This led to many other discussions, including a dialogue about whether the adversarial system is appropriate for domestic cases. I suggested that the adversarial system leaves a lot to be desired if the people in a legal dispute need to resume a relationship after the action is concluded, as in a divorce with children. Because the children tend to be the ultimate losers when their parents duke it out in court, more and more court systems have opted for a mandatory mediation to try to resolve a domestic relations dispute. Without getting into a philosophical discussion about the adversarial system, let's just say that ADR makes good sense in some cases, and may be a career option for paralegals as well. The mediator is a neutral third party who can bring fairness and the benefit of experience to the negotiating table.
Mediation is cheaper and generally faster than litigation.
However, mediation has some drawbacks. In litigation, the court can compel the release of documents and information that may not be obtained through mediation. Parties in mediation may feel they don't have all of the necessary facts to settle. Because mediation is non-binding and voluntary, either side can decide not to continue with the process. Arbitration, on the other hand, tends to feel more like litigation as it follows a similar process.