally, you will reach a solution that all parties can support.
• The outcome is documented and reviewed for its practical implementation.
• Depending on the circumstances, legal review and the formal drafting of the agreement may be appropriate.
• If you wish, I’m happy to support you with follow-up meetings to help put the agreement into practice successfully.

As an accredited mediator, I guide the mediation process and assist the parties in reaching a solution. My role, and the duties that come with it, are clearly defined by law:

• Impartiality: I remain equally committed to all parties and do not favour any individual, position, or outcome.
• Neutrality: I approach both the parties and the dispute with an open and unbiased mind. Should I conclude that I can no longer maintain this position, I will inform the parties and withdraw from the mediation.
• Independence: Before accepting an appointment, I conduct a conflict check to ensure that I am independent of both the parties and the dispute from a personal, financial, and commercial perspective. If any circumstances arise before or during the mediation that could reasonably call my independence into question, I will disclose them without delay.
• Responsibility for the process: I design and facilitate the mediation process, ensuring that discussions remain structured and constructive. The parties alone decide whether, and on what terms, they wish to resolve their dispute.
• No legal or other professional advice: I do not provide legal, tax, or other professional advice, nor do I make decisions on behalf of the parties. Where specialist advice is required, I will identify the need for it, while responsibility for obtaining that advice remains with the parties.

Throughout the mediation, my role is to:

• structure the legal, commercial, operational, and interpersonal dimensions of the conflict,
• help distinguish positions from the underlying interests and broaden the scope for negotiation,
• use targeted questions and constructive challenge to test assumptions, clarify uncertainties, and encourage new perspectives,
• help the parties move beyond entrenched patterns of communication and negotiation,
• examine potential solutions together with the parties to assess their practical feasibility and long-term viability,
• and identify where further advice may be required or where mediation has reached its limits.

• Party autonomy & voluntary participation: You remain in control of both the process and its outcome at all times. The mediator does not impose a decision.
• Time & cost efficiency: Mediation is often faster and more cost-effective than litigation or arbitration.
• Flexible process: The structure and timetable are agreed together. In many cases, mediation can be concluded within just a few sessions.
• Confidentiality: Mediation takes place in private. As an accredited mediator, I am bound by statutory confidentiality obligations.
• Suspension of limitation periods: Under certain conditions, limitation periods may be suspended while mediation is ongoing. As a result, attempting to resolve a dispute out of court does not, in itself, place the parties at a legal disadvantage.
• Tailored solutions: Unlike litigation, mediation allows solutions to be developed that reflect the parties' underlying interests rather than their legal positions alone.
• Sustainable outcomes: Agreements reached through mediation are often more readily accepted and more likely to be implemented over the long term.

When a conflict has reached an impasse, parties often ask what a mediator can realistically contribute. If discussions within the family, the workplace, or with the support of friends have failed to move matters forward, how can a mediator help without deciding the outcome? And if lawyers have already attempted to negotiate a settlement, what additional value can mediation offer?

The honest answer is that it depends. Not every conflict can be resolved through mediation. Where the parties' positions and objectives are fundamentally incompatible, where any future relationship has broken down, or where the conflict has escalated to a point at which constructive dialogue is no longer possible, mediation may reach its limits.

For that reason, it is worth considering carefully whether – and at what stage – the involvement of a neutral third party may be beneficial.

A mediator's role is not to propose solutions or decide the dispute, but to change the way the conflict is addressed.

Parties are inevitably part of the conflict itself. The longer a conflict persists, the more firmly perceptions, patterns of communication, and negotiating positions tend to become entrenched. It becomes increasingly difficult to advocate for one's own interests while at the same time maintaining sufficient distance to view the conflict objectively.

A mediator introduces that additional perspective. By structuring the process, asking targeted questions, identifying different perspectives, and separating the various dimensions of the conflict, a mediator helps the parties reassess assumptions, deal with uncertainty, and explore new ways forward. At the same time, potential solutions can be tested for their practical feasibility and long-term viability.

