Mediation team makes its mark at global competition

“Andy, Katie and Ciara are amongst the finest examples of UB Law students,” says Herman, who works as coordinator of Alternative Dispute Resolution for the New York State Courts, 8^th Judicial District. “They are not only smart and educated on the law. They are hard-working and compassionate advocates for their clients and skilled negotiators.

“To prepare for these competitions they had to learn to be both mediators and advocates in mediation – a new skill that is becoming increasingly important in a court system where less than 5% of cases go to trial.  Advocacy in mediation goes beyond the traditional negotiation in settlement conferences which focus on positional bargaining and legal arguments.”

England and Cegielski have been partners in previous mediation competitions, including finishing as quarterfinalists in July at an international mediation competition in Vienna, Austria, also coached by Herman. Harrington separately finished fifth as a mediator in that competition, coached by Sugarman. England says that familiarity helps in a situation where the competitors act as either a client or a lawyer. She played the lawyer in all but one of the Paris rounds.

“Typically, the client is going to be the one who talks more,” England says. “It’s important to the process that the client has an opportunity to speak. The lawyer steps in to assert the client’s interests and make sure their side is being heard.

“We do well because we communicate really well as a team,” she adds. “Non-verbal communication is key to these competitions and mediation in general. You need to be able to interact with your partner, adapt to the case as it develops, and pass notes when necessary.”

The team traveled a few days early and visited Zurich, Switzerland, and Strasbourg, France, and had time for quick visits to the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower outside of competition hours. The international makeup of the competition, England says, was rewarding in itself. “It was a really eye-opening experience for me,” she says, “being able to meet students from law schools around the world, thinking about how to adapt to cultural differences, and making friends with people who I hope I’ll cross paths with again in my career.”

The cases at issue, Cegielski says, were typical commercial ones: patent disputes and supply chain problems. Competition organizers provided the mediator in each round, and competitors were judged on their strategy, how they divided responsibility between client and counsel, and how well the client’s interests were represented.

One challenge, Cegielski says, was communicating clearly to a global audience, with 32 countries and multiple languages represented. The competition was held in English, “but we still tried to use accessible language and stay away from idioms,” he says. “We were very aware of that and potential cultural differences. As mediation is about communication and collaboration, we made sure to check in and make sure everyone understood each other.”

Harrington, who served as an alternate competitor, monitored the mediators’ feedback and helped coach the team on-site. She says the judging underscored the varying approaches different teams brought to the mediation process. “We were definitely a very collaborative team, and that worked out well for us sometimes, and sometimes not,” she says.

That was most apparent, Harrington says, in their final matchup with the Australian team.

“That was an intense mediation,” she says. “They had a very different style than we did. Everyone had their own strategy and tactics.”

Their coach proudly acknowledges their hard work and growth as effective advocates. “To be an advocate in mediation,” says Herman, “preparation is vital, and these students spent many hours preparing. They had to know the law and the strengths and weaknesses of their case. They had to determine the best and worst alternatives to a negotiated agreement, including the costs of waiting for a resolution in court. They knew the interests of their clients and tried to find the interests and priorities of the other party.  They learned how to gather strategically-necessary information about their opponents’ priorities; how to be strong in a polite way; how to diffuse hostile negotiation tactics and get the discussion back on track; how to create value for the other party at little cost to their client; and when and how to make thoughtful, informed and strategic offers or counter-offers that contained creative solutions which met everyone’s interests.

“I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to coach these outstanding advocates.”

UB Law team member Andrew Cegielski ’25 gathered comments from some of the other teams who competed in the Paris competition. Here’s what they had to say.

“This was my second time meeting the UB team. They really know how to balance professionalism with their knack for having (and being) a good time!”—Pravin Jayasundere, Sri Lanka

“The UB mediation team is the kind you instantly gravitate toward—genuine, fun and always ready for a great conversation. Their energy and enthusiasm made the competition all the more enjoyable!”—Inès Belarbi, France

“The UB team was easily the most fun team to be around and was always a joy to talk to. A pity I never got to see their rounds, but I frequently heard from other judges and coaches how impressive they were. Unsurprising, of course!”—Seth, Singapore

“The UB team was exceptionally good at using the caucus during mediation. I learned a lot!”—Madina, Uzbekistan

“Andy and Katharine brought their A-game (and A-ties!) to the competition and displayed most beautiful teamwork. Andy’s legendary tie arsenal wasn’t just a fashion statement—it doubled as tactical negotiation tools, while Katharine’s Jedi-level calm and solution focus was contagious. From the mediation table to social events, Team Buffalo was an absolute delight.”—Fabian Beckmann, Germany