I'd propose a different breakdown of the percentages for people at the start of their careers. I'd say that at the beginning, the numbers come out to something like 80% marketing, 18% floundering about and trying to work out what the hell you're doing since you still don't know how to mediate well, and 2% making any money at it.

I'd also point out that it's interesting how narrowly we see the range of mediatable disputes. We tend to think of mediation as a last-ditch effort to settle a case before trial. There'd be more opportunities for mediators if many more of us recognized - and helped clients understand - that not every dispute arises in law. Many disputes that lend themselves well to mediation lie beyond the reach of the shadow of the courthouse. They have no answers in the law and cannot be resolved through litigation. Here's where the "alternative" in ADR makes no sense ("alternative" as in "alternative to court"). I think in fact that the "A" in "ADR" has done us all a disservice. The way it frames mediation limits our ability to see the full range of possibilities. It's like looking at the world of disputes through the cardboard tube inside a roll of toilet paper.

Remember too that mediation is assisted negotiation. Mediation is ideal for helping people structure deals to prevent disputes from arising later and to maximize gains for all sides.

I do believe that mediators and prospective clients would prosper if we thought more broadly about the applications for mediation.Just something to think about. Thanks, Vickie, for another superb post.

Ironically, I've been trying to get someone with whom I have a dispute into mediation for nearly a year. Perhaps we've trained the entire population that they needn't resolve what LOOK like legal disputes without being sued first. I haven't filed suit yet but I'm afraid I need the big stick to get the person who should be my bargaining partner and not my opponent to the negotiation table.

I'm sure you play the Prisoners' Dilemma game with your mediation students, teaching everyone that tit for tat (cooperate, defect if your partner defects, forgive quickly for a return to cooperation) remains the most effective dispute resolution process around (to be neither victim nor bully).

Litigation is often the retaliatory defection that can lead to resolution if the lawyers and their clients understand that there is always far more at stake (and more to lose) in any "legal" dispute that the law is set up to handle.

As Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, says: "litigation is just a business negotiation being conducted in the courts," to which I would add, and which should quickly be morphed into an opportunity to make a business deal.