The advantages of having a male and a female mediator, however, must be weighed alongside the expense of the parties paying for two mediators instead of one. I have had uniformly positive experiences with co-mediation and consider it to be one of the more enjoyable ways to do mediation. It alleviates the pressure of assimilating a mountain of data and always provides rich opportunities for discussion with my colleagues regarding the process. No empirical evidence has yet been developed as to whether the mediation team is more or less effective than a sole mediator, and the model remains one of personal choice. There is no question that the costs of conducting mediation are increased with the use of two mediators . . .
Clients can benefit from observing communication and interaction of the mediators . . .
The level of cooperation and effective interaction between mediators can be a model for the disputants. The mediators' communication with one another outside of the session provides an excellent opportunity to compare impressions and discuss possible intervention strategies for the forthcoming session. The sex balancing provides clients the opportunity to be understood, validated, or challenged by persons of both sexes, minimizing sexual stereotyping and triangling . . . Co-mediators can equalize the relationships involved and provide an atmosphere of objectivity and neutrality. Balance can be provided in terms of maintaining neutrality, equalizing bargaining power, and sharing responsibility for control of communications.