The experience of countless judges and mediators does not support the conclusion that everyone must agree to mediation for it to work. Nearly every case settles at or after the mediation, and I haven't found any difference between court-ordered and purely voluntary mediation in that regard. And ordering mediation in every case seems like an overkill that might create more expense and delay. Here are some factors to consider. Gathering everyone together to talk settlement when there are more than two or three parties is not easy, and simply ordering them to mediate is often all it takes to get the lawyers and parties together and get the case settled.
Lawsuits take on lives of their own where costs frequently outweigh potential benefits.
The judge is doing the parties a big favor by putting them in a process that will enable them to see the futility of their efforts. Sending them to mediation puts the lawyers in an environment conducive to civil discourse. And, perhaps more importantly, it brings together the clients who will often find solutions in spite of the lawyers. Some issues are so convoluted that the judge wonders how anyone will ever present them to a trier of fact. These cases are perfect for mediation, for the people who profess to understand the complex issues can talk among themselves and reach their own solutions.