Mediation Myths

What Mediation Cannot Do?

Mediation myths. Mediation has become the default recommendation for almost every kind of dispute, special education needs disputes between parents and local authorities (SEND)  disputes, workplace grievances, neighbour arguments. Family problems over anything to include wills, inheritance, small business fallings out, divorce as well as civil and commercial claims ranging from a few hundred to hundreds of millions of pounds.

The pitch is seductive cheaper than court, faster than court, less adversarial than court, and you walk out with an agreement both sides can live with. Much of that pitch is true. But the enthusiasm has produced a side effect that’s worth considering, pushing back on.

Mediation myths are everywhere and people walk into mediation expecting things it was never designed to deliver. When those expectations collide with reality, the process fails sometimes quietly, sometimes messily, often with everyone wondering what went wrong. And then blame the mediator. 

The honest answer is usually that nothing went wrong with the mediation. What went wrong were the mediation myths and or the the belief about what mediation is. So before you book a mediation it’s worth being clear about what mediation cannot achieve. Be conscious about the mediation myths  you possibly hold, if so they will make you an unsuitable candidate for the process.  

Mediation Myths If You Believe Them Don’t Mediate 

It cannot guarantee a resolution. One of the biggest mediation myths is a solution will be achieved is guaranteed. This is the most important limit and the most frequently ignored. Mediation is voluntary and consensus based. The mediator cannot force either party to agree, cannot compel concessions, and cannot break a deadlock. If one side is unwilling to move, is being unrealistic, being unfair or both sides are too far apart, the session will eventually and inevitably end without an agreement.

That is not a failure of the mediator  it is a feature of the process. Any system that could force an outcome would, by definition, be something other than mediation. One of the biggest mediaiton myths is if a solution to an impossible dispute was not reached, the mediator was useless and it had to be their fault. 

Mediation Myths Right Vs Wrong  

It cannot make a binding decision. High up on the mediation myths list also, is a mediator can act as a judge and an arbitrator. (Even though several judges and arbitrators are also mediators). They will not rule on who is right or wrong. Even if they could, sometimes it is not obvious who was in the right or wrong.

Generally, not always court paperwork, claims, defences, counter claims, replies to defences make a number of allegations. These are then generally combatted with (un)plausible and logical explanations and counter allegations.

A mediator cannot decide who owes what, or who was at fault. They were not present when the dispute evolved. Even if it is obvious who was at fault, that is not their role, they are independent, and cannot take sides, nor give an opinion.

If what you actually want is a third party to decide, to look at the evidence and declare a winner you need arbitration or litigation, not mediation. The mediation agreement is binding only because both parties choose to sign it, and only insofar as it’s drafted as a contract, a consent order or draft Tomlin order. The mediator’s authority ends the moment the conversation does.

Mediation Myths The Fairness Police

Fairness any mediator has to at all times remain independent and not take sides. Therefore, they have to treat all parties, employees, whoever they are mediating for the same. Therefore, they must act fairly. However, any solution that the mediator leads the parties to, which they accept and agree to does not have to be fair. Amongst mediation myths this comes up frequently. Mediators are not the fairness police, nor a lie detector, or mind readers, their role is not to establish who is lying or telling the truth.

So a real life example, where a son was suing his dad over a set of properties (TOLATA claim) they built and tried to sell on. And the son claimed for £200,000 as he claimed he put more capital into the venture than his dad did. But the dad argued he put more time into the actually building of the houses.  Alongisde taking out a loan to fund this becuase his son made him. And what they had originally agreed had altered dramatically.

Now if they both agreed to a ridiculous sum of money to settle their £200,000 dispute for example £1 or £3 million. Is that a fair settlement or solution?

Arguably not, but the parties have agreed to do that, with no duress or pressure from the mediator. If I had to mediate something like that, I would highlight that a court would more than likely not award judgement of just £1 or indeed £3 million, but if you are both happy to settle on those terms, then so be it.

The solution above that appears to be completely ridiculous and unfair, is fair, because the parties agreed to do it of their own free will. Now if the mediator made the parties agree to either of those two options (£1 or the £3 million) and forced them to agree to one or the other (which they would not, could not do), only then would the agreement be unfair.  

Mediation Myths Power Imbalances & Solicitor Use 

It cannot correct a serious power imbalance. A skilled mediator will work to manage imbalance using separate sessions, careful ground rules, and structured speaking time but they cannot erase it.

Solicitors use. Equally where one party chooses to be represented by solicitors and the other does not, which happens often. In fact, it happened four days ago on my online mediation of the 22^nd of July 2026 over the assignment of a commercial property lease. With allegations of rent arrears, excessive insurance preimums, etc the list was endless.

