My early mediation training was all about facilitation. Even today, seven years later, in my family mediation practice, I can’t imagine any other approach, since without the trust of both parties in the mediator’s integrity as a neutral, at all times and on all issues, there is little or no hope of success. Thus, deviation from the facilitative model is highly dangerous, if not outright fatal.

However, in all other spheres of my practice, I evolved pretty rapidly. For one thing, in my past incarnation as a practicing litigator, my forte had been case construction, issue spotting, and tactical extension, perhaps a carryover from college debate. I found myself knowing where a case was likely to end up well before the parties did in many instance. Evaluative techniques began to seep in and, within a couple of years, my technique was primarily evaluative, although how and when I did my evaluation with clients was highly variable from case to case.

As for the overarching question, since I believe that virtually all cases that go to trial are the result of an irrational economic decision by one or more parties, I cannot imagine an attorney, whatever generator, who does not need mediation as an adjunct in cases in which the parties are unable to settle.