What is the difference between a mediation-arbitration (med-arb) process and pure arbitration?

In pure arbitration, the parties present their positions to an arbitrator who then makes a binding decision, similar in structure to a private judge hearing the dispute and issuing an award. Mediation-arbitration, usually called med-arb, combines two stages with the same neutral professional: the process starts as mediation, where the professional helps the parties try to negotiate their own resolution, and only if mediation doesn't fully resolve the issues does that same person switch roles and arbitrate the remaining, unresolved points.

The appeal of med-arb is efficiency: the parties avoid starting over with a new professional if mediation doesn't fully succeed, and the person arbitrating already understands the file. The trade-off is that the same individual has heard confidential mediation discussions before making a binding decision, which raises fairness questions some parties and professionals take seriously, and which the arbitration agreement should address clearly upfront, including what information can carry over between phases. Because this structure has real advantages and real risks depending on the relationship between the parties, getting legal advice before choosing med-arb over pure arbitration is worthwhile.