How Are Mediators Appointed?

When a dispute arises, choosing the right mediator can feel like a mystery. Is someone simply “picked”? Are mediators appointed by a court? Can parties choose their own? The short answer: there’s no single route. How a mediator is appointed depends on the type of dispute, any prior agreement between the parties, and whether a court or institution is involved.

Here’s how mediator appointments usually work in practice.

1. Party Agreement (the most common route)

In many commercial, workplace, family, and civil disputes, the parties jointly agree on who to appoint as mediator. This often happens in one of three ways:

One party proposes a shortlist of mediators

Both sides exchange names and agree on a preferred candidate

Lawyers recommend mediators with relevant KNOWLEDGE AND experience

This approach gives parties control over:

the mediator’s expertise (e.g. shipping,construction, sport),

their style (facilitative vs evaluative),

availability and fees.

Where parties have a good working relationship, this is usually the quickest and smoothest option. That said, if it’s proving difficult to reach agreement it is possible (but of course more expensive) for each party to appoint a mediator and for the two to co-mediate.

2. Appointment via an Institution or Panel

Many mediations are arranged through professional bodies or schemes that maintain panels of accredited mediators. In those cases:

the institution may nominate a mediator, or

provide a shortlist based on the dispute type, value, and complexity, or

appoint a mediator if the parties can’t agree.

Examples include court-ANNEXED schemes and sector-specific panels, such as those linked to Sport Resolutions for sports-related disputes.

This route is helpful when:

parties are deadlocked on who to appoint, or

neutrality and independence need to be clearly demonstrated.

3. Court-Connected or Court-Referred Mediation

In some cases, a court may:

encourage mediation,

refer parties to a mediation scheme, or

stay proceedings to allow mediation to take place.

Courts don’t usually impose a specific mediator in private disputes, but they may direct parties to an approved list or a mediation service. If the parties still can’t agree, an appointing body connected to the court scheme may nominate someone.

The underlying principle is party autonomy — the court nudges parties toward mediation but avoids controlling the process.

4. Contractual Appointment Clauses

Some contracts include a mediation clause that sets out how a mediator will be appointed if a dispute arises. For example, the clause might say:

“The mediator shall be appointed by agreement between the parties, failing which the appointment shall be made by [named institution],” or

“The mediator shall be appointed by the President/Chair of [named body].”

These clauses remove uncertainty and prevent delay when a dispute arises — and they’re increasingly common in commercial and sports contracts.

5. What Parties Look for in a Mediator

Regardless of the appointment route, parties (and their advisers) usually consider:

Relevant expertise – Does the mediator understand the industry or legal context?

Process skills – Can they manage high-conflict conversations productively?

Independence and neutrality – Any conflicts of interest?

Availability and cost – Can they act quickly and within budget?

Reputation and experience – Track record in similar disputes.

In specialist sectors like sport, appointments are often drawn from recognised panels of experienced mediators, including practitioners such as Jonathan Lux, where the process is designed to ensure both expertise and independence.

6. What Happens If Parties Can’t Agree?

If parties cannot agree on a mediator, common fallbacks include:

asking an appointing body to nominate,

using a contractual appointment mechanism, or

requesting assistance from a professional organisation or scheme administrator.

This ensures that mediation can still proceed without one side stalling the process by refusing to agree to any name.

Final Thoughts

Mediator appointment is designed to balance party choice with procedural fairness. Whether through agreement, institutional nomination, court-annexed schemes, or contractual clauses, the goal is the same: to appoint a neutral, skilled professional who can help parties move from conflict to resolution.

If you’re drafting contracts or considering mediation for an existing dispute, it’s worth thinking about the appointment mechanism early — it can save time, cost, and friction when tensions are already high.Lux-Mediation is an international panel of eight experienced mediators and should feature on your radar!