A mediator must conduct the mediation in a manner that supports the principles of voluntary participation and self-determination by the parties. For this purpose a mediator must:
Rule 3.853.Voluntary participation and self-determination
Division 8. Alternative Dispute Resolution · Chapter 3. General Rules Relating to Mediation of Civil Cases · Article 2. Rules of Conduct for Mediators in Court-Connected Mediation Programs for Civil Cases · Last amended 2007 · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceThis rule requires mediators to protect party self-determination by telling parties upfront that any resolution must be voluntary, honoring each participant’s right to decide how much to take part or to withdraw, and never coercing anyone into a decision or continued participation.
Full Text of Rule 3.853
(1) Inform the parties, at or before the outset of the first mediation session, that any resolution of the dispute in mediation requires a voluntary agreement of the parties;
(2) Respect the right of each participant to decide the extent of his or her participation in the mediation, including the right to withdraw from the mediation at any time; and
(3) Refrain from coercing any party to make a decision or to continue to participate in the mediation.
Plain-English Summary
Self-determination sits at the core of mediation, and Rule 3.853 turns that principle into three concrete duties. First, the mediator has to tell the parties, before or at the start of the first session, that any settlement depends on their voluntary agreement — nobody can be forced into a resolution just because a court sent them to mediation. Second, each person taking part gets to decide how deeply to engage, including the right to walk away from the process altogether at any point.
The third duty bars coercion outright: a mediator cannot pressure a party into making a decision or into staying at the table. This matters because courts can order parties to show up for mediation, but ordering attendance is different from controlling what happens once people are there. A mediator can still encourage parties to keep talking when a deal still seems within reach, or suggest that someone unrepresented consider getting legal advice, without crossing into coercion. What crosses the line is pressuring someone to remain after they have said they want to leave, pushing an evaluation on parties who have not asked for one, or threatening consequences to force a result.
Advisory Committee Comment
The following comment is published by the Judicial Council of California alongside the rule itself — not commentary from this site.
Voluntary participation and self-determination are fundamental principles of mediation that apply both to mediations in which the parties voluntarily elect to mediate and to those in which the parties are required to go to mediation in a mandatory court mediation program or by court order. Although the court may order participants to attend mediation, a mediator may not mandate the extent of their participation in the mediation process or coerce any party to settle the case. After informing the parties of their choices and the consequences of those choices, a mediator can invoke a broad range of approaches to assist the parties in reaching an agreement without offending the principles of voluntary participation and self-determination, including (1) encouraging the parties to continue participating in the mediation when it reasonably appears to the mediator that the possibility of reaching an uncoerced, consensual agreement has not been exhausted and (2) suggesting that a party consider obtaining professional advice (for example, informing an unrepresented party that he or she may consider obtaining legal advice). Conversely, examples of conduct that violate the principles of voluntary participation and self-determination include coercing a party to continue participating in the mediation after the party has told the mediator that he or she wishes to terminate the mediation, providing an opinion or evaluation of the dispute in a coercive manner or over the objection of the parties, using abusive language, and threatening to make a report to the court about a party’s conduct at the mediation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court order parties to attend mediation even though participation is supposed to be voluntary?
Yes. Courts can require attendance in mandatory mediation programs. What stays voluntary is the outcome — a mediator cannot force parties to reach or accept a settlement, and each participant still controls how much to engage once mediation begins.
Can a participant leave a mediation session at any time?
Yes. Rule 3.853 protects each participant’s right to decide the extent of their involvement, including the right to withdraw from the mediation whenever they choose.
Is it coercion for a mediator to encourage parties to keep negotiating?
Not necessarily. A mediator may encourage continued discussion when an uncoerced agreement still seems possible. Coercion means something more specific: pressuring a party to decide or to stay after that party has said they want out, using an evaluation as leverage, or threatening a party to force an outcome.
Amendment History
Rule 3.853 amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as rule 1620.3 effective January 1, 2003.
Source & verification. Rule text is reproduced verbatim from
the Judicial Council of California. Adopted by the Judicial Council of California.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: mandatory mediation voluntary agreement Californiacan I leave mediation earlymediator coercion rules Californiaself-determination mediation rule