Online mediation has become normal — but it’s still widely misunderstood.
A lot of people imagine it’s simply an in-person mediation transplanted onto a video call. Same process, same dynamics, same safeguards, same doubts about how it ‘feels’ afterwards … just with webcams.
In practice, online mediation can be highly effective, and in some situations it can be safer and more controlled than meeting in a room. But it isn’t “just Zoom”. The medium changes the way people communicate, the way the mediator manages the process, and the safety settings that need to be in place.
This article explains what changes, what doesn’t, and what “hybrid mediation” actually means when it’s done properly.
What doesn’t change
Before we get into the differences, it’s worth being clear about what stays consistent across online, in-person, and hybrid formats.
The purpose
Mediation remains a structured process to help people:
- understand the issues,
- communicate (directly or indirectly),
- explore options, and
- negotiate workable agreements.
The mediator’s role is still to manage the process, not to take sides.
The fundamentals of procedural fairness
Regardless of format, a sound process still involves:
- clear ground rules,
- balanced participation,
- opportunities to be heard,
- reality-testing options and consequences, and
- a focus on workable outcomes (especially where children are involved).
Preparation still matters
Online mediation doesn’t save you from preparation. If anything, it makes preparation more important:
- clear agendas,
- documents ready in advance,
- and agreement on how sessions will run.
What changes (and why it matters)
1) Safety protocols are different — and often better
In a physical room, you can see who enters, who sits where, and how people are reacting. Online, you lose some of that — but you also gain control over the environment.
Online mediation can allow:
- separate virtual rooms,
- controlled entry/exit,
- immediate separation if needed,
- no shared carpark, reception area, or hallway contact.
Practical safety steps that matter online
Depending on the matter, a mediator may consider:
- confirming each person’s physical location at the start of the session,
- checking whether anyone else is present off-camera,
- agreeing what happens if a party feels unsafe mid-session,
- using separate waiting rooms and staggered start/end times,
- setting a rule that no one is to be contacted during breaks.
If family violence, intimidation, coercive control, or power imbalance is in the background, the “tech settings” are not cosmetic — they’re part of the safety plan.
2) Shuttle mediation becomes easier to run
Shuttle mediation (where parties are kept separate and the mediator moves between them) is often harder in-person because it takes time and logistics.
Online, it can be smoother:
- parties can remain in separate breakout rooms,
- the mediator can move between rooms quickly,
- and parties don’t need to physically cross paths.
This can reduce stress for participants and make it easier to keep the process calm and contained.
3) Breakout rooms change the rhythm of negotiation
Breakout rooms can be a huge advantage — but they change the feel of the process.
In-person, people experience breaks differently. Online, a “break” can mean:
- someone is alone in a room, spiralling,
- someone is messaging friends/family,
- or someone is being pressured off-screen.
That’s not a reason to avoid online mediation — it’s a reason to be deliberate about:
- how breaks work,
- how long they run,
- and what the ground rules are.
A well-run online mediation will typically clarify:
- whether parties can contact others during breaks,
- how documents will be shared,
- and how offers/counteroffers will be communicated.
4) Recording risks are real — and easy to underestimate
One of the biggest differences online is the ease of recording.
Even if the platform disables recording, someone can:
- screen record,
- use a second device,
- or have someone else listening.
That doesn’t mean online mediation is unsafe — but it does mean the process should include:
- a clear rule about recording,
- an explicit discussion of confidentiality expectations and limitations,
- and practical steps to protect sensitive information.
If confidentiality is critical, a mediator may:
- keep discussions high-level until process rules are clear,
- limit what is shared on-screen,
- and ensure documents are exchanged via secure channels rather than chat.
5) Power dynamics show up differently on-screen
Online, you lose certain cues:
- body language,
- micro-expressions,
- the “weight” of presence in a room.
But you also reduce others:
- physical intimidation,
- looming,
- crowding,
- and the dominance some people exert by occupying space.
Some power imbalances become less intense online. Others can worsen, especially if:
- one party is technically confident,
- one party is flustered or embarrassed by the technology,
- one party is being influenced off-camera.
A good online mediator pays attention to:
- who is speaking and who isn’t,
- whether someone is avoiding the camera or looking off-screen,
- whether the pace is overwhelming,
- and whether the format needs adjustment (for example, more shuttle time, shorter sessions, or more breaks).
6) Document handling is a bigger part of the process
In-person, documents can be physically handed over, marked up, and returned.
Online, the process needs structure:
- what documents are needed,
- when they’re shared,
- how they’re stored,
- and how everyone knows they are looking at the same version.
If agreements are reached, the “paperwork step” also changes:
- who drafts,
- who reviews,
- how signatures are managed,
- and what happens if someone needs legal advice before signing.
What “hybrid mediation” actually means
“Hybrid” shouldn’t mean “we’ll see how we go.”
In practice, hybrid mediation is a deliberate design choice. It might mean:
- intake is done by phone or video,
- some sessions are online for safety or convenience,
- and a final settlement session (if appropriate) is in-person.
Or it might mean:
- one party attends in-person and the other attends online,
- with the mediator managing fairness and participation across both.
The point is not the technology. The point is choosing the format that best supports:
- safety,
- clear communication,
- balanced participation,
- and practical outcomes.
Who online mediation suits best
Online mediation is often a good fit where:
- parties live in different locations,
- there are safety or anxiety concerns about being in the same room,
- there are time constraints,
- the issues are mostly practical and can be structured.
It may be less suitable where:
- a party cannot access a private space,
- a party cannot reliably use the technology,
- complex emotional dynamics require a slower, more supported setting.
(Those are not automatic “no” answers — they just affect how the process should be designed.)
If you’re considering online mediation
If you’re weighing up online, in-person, or hybrid mediation, a useful starting point is asking:
- Can I participate privately and safely from where I am?
- Do I feel comfortable using video, or would audio be better?
- Would shuttle rooms reduce stress, or increase it?
- Are there documents we need to exchange ahead of time?
- What ground rules need to be explicit for this to be safe and fair?
Online mediation works best when the process is designed intentionally — not when the parties are simply placed on a call and left to “work it out”.
If you’d like to explore whether online, in-person, or a hybrid format is likely to suit your situation, you can contact me to discuss process options and safety settings.