1. Mediation does not always result in a settlement agreement.

Parties might spend their time

and money in mediation only to find that they must have their case settled for them by a
court. Opting for mediation, therefore, presents something of a risk. Further, if mediation
fails, much of a partys ammunition might have already been exposed to the opposing
party, thereby becoming far less useful in the ensuing trial.
2. Mediation lacks the procedural and constitutional protections guaranteed by the federal and
state courts. The lack of formality in mediation could be a benefit, as noted above, or a
detriment. Mediation between parties of disparate levels of sophistication and power, and
who have disparate amounts of resources available, might result in an inequitable settlement
as the less-well positioned party is overwhelmed and unprotected.
3. Legal precedent cannot be set in mediation. Many discrimination cases, among others, are
brought with the intention of not only securing satisfaction for the named plaintiff, but also
with the hope of setting a new legal precedent which will have a broader social impact.
These cases are only successful if a high court (usually the United States Supreme Court)
hands down a favorable decision on the main issue. Mediation is therefore not beneficial for
such cases.
4. Mediation has no formal discovery process. If one of the parties to a dispute cannot fully
address the case without first receiving information from the other party, there is no way to
compel disclosure of such information. The party seeking disclosure must rely instead on the
other partys good faith, which may or may not be enough.

Agreement reached under mediation is not binding and final but merely a mutually agreed
settlement made by both the parties under the facilitation of the mediator. Indeed, the mediator does
not provide any legal advice or any suggestion to the parties. The parties are not bound to comply
with the agreement and the party who changed their mind not to accept the resolution reached may
bring the dispute into litigation. This in turn, defeated the purpose of mediation to help to clear out
backlog of cases in the judiciary.

Mediations are not ideal ways to get to the truth of the matter. In a courtroom setting, lawyers have
many tools to get people to testify and produce evidence that are not available to mediators.
Much of court room procedure is designed to keep things fair to both parties. Mediation typically
has no formal rules. This means that if one party is timid and the other is loud and aggressive, the
timid person runs the risk of losing some of what is legally owed to him. Mediators have some
skills that may help restore balance, but there is a limit to what they can do.
Some experts in abusive relationships do not believe that mediation is appropriate in cases where
there has been domestic violence. They believe that mediation might just provide another way for
the abuser to harm the victim. Depending on the nature of the victim's injuries, she may not be able
to assert her position in mediations informal setting.
Finally, mediation may not be successful and the parties may not reach an agreement on their
dispute. In those cases, the parties will have to go through the time-consuming and expensive

process of trial after wasting their time and money in mediation.

The cost of the mediation, and certainly the time it took to complete and settle the dispute, are
unable to refund. Even the mediator failed to draft a fair agreement, the dispute party whom hired
the mediator have to settle the cost of mediations.