Before a first meeting, many people ask whether the mediator will be on their side. The mediator’s task is to create conditions in which each participant can explain their needs and consider options with an understanding of what they involve. Impartiality concerns the relationship with the people; neutrality concerns the subject matter and outcome of the dispute. This distinction helps you assess how mediation is conducted, whether you meet in Kraków or online.
Key points before you start
- The mediator supports both parties’ participation and leaves the decision about an agreement to them.
- Relationships that could raise concerns should be explained before and during the discussions.
- Equal treatment includes a real opportunity to speak and understand proposals.
Two principles worth distinguishing
Anna Kościółek distinguishes impartiality towards participants from neutrality towards the dispute. In practice, impartiality means that the mediator does not create an advantage for one person or judge them by their occupation, manner of speaking or behaviour. Neutrality requires the mediator to have no personal interest in a particular outcome. Participants may have different goals; the mediator helps clarify them without taking over their decisions.
Article 183³ of the current Polish Code of Civil Procedure (KPC) requires impartiality. This does not promise that everyone will feel equally pleased with the discussion. You may hear a difficult question or a suggestion to organise speaking turns. What matters is whether comparable rules apply to everyone and whether their purpose is understood.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 90–91] [2]
What about a previous acquaintance or working relationship?
Ask about the mediator’s connections with participants or their representatives. These may involve professional or personal relationships, or previous involvement in the subject of the dispute. A shared profession or a single past meeting does not determine the assessment by itself, but a specific relationship may matter. The chapter discusses disclosing such circumstances instead of leaving participants uncertain.
Article 183³ § 2 KPC requires prompt disclosure of circumstances that could raise doubts about impartiality. You can ask for the relationship to be explained and then consider your participation calmly. If a concern emerges later, raise it promptly. You do not need to wait until a draft settlement is presented.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 91–92] [2]
Equal participation in practice
One person speaks quickly and uses legal terminology; another needs time to read a document. A properly organised discussion takes these differences into account. Participants can agree on speaking turns, explanations of terms and breaks. The aim is meaningful participation; allocating an identical number of minutes may not be sufficient on its own.
Kościółek highlights opportunities to speak, ask questions and receive balanced support. The mediator’s role nevertheless remains distinct from that of a party’s representative. If you need a legal risk assessment or help protecting your own interests, arrange for your lawyer’s involvement. In an online meeting, also report connection difficulties or problems reading shared materials.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 92–93] [2]
Can the mediator suggest a solution?
This is worth asking before the meeting. Current Article 183³ᵃ KPC allows a mediator, at the parties’ joint request, to suggest non-binding ways of resolving the dispute. A proposal for consideration must therefore be distinguished from a decision imposed on participants. You can ask about its assumptions, consider alternatives and decline it.
This is an important qualification when using older literature. The 2014 chapter strongly emphasises not steering parties towards a particular outcome; the current statutory provision needs to be considered separately. Whatever approach is used, the mediator does not deliver a judgment. Agreeing to mediation is not advance acceptance of any settlement that may be proposed.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 90–93] [2]
Questions before mediation in Kraków or online
Prepare three questions: how will concerns about impartiality be addressed, how will everyone have an opportunity to speak, and who can help assess the legal consequences of an agreement? Also ask what happens if someone experiences strong pressure or difficulty understanding documents. The answers should explain the practical arrangements for your meeting.
If something concerns you, describe the behaviour: “I did not finish my point and would like to return to it.” This allows the situation to be clarified without guessing anyone’s intentions. Voluntary civil mediation leaves room for an informed decision about continued participation. Do not sign a proposal simply because the meeting is nearly over.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 90–93] [2]
Educational scenario — a fictional example, not a case handled by the Foundation.
A previous training engagement and a question about a connection
In a fictional dispute between an organisation and a contractor, it emerges that the mediator once provided training for that organisation. The mediator tells both parties and explains the extent of the contact. The contractor asks whether the working relationship continues and whether it involved people participating in the dispute.
The participants have time to assess the situation and may consider choosing someone else. The example illustrates the importance of explaining relationships openly. It does not imply that every previous engagement disqualifies a mediator or that disclosure always removes the concern.
Questions about this topic
Can the mediator advise me against the other party?
A mediator conducting joint discussions should remain impartial. You can seek an individual assessment of your legal position from your own representative. Clarify these roles before the meeting begins.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 92–93] [2]
Can I raise a concern during mediation?
Yes. Describe the particular circumstance and ask for an explanation. The duty to disclose circumstances that may cast doubt on impartiality also matters when they emerge during the discussions.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 91–92] [2]
Sources and further reading
- Anna Kościółek, „Cechy i zadania dobrego mediatora”, rozdz. V, w: Aneta M. Arkuszewska, Jerzy Plis (red. nauk.), Zarys metodyki pracy mediatora w sprawach cywilnych, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2014, s. 90–104, ISBN 978-83-264-3282-8.
Pages cited from this edition: 90–93.
- Ustawa z dnia 17 listopada 1964 r. – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, tekst jednolity Dz.U. z 2026 r. poz. 468, ze zmianami; w szczególności art. 183¹–183¹⁵, art. 259¹, art. 436 i art. 445².
Original editorial content referring to the specified chapter of the 2014 book, with original educational examples. Page references indicate printed pages. Legal information was updated as of 23 October 2026; legislation is cited separately from the literature.
Educational material based on sources checked on 23 October 2026. It does not replace an individual legal assessment of a particular case. The scenarios are fictional and do not describe clients’ experiences or outcomes achieved by the Foundation. Legislation, judgments and research publications are cited alongside the relevant topics; DOIs are provided only for publications that have such an identifier.