In the paper I reflect upon the problem of neutrality in conference interpreting. It is argued that there can be limits to neutrality in conference interpreting, especially in faceto-face interactions (consecutive mode) where direct contact between the interpreter and the parties involved might encourage the interpreter to identify and side with one of the parties. In general, we see a parallel between the issue of neutrality in mediation on the one hand and in the field of interpreting on the other. Mediation is not necessarily a conflict-management process and can be simply aimed at the facilitation of understanding between the disputants. Conference interpreters thinking of themselves as neutral still have their own means of intervening in the interaction. Before proceeding with the analysis of the consecutive and simultaneous modes in terms of possible threats to interpreters' neutrality, I discuss different definitions of the notion of neutrality itself. The main difficulty with the term ‘neutrality' lies in the fact that there is no universal definition for it. For the purposes of my analysis I derived four criteria of neutrality on the basis of definitions of neutrality used in mediation and applied them to the context of conference interpreting.