How I support in practice
This page outlines how I help organisations in navigating business disputes.
My work is about how people decide when they are in conflict. I am brought in on workplace, partnership, commercial and shareholder disputes, usually at the point where the outcome turns as much on whether your own side is aligned as on how you stand against the other.
In practice that means three things:
Getting clear on who holds the authority to decide, because disputes stall when no one is sure.
Designing and running the negotiation or mediation at the moments that matter, rather than leaving the process to chance.
Reading the legal, behavioural and reputational exposure as one picture, because in a real dispute they never come apart.
What I bring is one read of three things people usually treat separately: the legal exposure, the behaviour in the room, and the reputational stakes. In a real conflict they move together, and handling them one at a time is how strong cases still end badly.
In business disputes, the question is rarely whether to negotiate. The question is when, how and within which broader legal and governance context. When commercial exposure is substantial and positions have hardened, the quality of the process determines the quality of the outcome.
-
I examine why settlement advice often fails at the decisive moment. The choice between continuing to negotiate and proceeding further is rarely framed with sufficient rigour. I outline a structured decision framework that integrates legal exposure, behavioural dynamics and reputational risk, offering advisers clearer footing at the edge of escalation.
-
Mediation is frequently approached either too aggressively or too cautiously. I challenge both tendencies. I present a strategic preparation model that helps counsel remain persuasive without litigating the room, and use mediation as a deliberate instrument rather than as a procedural afterthought.
-
Adversarial training is an asset, but it can also narrow strategic range. I explore how wintered negotiators can expand their negotiation repertoire while maintaining analytical discipline. The focus is on calibrated positioning, concession architecture and dealing with entrenched counterparts under real pressure.
-
Many disputes harden because difficult conversations were postponed or diluted. I argue that professional responsibility includes structured expectation management from the outset. I discuss how to conduct disciplined risk conversations that preserve trust while preventing unnecessary escalation.
-
High stakes professional conflict is not resolved by technique alone. I examine how authority, sequencing and framing influence escalation. I offer a structured approach to de escalating conversations without drifting into therapeutic language or losing professional footing.
-
Cross border disputes are often misdiagnosed as purely legal disagreements. I analyse how hierarchy, communication norms and institutional expectations shape negotiation behaviour. I introduce an analytical lens for distinguishing cultural friction from substantive conflict, and for responding appropriately to each.
-
Europe continues to underuse commercial mediation relative to other jurisdictions. I examine what the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Singapore have done differently, and outline the structural and professional shifts required for meaningful change.