As I look at the current state of ADR, I can't help but think about some of the factors that have helped it get to this point. Overflowing dockets in the courts, new legislation, and contractual requirements have all helped fill the schedules of mediators around the world. Each has helped get ADR from crawling to walking. Now I ask myself, is required mediation good for the long term success of mediation.

Certainly there some perks to these required services. Many mediators get their feet wet with small claims courts ordered to mediation. It gives ADR some sort of stability and legitimacy and in many ways, provides a new source of disputants that may not have considered ADR otherwise. This may be a chance to ?convert? some non-believers. This may also be a source of losing participants. Parties may despise a program they are required to be at, especially if one doesn't believe they should be there. Currently, the Supreme Court is looking at a case debating the legalities of contractual arbitration (contracts that require disputes to be heard under an arbitrator and not a class action suit); a case that will undoubtedly effect consumer's rights and the amount of work available to ADR professionals. I can?t help but think that disputants forced to fight credit card charges in an arbitration would get a dirty taste in their mouth if they deemed the process unfair.

I don't have a definite answer to this question. I can only say that using this help should be used with caution. Like any business, its bad to depend on business that could be taken away without warning. The courts could easily strike down any legislation that requires an ADR activity. I believe the best thing ADR can do is wean itself off the help and promote itself as a beneficial voluntary process that can help before it becomes required. (I think this will also lead to more success within the mediation as well)

So what do you think? Should this be something to worry about or am I just making a fuss over nothing?