Read the full interview below:

Q: How would you describe your approach as a mediator, and what do you consider most important in effective mediation?

I try not to define myself by any particular mediation approach. What matters is judgment that comes from understanding the principles of negotiation and mediation, and practice – all of which enables the practitioner to know what the situation requires at a given moment and having the discernment, courage and discipline to intervene in a way that helps parties move forward.  My approach is anchored in three things. 

1. First, clarity. Parties must understand not only their legal positions, but the practical realities they face if the dispute continues. Without clarity, any movement made by the parties is fragile.
2. Second, process safety. People will only take risks toward settlement if they feel heard, respected, and treated fairly. Managing the emotional and relational dimension is therefore not optional, but central to progress.
3. Third, decision readiness. At some point, mediation becomes less about exploring and more about helping parties decide. Recognising that transition is often where experience matters the most.  The mediator’s greatest contribution is to create the conditions in which difficult decisions become possible.

Q: As the Chair and driving force behind the Maxwell Challenge, what gap were you hoping this competition would fill in the mediation landscape?

The Maxwell Challenge was conceived because I saw a gap between how students practise mediation and how it is conducted in the real world.  Students often learn frameworks, stages, and techniques. Those are important.  But real mediations demand something more – the ability to exercise judgment under uncertainty, manage sophisticated counsel, navigate power imbalances, and maintain legitimacy in the eyes of demanding parties. 

I wanted a competition in which students are not confined by academic scoring frameworks but are introduced early to the complexity and responsibility of real mediation. The objective is not merely to learn how a process operates, but to understand how to serve as a mediator or mediation counsel in real-world circumstances.  Equally important was the creation of a professional community – bringing future practitioners into contact with experienced mediators, counsel, institutions, and international practice. Participants should leave not only more skilled, but with a deeper appreciation of the standards and judgment that professional mediation requires.

Q: What core skills or mindsets did you intentionally build into the design of the competition, and why are these critical for effective dispute resolution today?

From the outset, I wanted the competition to develop the core skills and cultivate the mindsets required of professional mediators and mediation advocates.

1. The first is diagnostic ability – understanding what is truly preventing resolution. Many disputes present as legal disagreements, but the real barriers are often commercial, relational, or psychological.
2. The second is adaptive judgment. Mediation practitioners today work in environments that are international, multi-party, and fast-moving. There is rarely a script. Participants must therefore learn to choose their interventions with care.  
3. Third, the competition will stress professional responsibility. As mediation becomes more central to justice systems and international commerce, expectations of integrity, fairness, and competence continue to rise. Mediation practitioners must recognise that their actions carry institutional consequences.
4. Finally, the competition encourages humility and curiosity. The best mediation practitioners remain lifelong learners, constantly alert to what they may be missing. These capabilities matter because modern dispute resolution is no longer only about achieving settlement – it is about sustaining legitimacy and trust.

Technique opens the door; attitude determines what happens next.