This often brings into focus not only the parties' positions, but also the underlying interests, the commercial or personal context, and the factors that are driving the conflict. It is on that basis that solutions sometimes emerge which were not apparent at the outset.

Not necessarily. A compromise or an equal split is neither the defining feature nor the usual outcome of mediation.

The reason lies in the way mediation approaches negotiation. Rather than focusing solely on the parties' stated positions, it explores underlying interests. This often broadens the range of possible outcomes and reveals solutions that were not apparent at the outset.

A party may, for example, be prepared to make concessions on a financial claim in return for achieving other objectives, such as revised contractual terms, the continuation of a business relationship, or new opportunities for future cooperation.

Ultimately, it is for the parties to decide whether to reach a settlement or to end the mediation.

When parties speak of fairness or justice, they rarely refer to a single, clearly defined concept. More often, legal claims, personal perceptions, and expectations regarding the resolution of a conflict are intertwined. Whether an outcome is considered fair or just depends on which aspect is being considered:

• Legal reality: What is legally enforceable and what rights and obligations arise under the law?
• Fairness: What do the parties themselves perceive as a fair outcome, taking into account the history and underlying aspects of the conflict?
• Procedural justice: Was the process experienced as fair? Were the parties heard, able to present their perspectives, and treated with respect?

Litigation provides a binding determination of the legal position. However, even a legally correct judgment may be perceived as unfair if relevant aspects of the conflict beyond the legal issues remain unaddressed.

Mediation allows the parties to address different dimensions of justice and fairness within the conflict that cannot be captured through legal claims alone. The legal position does not necessarily have to be the sole basis for an agreement. At the same time, any mediated agreement must remain within the legal framework. What matters is reaching a solution that the parties themselves consider fair and workable.

Whether litigation or mediation is the appropriate path depends not only on procedural risks and strategic considerations, but also on the type of justice the parties are seeking.

There is no standard timeframe for mediation. The duration of the process depends on a number of factors, including the complexity of the conflict, the number of parties involved, the time available to those involved, and whether consultation with lawyers or other experts is required between sessions.

In practice, many mediations can be concluded within three to five sessions. More complex matters – such as disputes involving companies or multiple stakeholders – may require a longer process and can extend over several months.

The structure and pace of the mediation process are agreed together with the parties. You decide how often sessions take place and how much time is needed between meetings, for example to seek legal advice, consult experts, or prepare further topics for discussion.

The cost of mediation depends on the nature and complexity of the matter and the time involved. Fees are agreed in advance and structured transparently, either on an hourly basis, as a daily rate, or as a fixed fee.

During the initial consultation, I will provide a clear overview of the expected costs, the fee structure, and how the mediation process can best be tailored to your situation.

Depending on the circumstances, additional costs may arise, for example for legal advice, input from experts or other professionals, or the preparation and drafting of a mediation agreement, or stamp duty (if any) according to Austrian law.

In some cases, legal expenses insurance may cover the cost of mediation in whole or in part. I recommend clarifying with your insurance provider in advance whether and to what extent such coverage applies.

A mediation may result in a legally binding agreement, but it does not have to. Whether and how the outcome of a mediation becomes legally binding is a matter for the parties to decide. Before finalising a mediation, it is worth considering the following questions:

• Should the outcome of the mediation be legally binding? If so, should this be documented in writing or agreed orally?
• If a written document is prepared: Is it intended merely as a record and basis for further action, or should it create legally binding obligations?
• Is external advice from lawyers, notaries, tax advisers, or other experts required, and what costs may be involved?
• If a legally binding commitment is intended: Should the agreement be directly enforceable, including internationally where relevant?
• Does the chosen form give rise to stamp duty or other legal fees?

Addressing these questions at an early stage helps the parties create a clear and effective agreement while avoiding unexpected legal or financial consequences.