Three general cases illustrate situations in which the issue of mediator liability is likely to arise. In the first type of situation, a mediated settlement does not reflect the optimal possible outcome and the mediator fails to oppose its adoption or even encourages the particular terms of settlement. In the second type of situation, some person or party to a mediation session is harmed by another party and arguably the mediator could have prevented the harm from occurring. In the third situation, the mediation process is used to promote or camouflage illegal conduct of which the mediator could have alerted the appropriate authorities. Making the mediator liable in any of these cases would be contrary to the requirements of the process itself. Nevertheless, arguing in favor of legal immunity does not mean favoring any behavior by mediators. It is essential to develop a proper conception of the mediator's role so that immunity applies to the individual performing the proper acts. (Author summary modified)