You said that a “Good mediator” will run a mediation and have the ability to “cut through the sparring, posturing, and argumentativeness to help parties to get down to business.” While I have no doubt that this can ultimately
benefit the parties, should the mediator be deciding to do this, or should this be done at the request of the parties? If a mediator chooses to honor the parties’ apparent desire to spar, posture and argue, is he or she a bad mediator, or just a mediator who chooses a different path towards honoring the self-determination of the clients? What role do the lawyers’ needs to
move toward settlement play in determining the manner in which the mediation will be conducted?

You also say that “Mediators will be proactive in seeking out and addressing issues that are preventing the parties from reaching resolution. It’s part of our job description.” What about the mediators who, again, choose to work in the direction of what the parties themselves perceive as important to seek out and address? Are they not working within the job description of a mediator?

My comments aren’t intended as a criticism of the problem solving model of mediation you’re reflecting, but rather a nudge towards the recognition that this model doesn’t necessarily define a “good” mediator, or the “mediator’s
job”. The concern that I have is that the needs of the lawyer and the legal system will unduly influence the needs of the parties as they see them, not as the lawyer sees them. Some believe that it is when those “non legal” needs are met, that true reconciliation can happen.

Perhaps, though, I’m just anticipating the points you’ll be making when you write about what lawyers can do for mediators in bridging the divide.