They do things differently with respect to disputes in their own country. In terms of cultural differences, the desire to conduct mediation is a contrast to the usual view of American lawyers who want to litigate to the very end. That's what we're known for, as being tough, zero-sum men and women who want to produce outcomes and winners and losers. Maybe it's that it is so counter-cultural for us to actually leave litigation that it changes the whole perception of lawyers. We push to protect client's interests, which is in our codes of professional responsibilities, and, all of a sudden, we're talking about a model where a lawyer's role is different, it's conciliating, bringing people together, reaching an agreement.
Ongoing relationships are more important than winners and losers.
It was because I realized that general counsel had been sufficiently educated to the idea that mediation was a desired alternative. So if you were a litigator, you better learn something about mediation or you wouldn't have much business with them. In Europe, general counsel are not as involved in exercising that kind of influence on their law firms. Unless the law firms become convinced they have to make this adjustment, they will not choose to do it. What you'll have is mediation by small institutional providers but not generally embraced by the practicing bar.