top of page

Conciliation Explained 

Explore Conciliation as a next step.

Conciliation is a private dispute resolution process where an independent, suitably qualified expert is appointed to review a dispute and provide a professional, impartial opinion on:

  • The nature of the dispute

  • The strengths and weaknesses of the positions taken

  • The likely legal or technical viability of any claim

  • Practical options for resolution

 

Conciliation sits between mediation and expert determination. It does not impose a binding decision, but it does provide clarity, reality-testing, and informed guidance to help parties move towards resolution.

When is conciliation used?

Conciliation is particularly useful where:

  • Parties are stuck or uncertain after mediation

  • There is disagreement about the strength of a legal or technical claim

  • Parties want an informed, neutral view before escalating matters

  • Litigation feels premature or disproportionate

  • A dispute needs direction, not just facilitation

 

It is commonly used in:

  • Workplace and employment disputes

  • Professional negligence or service complaints

  • Commercial and contractual disagreements

  • Property, construction, and technical disputes

  • Early-stage disputes where positions are entrenched

How conciliation works

The process is flexible but usually follows these steps:

 

1. Agreement to conciliation

The parties agree to appoint a conciliator. This may happen:

  • Instead of mediation

  • After an unsuccessful mediation

  • As part of an early resolution or stepped ADR process

 

2. Appointment of the conciliator

The conciliator is selected for their professional expertise and relevant legal or sector knowledge. They are independent and impartial.

 

3. Information gathering

The conciliator reviews key documents, submissions, and background information. This may include:

  • Contracts or policies

  • Correspondence

  • Position statements

  • Relevant legal or technical context

 

4. Professional opinion and assessment

The conciliator provides a structured opinion covering:

  • The issues in dispute

  • Legal or technical merits (where appropriate)

  • Risks and likely outcomes if the dispute escalates

  • Areas of strength and vulnerability for each party

 

5. Resolution options

The conciliator sets out practical options for resolution, which may include:

  • Settlement ranges

  • Corrective actions

  • Process recommendations

  • Referral to mediation, expert determination, or other ADR

 

The opinion is advisory, not binding.

Is conciliation legally binding?

No.

​

Conciliation does not produce a binding outcome unless the parties subsequently reach and record an agreement.

​

Its value lies in:

  • Independent professional insight

  • Early clarity on claim viability

  • Reducing emotional or positional decision-making

  • Supporting informed settlement discussions

Conciliation vs mediation

Mediation

  • Facilitates negotiation

  • Parties control the outcome

  • Focus on dialogue and agreement

  • Neutral on substance

Conciliation

  • Provides expert opinion

  • Conciliator guides understanding

  • Focus on merits, risks, and options

  • Evaluative and advisory

Conciliation can be especially helpful after mediation, where parties remain far apart or uncertain about their position.

Conciliation vs Expert Determination

Conciliation

  • Advisory opinion

  • Evaluates claim viability

  • Flexible recommendations

  • Encourages informed settlement

Expert Determination

  • Binding decision

  • Determines a specific issue

  • Final outcome (usually)

  • Provides certainty

In practice, conciliation often acts as a decision-shaping step, while expert determination is a decision-making step.

When conciliation is most effective

Conciliation works best when:

  • Parties want an honest, independent view

  • There is uncertainty about legal or technical strength

  • The dispute is emotionally charged or entrenched

  • A reality check is needed before escalation

 

It may be less suitable where:

  • Parties want a final determination

  • There is no appetite for settlement

  • Immediate enforcement is required

Conciliation as part of ADR

Conciliation is increasingly used as part of a layered ADR approach, for example:

  • Early conciliation before mediation

  • Conciliation following partial mediation success

  • Conciliation before deciding on litigation or arbitration

  • Conciliation to narrow issues before expert determination

 

It helps parties make better decisions, earlier, often avoiding unnecessary escalation.

​

At the Mediation Agency, conciliation is offered as a standalone service and as part of our wider early resolution framework. We help clients:

  • Decide whether conciliation is appropriate

  • Appoint a suitable conciliator

  • Design a proportionate and fair process

  • Use conciliation outcomes to progress resolution

 

If you are unsure whether mediation, conciliation, or expert determination is the right next step, we can help you assess your options and move forward with confidence.

Using conciliation alongside mediation

Conciliation is often most effective when used alongside mediation, rather than as a replacement for it.

​

Where mediation focuses on helping parties reach agreement through discussion, conciliation adds an expert, evaluative layer that can clarify issues, test assumptions, and unlock stalled negotiations.

​

Used together, they offer a structured yet flexible route to resolution.

A combined conciliation and mediation pathway

A common and effective approach is:

 

1. Initial mediation

The parties attempt mediation in the usual way. Many issues may resolve, but progress can stall where there is:

  • Disagreement about the strength of a legal claim

  • Uncertainty over likely outcomes

  • A technical or professional issue blocking settlement

 

2. Conciliation to narrow the issues

Rather than abandoning resolution altogether, the parties jointly instruct a conciliator to:

  • Review the remaining disputed issues

  • Provide a professional and impartial opinion

  • Assess legal or technical claim viability (where appropriate)

  • Identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks on each side

  • Set out clear, realistic options for resolution

 

This process helps:

  • Strip away unhelpful assumptions

  • Reduce positional thinking

  • Focus attention on what really matters

 

The conciliator’s opinion is not binding at this stage, but it carries weight because it is informed, independent, and grounded in expertise.

 

3. Further mediation to reach agreement

With the conciliator’s opinion and suggested options in hand, the parties return to mediation.

 

This second mediation is often:

  • More focused

  • More pragmatic

  • Shorter and more cost-effective

 

Rather than debating who is “right”, parties can concentrate on which resolution option works best, using the conciliator’s analysis as a shared reference point.

Instructing the conciliator to make a binding decision

If, after conciliation (or further mediation), the parties still cannot agree, they may jointly instruct the conciliator to make a legally binding decision.

​

This can be agreed:

  • From the outset, as a contingency

  • After receiving the conciliator’s opinion

  • Following an unsuccessful second mediation

 

Where this happens, the process effectively transitions from conciliation into expert determination, without the need to appoint a new neutral.

 

This approach offers:

  • Continuity

  • Proportionality

  • A clear endpoint if agreement proves impossible

 

As with expert determination, the binding nature of the decision depends on the parties’ agreement and the scope of the authority given to the conciliator.

Why this combined approach works

Using conciliation with mediation allows parties to:

  • Preserve control for as long as possible

  • Make informed decisions based on expert input

  • Avoid premature escalation to court

  • Keep costs proportionate

  • Maintain confidentiality throughout

 

It is particularly effective where:

  • Mediation has resolved some, but not all, issues

  • Parties need clarity before compromising

  • There is a power or knowledge imbalance

  • Emotions are high and objectivity is needed

Conciliation as a flexible ADR tool

Conciliation can therefore function as:

  • A bridge between mediation sessions

  • A reality-check to unlock settlement

  • A decision-shaping process

  • Or, if required, a decision-making process

 

This flexibility makes it a valuable part of a modern ADR framework.

How the Mediation Agency supports this approach

At the Mediation Agency, we design ADR processes that reflect the needs of the dispute, not a one-size-fits-all model.

​

We support clients to:

  • Use conciliation to narrow issues after mediation

  • Return to mediation with clearer options for settlement

  • Transition to a binding decision only if genuinely needed

  • Achieve resolution in the most proportionate way possible

 

If you are unsure how mediation and conciliation could work together in your situation, we can help you assess the options and design a pathway that gives you clarity, control, and confidence.

bottom of page