A party who chooses not to have legal representation usually does so because they cannot afford to, or does not want to incur the costs. (Which is what the defendant in the above real life example did). Which is their right, and they are entitled to do this. But then do not complain that you are disadvantaged as the other side has legal representation and you do not. They chose to pay to understand their legal position, the strengths and weaknesses of their case and their opponents, you did not.

This is exactly the same when both parties have representation. When one party has a more articulate, capable, dominant solicitor than the other side, or where one solicitor has misunderstood the dispute and or the law that applies to it, and or not advised their client correctly.

Equally if one party is financially dependent on the other, or fears the other, or is simply a far more confident and articulate negotiator, the mediation room can quietly reproduce that imbalance in the agreement it produces. Where the imbalance is severe coercive control, economic dependence, history of abuse mediation is the wrong forum, full stop. The safety and fairness of those situations need the protections of a court, not the conversational intimacy of a mediator’s office.

Confidentiality And Without Prejudice

Confidentiality and without prejudice.  It cannot create public accountability or legal precedent. Mediation is confidential. That confidentiality is one of its great strengths it lets people speak openly but it has a cost. A dispute resolved in mediation stays in mediation. There is no public record, no precedent, no deterrent effect on future bad behaviour by the same party. If your goal is to hold someone publicly to account, to set a standard for others, or to send a signal to an industry or a community, mediation will not do that for you.

It cannot provide legal advice. A mediator may be legally trained, but in the mediation room they are not your lawyer and not the other side’s lawyer either. They cannot tell you whether the offer on the table is fair, whether your legal position is strong, or whether signing the agreement would be a mistake. If you don’t have your own legal advice alongside the mediation, you are negotiating partially blind and the mediator cannot fix that.

It cannot enforce compliance. If someone signs a mediation agreement and then ignores it, the mediator has no power to make them comply. You’re back to the courts to enforce it as a contract. Mediation’s much-vaunted “compliance” advantage rests largely on the fact that people who helped build an agreement tend to honour it but that’s a tendency, not a guarantee. Where the relationship has truly broken down, signed agreements from mediation can be ignored just like any other. 

Online Mediation Can We Record?  

Online mediation was a temporay solution it erupted onto the scene in 2020 when the pandaemic hit the world. We had no choice but to use it. However it is here to stay, for so many reasons, convenience being at the top of them, not just for the parties but for mediators too. 

In the last year July 2025 – July 2026,  I have only mediated three times in person, all of the other mediations have been online. Simply becuase thats how the parties wanted to mediate. The in person mediations were a SEND 1st of July 2025, builder 8th May 2026  and boundary dispute on the 16th of July 2026.  Even those three mediations could have been mediated online. The myth is online mediation is not effective, not as good as an in person mediation. An in person mediaiton is just as effective as mediating online and vice versa. 

• Can the parties record an online mediation or take photos. No! 
• The mediator makes a recording, or is allowed to. No! 
• I made a secret recording of the mediation (online or in person) and I can use it in existing litigation or future litigation as evidence. No you cannot and you might find you end up in a lot of trouble, so do not do it!

Mediation myths go further whereby a lot of disputants think everything can be mediated online. And insist on that mode. Not every dispute is suitable for online mediation. There will always be disputes that need to be mediated in person. For a vareity of different reasons.

Box Ticking & Bad Faith 

It cannot change someone who is acting in bad faith. Mediation depends on a baseline of good faith  a willingness to engage, to be broadly honest, and to make some effort to find common ground. Where a party is lying, stalling, using the process to wear the other side down, or attending only because a court has ordered them to, “the dreaded box ticking exercise” mediation becomes a stage for the bad behaviour rather than a remedy for it. The process has no real sanctions for the disingenuous participant.

No mediator can ascertain before the mediation if someone is going to act in good or bad faith. Unless leading up to the mediaiton they have delayed the process, been obstructive, rude, delayed making payment, signing the agreement to mediate, chopped and changed for no valid reason.

Going further I have experienced this kind of behaviour in my twenty fours years of providing mediation services, several times, an occupational hazard. However, you never can tell, for example I have had the politest clients and solicitors who have followed the pre mediation timetable and done everything expected from them perfectly. However, when I have actually mediated for them on the day they have done exactly the opposite, been rude, obstructive and extremely difficult. 

I have had exactly the opposite too. Leading up to a mediation the client and or their solicitor have played me up, not been very cooperative etc. But at the mediation they have bent over backwards to be helpful, cooperative and coniliatory.

For example a builder dispute that I mediated online on the 23^rd of April 2026, here the claimant a builder was a nightmare to deal with prior to the mediation. And the defendant was a delight. However at the actual mediation the claimant was an absolute pleasure to mediate for and extremely helpful. Towards the end the claimant and I even joked in a private session, “why did you give me a hard time?” “Harvinder forgive me, the defendant had caused so much distrust and suspisicion so I was not sure why he recommended we use you and mediation at all”.

