A caucus in mediation is a private, one-on-one meeting between the mediator and a single party, held out of earshot of everyone else in the dispute. It gives each side a space to speak candidly about concerns, priorities, and how much flexibility they actually have, information they might not share with the other party in the room. Caucuses are one of the most frequently used tools in mediation, and either party can ask for one at any point.
How a Caucus Works
The mediator meets with one party in a separate room while the other party waits elsewhere. After finishing that conversation, the mediator moves to the other party’s room for a separate private session. This back-and-forth pattern is sometimes called shuttle mediation or shuttle diplomacy, because the mediator physically moves between the two sides carrying offers, counteroffers, and questions.
Either party can request a caucus, and the mediator can call one too. Some mediators begin with a caucus before any joint discussion. Others wait until a specific issue stalls progress, then separate the parties to work through it. A mediator should explain why a caucus is being called so neither side reads something adversarial into the break. Many mediations alternate between joint sessions and caucuses throughout the day.1Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution. Joint Session or Caucus? Factors Related to How the Initial Mediation Session Begins
Why a Mediator Calls a Caucus
The most common reason is that someone needs to say something they won’t say in front of the other side. That could be an honest assessment of their own case’s weaknesses, a number they would actually accept, or a personal concern driving the conflict that feels too vulnerable to share openly. A skilled mediator uses that information to bridge the gap without betraying the confidence.
Caucuses also work as a pressure valve. If a joint session turns hostile or one party shuts down, separating the sides lets the mediator de-escalate privately rather than trying to manage anger in real time with everyone watching. The mediator can acknowledge the frustration, let the party vent, and then refocus on problem-solving.
Reality-testing is another major function. In private, the mediator can push back on unrealistic expectations in a way that would feel adversarial if done across the table. Asking what happens to your timeline and legal costs if the case doesn’t settle today is a much easier conversation when the opposing party isn’t in the room. The mediator can also help you see the dispute from the other side’s perspective, which often shifts how a proposal looks.
When negotiations hit an impasse, caucuses let the mediator float creative options with each side individually. A party might be willing to restructure a deal or offer a non-monetary concession they would never put on the table publicly, for fear of looking weak. The mediator can test that idea with the other side without committing anyone to it.
Is What You Say in a Caucus Confidential
Under the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators, jointly developed by the American Bar Association and the American Arbitration Association, a mediator who meets privately with any party cannot convey what was said to anyone else without the disclosing party’s consent.2ICR. Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators The JAMS ethics guidelines impose a similar obligation, barring mediators from disclosing confidential information without permission from all parties.3JAMS. Mediators Ethics Guidelines – Section: IV. A Mediator Should Maintain the Confidentiality of the Process
In practice, the default is not identical everywhere. The governing rule might come from a court order, an institutional rule set, a state statute, or the parties’ own mediation agreement. Some mediators, particularly in court-connected programs, operate under the assumption that they can share what you tell them unless you specifically say not to. That is the opposite default from the one most people assume. Before your first caucus, ask the mediator directly: is what I tell you in this room confidential unless I say otherwise, or can you share it unless I say stop? That single question prevents most confidentiality surprises.
Exceptions That Apply No Matter What
Even where strong confidentiality protections apply, some disclosures are never shielded. The Uniform Mediation Act, adopted in some form by roughly a dozen states and the District of Columbia, lists several categories where the mediation privilege does not apply:4Connecticut Bar Association. Uniform Mediation Act
- Statements threatening bodily injury or describing a plan to commit a violent crime.
- Communications used to plan, commit, or conceal a crime.
- Statements relevant to a malpractice or misconduct complaint against the mediator or another professional involved in the case.
- Information relevant to abuse, neglect, or exploitation in proceedings involving a protective services agency.
If you disclose something that falls into one of these categories, the mediator may be required to report it regardless of any promises made about confidentiality.
What Can Go Wrong in a Caucus
Caucuses are useful, but they come with tradeoffs worth weighing.
The biggest is the information imbalance they create. Once the mediator has spoken privately with both sides, the mediator knows things neither party knows. That asymmetry gives the mediator significant influence over how offers get framed, which concessions get emphasized, and how each side perceives the other’s position. Most mediators handle this responsibly, but the structure creates the potential for a mediator to steer the outcome in ways the parties can’t fully see.
Heavy reliance on caucuses can also undermine one of mediation’s core benefits: helping the parties understand each other. When the mediator becomes the only channel of communication, each side hears a filtered version of the other’s concerns. Nuance gets lost. The emotional acknowledgment that often unlocks a settlement cannot happen through a messenger. Some mediation scholars argue that caucuses prioritize efficiency at the cost of deeper resolution.
There is a perception problem too. When the mediator spends noticeably more time in one party’s room, the other party may start wondering whose side the mediator is on. Experienced mediators manage this by keeping caucus times roughly balanced and explaining any discrepancies, but the suspicion can erode trust in the process regardless.
Finally, some parties simply don’t want to be separated. They came to mediation to talk directly to the other side, and being shuttled into a waiting room feels like the opposite of what they signed up for. Mediation is voluntary, and so is the caucus within it. If you would rather stay in joint session, say so.