HomeRules & RegulationEnforcementEducation & ProgramsRegulatory SystemsArbitration & MediationInvestor Information
FINRA Dispute Resolution | Mediation | Resources for Parties | Start an Arbitration or Mediation | Arbitration | Resources for Arbitrators and Mediators
spacer image
spacer image
spacer image spacer image spacer image spacer image spacer image spacer image spacer image spacer image spacer image
 
Search
Powered by Google

Mediation

Home > Arbitration & Mediation > Mediation > Mediation: An Alternate Path > A Comparison of Mediation and Arbitration
spacer image Logo

A Comparison of Mediation and Arbitration

Mediation


Arbitration



Expedited negotiation



Adjudication



Parties control the outcome.



Arbitrators control the outcome.



Mediator has no power to decide.
Settlement only with party approval.



Arbitrator is given power to decide.
Final and binding decision.



Exchange of information is voluntary and is often limited. Parties exchange information that will assist in reaching a resolution.



Often extensive discovery is required.



Mediator helps the parties define and understand the issues and each side's interests.



Arbitrator listens to facts and evidence and renders an award.



Parties vent feelings, tell story, engage in creative problem-solving.



Parties present case, testify under oath.



Process is informal.
Parties are active participants.



Process is formal. Attorneys control party participation.



Joint and private meetings between individual parties and their counsel.



Evidentiary hearings.
No private communication with the arbitrator.



Outcome based on needs of parties.



Decision based on facts, evidence, and law.



Result is mutually satisfactory—A relationship may be maintained or created.



Result is win/lose award—Relationships are often lost.



Low cost.



More expensive than mediation, but less expensive than traditional litigation.



Private and confidential.



Private (but decisions are publicly available).