Parties may perceive that the process is unfair, as the arbitration decision is made prior to any information revealed during the mediation session. The latter cannot influence the decision in the former. Should the dispute not be settled during mediation, the arbitration decision may be perceived as unfair and inaccurate. Furthermore, there may also be a perception of a loss of control, as parties are as it were forced into a quick voluntary decision in order to escape the possible penalty of arbitration. In mediation-arbitration disputing parties each retain the maximum control over the process and decisions made during the mediation phase. There is no arbitration decision that imposes pressure upon the parties when initial negotiations and decisions take place. The only limiting factor is a deadline, after which arbitration will take place if no voluntary decision can be reached. The advantage here is the perception of both control and fairness. Any evidence entered into the mediation phase can also be used in the arbitration phase in order to aid the decision.

Because of this factor, one major disadvantage of this procedure is the likelihood of a longer term in reaching a decision, and a greater likelihood of arbitration rather than voluntary decisions. Because there is no prior arbitration decision, the possible influence of extra information could also discourage the revelation of information that is pertinent to the case. This may influence both the mediation...

Process control is retained and uncertainty reduced.
The exact synergy of each process is influenced by the nature of each individual case as well as the nature of the relationship between the disputing parties. Arbitration-mediation tends to have short-term advantages such as quick, voluntary and low-cost settlement, but long-term disadvantages such as the perception that the process was fundamentally unfair. Mediation-arbitration on the other hand has short-term disadvantages such as longer terms of settlement and higher costs, but long-term advantages such as a perception of fairness.

In deciding which procedure to follow, not only the processes, but also the parties involved, should synergize their requirements and match these with the processes for the optimal advantage to each party. Each counselor should also provide the disputing parties with complete information regarding both the advantages and disadvantages of each synergetic process involving arbitration and mediation. Furthermore, the parties may wish to only use one or the other in the process. Parties should discuss the possibilities separately with legal professionals, after which they can then meet and make a synergetic decision for the best possible outcome in the case and for each party.