As court-linked mandatory mediations (“MMP”) made up a material part of the dataset (twenty-three mediations), it was important to obtain a sense of actors' attitudes toward these mediations, as compared with voluntary mediations so as to more fully understand actors' mediation agendas and consequent experiences. By comparing lawyers', parties', and mediators' discourse in both mediation types, this chapter highlights the disparities in perception prevalent particularly within mandatory mediation case processing. Moreover, in offering frequently elusive data from litigants as compared with lawyers (Wissler 2002, p. 697), the findings expand on other studies that focus on evaluating particular mandatory programs or settlement rates (Macfarlane 1995; Metzloff et al. 1997, p. 115, n. 34).

Mandatory mediation is used in various jurisdictions for different case types due to low take-up rates of voluntary mediation, notwithstanding participant satisfaction (Pearson and Thoennes 1988, p. 448; Wissler 1997, pp. 565–66; Menkel-Meadow et al. 2006, p. 287). Critics of mandatory mediation have argued that it contradicts the consensual nature of mediation and mediation ideology that advocates disputants' self-determination. It has also been posited that without equal bargaining power, weaker parties are vulnerable to coercion to accept unfair agreements (Pearson and Thoennes 1988, pp. 431–32, 440; Thoennes et al. 1991, pp. 2–3;Wissler 1997, p. 565).