<p>Any classic definition of mediation would lead to a logical conclusion: mediation is a true alternative to litigation. It empowers the parties and gives them control over the outcome, rather than leaving them to sit behind lawyers waiting for a third party to impose a decision on who is right and who is wrong. According to the same line of thought, one might believe that since mediation tends to work apart from the complicated, intensive legal framework of courts, it will eventually supersede the form of dispute resolution offered by lawyers. Such a suggestion is apparently powerful enough to trigger competition from lawyers, creating resentment and an aggressive atmosphere which can lead to a conflict between them and mediation.</p>
<p>If such an account represents the dominant view of the relationship between lawyers and mediation, in his book Clark swims against the tide. He aims to prove that mediation, on the one hand, and lawyers, on the other – with the help of courts, policy makers and academia – can actually be friends, and not foes. Indeed, the work can be read as an exercise in mediation between lawyers and mediation, through which Clark seeks to discover common ground between these two as if they were parties.</p>
<p>In chapter one, or, in the language of mediation, “the opening phase” of his work, Clark takes the parties on a journey across time and space, by presenting the historical development of mediation in different jurisdictions around the globe, by focusing on factors that have been instrumental in causing the roles of lawyers in particular to flourish, and by encouraging the parties to picture the possibility of a successful collaboration.</p>
<p>In chapter two, which might be termed the “exploration phase”, he examines and analyses the economic, cultural and other reasons that may underpin lawyers’ resistance to mediation. He seeks to advance the discussion by attempting to understand better the lawyers’ needs and interests. In chapter three he goes further, by exploring the motives of lawyers who have seen fit to engage with mediation. Yet with respect to the needs and interests of those who practice mediation, he criticises the tactics of engagement that are redolent of some stereotypically opportunistic lawyers, who perhaps may wish to lobby for exclusive rights to practice dispute resolution. On the other hand, Clark presents evidence to show that many advocates of mediation have genuine motives in seeking to improve traditional methods of...</p>
