My husband and I are in the process of separating after 21 years of marriage. We have two teenagers. We are employed by governmental agencies, but I have worked for all but three years of our marriage and, of course, have less retirement and savings than my husband. Last year, he inherited nearly $200,000 from his aunt, but argues this should not be counted even though the inheritance from my folks ($80,000) was invested in our home, and he wants half the equity when it is sold.

He suggests that we disengage ourselves from our relationship with as little expense as possible. He says that lawyers will only run up the costs, and that because we have agreed that the children will remain with me, we should see a mediator who can handle it all, including giving us legal advice. I don’t want to spend unnecessary money, but I don’t understand how any one person can handle this for both of us. What is your take?

By its very definition, “mediation” is a mode of dispute resolution by which a “neutral third party” assists feuding parties in finding mutually acceptable solutions to their problems. Unlike going to court, the obligation to solve the problem and make the decisions belongs to the parties, not the judge. A mediator’s duties include defining the issues, helping the parties organize, facilitating effective dialogue, and keeping track of areas of agreement. Mediators should not give either party legal advice or counseling, or force the parties into an agreement.

That said, we believe that mediators should advise parties to seek independent legal counsel who can advise each of them during the mediation process and review proposed settlement agreements before they are signed. But some folks choose not to do so, and some mediators choose to give legal advice. For example, we heard from one lawyer-mediator who told us, “The old-fashioned notion that people can’t make informed decisions without a lawyer’s involvement is no longer the norm in states such as California, in which over 60 percent of divorces are obtained by couples who choose not to seek the representation of an attorney.”

We don’t buy that “modern” theory because mediation and legal representation are two separate and conflicting roles that, in our opinion, cannot be occupied by either a lawyer or a mediator. We don’t believe that mediators should give legal advice or try to take the place of attorneys. While an attorney-mediator may provide legal information to both parties jointly — such as general information about matrimonial procedure, support guidelines, property division, and custody/visitation — legal advice is a “no-no.”

Here’s why: Agreements made during the mediation process, once approved by the court, are final and binding. This means that if you leave something out, miss a taxation issue, fail to get security for support, miss out on part of that pension, settle for less than what you may be entitled because you didn’t receive full financial disclosure, or otherwise “goof up,” you will be out of luck.

Mediation is not arbitration, marriage counseling, or legal representation. It is a voluntary process, and no one can force you to make an agreement or keep going to the mediator if you are not satisfied. While we believe that mediation certainly has its place by giving the parties an active role in the resolution process, in some instances, mediation will not work — if, for example, there has been physical abuse in the relationship or one party has a bargaining advantage over the other.

Bottom line: Mediation isn’t a bad place to start so long as you are comfortable that you can hold your own at the negotiating table with your husband. We suggest that you choose a good mediator, make sure there is full financial disclosure, and seek the opinion of a qualified matrimonial attorney in your state about ongoing representation in the mediation process. You can’t afford not to.