Why You Shouldn’t Believe the Myths

Certain beliefs about mediation don’t just set unrealistic expectations they actively interfere with the process. If you hold them, you are likely to walk out frustrated, and possibly worse off than if you’d gone straight to a more decisive forum.

For example a recent enquirer insisted he needed mediaiton, and wanted it yesterday. Half way through arranging the mediaiton, and a week later he called me. We had a detailed call to manage his expectations yet again.

The claimant: So at the mediation you will be able to tell the other party I am right and they are wrong?

The mediator: No.

The claimant: But you will make recommendations.

The mediator: No. No mediator can.

The claimant: Well how do you judge I am right and they are wrong.

The mediator: I can’t, that is what a judge does.

The claimant: Ahhh on the evidence.

The mediator: Yes to an extent, but more on who they actually believe.

The claimant: That’s not fair.

The mediator: Mediation is not right for you, go and get independent legal advice please.

The claiamnt already had it in his mind he was right, and he did not want to hear anything different. How would he have compromised at the proposed mediation? Well he would not have, that is why I refused to mediate the matter.

If you believe the mediator will decide what’s fair, don’t mediate. People who expect the mediator to act as a judge to hear both sides and then pronounce a fair outcome are invariably disappointed. The mediator’s job is to help you find an outcome, not to find one for you. If you cannot tolerate that distinction, you’ll spend the session waiting for a ruling that never comes, and you’ll read the mediator’s neutrality as evasion.

If you believe mediation always works, don’t mediate. The belief that mediation is a guaranteed fix leads people to enter it unprepared, without legal advice, without a clear sense of their bottom line, and without a fallback plan. When the session doesn’t produce an agreement which does happen, they are left both without resolution and without the preparation they’d have done for court. Realistic expectations are not pessimism; they are the precondition for useful participation.

If you believe “if we just talk, we’ll agree,” don’t mediate. Communication is necessary but not sufficient. People agree in mediation because they are willing to compromise, not because they have finally been given a chance to speak. If you believe the only thing standing between you and agreement is that the other side hasn’t heard you properly yet, you will enter the room looking for vindication rather than negotiation and you will leave feeling that the mediator failed to make the other side understand.

If you believe mediation is therapy with a certificate, don’t mediate. Some people come to mediation to be heard, to be validated, to be told their feelings are justified, or to achieve emotional closure. Those are legitimate human needs, but they are not what mediation is for. The mediator is not your therapist, and the session is not a safe space for unbounded emotional processing.

Yes mediators should and do allow you to vent and be heard initally, however it is a structured negotiation with another party in the room who has their own needs and their own version of events. Conflating the two leaves you over-exposed and under-served.

If you believe confidentiality means your agreement will be honoured, don’t mediate. Confidentiality protects the conversation, not the outcome. If your trust in the process rests on the assumption that what’s agreed in the room will simply happen, you are vulnerable. You still need a properly drafted agreement, your own legal advice, and if stakes are high a clear enforcement route. Mediation rewards the participant who treats the outcome as a contract, not as a promise.

If you believe mediation can fix the relationship, don’t mediate. A successful mediation can produce a workable way forward a co-parenting arrangement, a settlement that lets you part company cleanly, a protocol for working in the same office. What it cannot do is repair the underlying trust, affection, or respect that the dispute eroded. People who enter mediation hoping to save the relationship often find that the agreement, however practical, documents a relationship that is already gone. That can be more painful than the dispute itself.

Conclusion The Honest Case for Mediation

None of this is an argument against mediation. Used well, by people who understand what it is and isn’t, it is one of the best dispute resolution tools we have. Flexible, private, fast, and far less corrosive than litigation. The argument is against misused mediation, and against the mythology that has grown up around it.

The people for whom mediation works best are those who come to it with realistic expectations: they want a workable outcome, not a moral verdict; they’re willing to give something up; they have their own advice; they understand that the mediator facilitates rather than decides; and they have thought through what they’ll do if no agreement is reached. People who come to it looking for justice, vindication, a free lawyer, a guaranteed result, or a repaired relationship are not just likely to be disappointed they are likely, in a small way, to be harmed by the gap between what they were promised and what they got.

If any of the mediation myths above sound like something you believe, the most useful thing you can do is not to book a mediator. It’s to sit with the actual limits of the process, decide whether you can accept them, and only then choose with open eyes whether mediation is the right road for your dispute, or whether you’d be better served by a forum that does what mediation deliberately will not.

I hate to say it, my whole role as a mediator is to preventing litigation. However some parties, some cases are better suited for litigation and for a judge to make a final decision, and are not suitable for mediation.

Bear in mind we are mediators, like any other professionals, we are not God, not mind readers or mystics or psychics with fortune telling powers. Think carefully about what you want to achieve, ask your mediator what they can and cannot do. If their replies resonate with you, then go ahead and mediate. If they cannot deliver what you have asked, then do not mediate.