I. Introduction

Any meaningful discussion of advocacy in the mediation process should begin with recognition of the  fundamental tension that exists between the two concepts. Mediation involves negotiation,  conciliation and compromise between parties who have become adverse because of a controversy or dispute. Advocacy, by contrast, seems to be the antithesis of resolution through compromise, insofar as it is premised on notions of “winning” the battle of persuasion between adversaries on  important issues such as responsibility and entitlement.

The tension between mediation and advocacy can become a positive force in the evaluative phase of  mediation if the parties and their counsel use effective advocacy techniques, mixed with common sense and good judgment, to focus the participants on the key issues, engender  constructive dialogue and bring realistic expectations to the bargaining table. Mediation advocacy  is “effective” when it raises the parties’ awareness of the benefits of settlement and the risk and cost consequences of impasse and failure.