The above three authors recently wrote a fairly in-depth response to Adi Gavrila's article titled "What Went Wrong With Mediation."
From the beginning of the article:
In a thought-provoking article authored for Mediate.com, “What Went Wrong With Mediation”, my long-time friend and esteemed colleague Adi Gavrila discussed, amongst other things, the methodology, findings, and recommendations of the European study. In this little article, I would like to correct Adi’s errors on some material aspects of the study and, using his comments about the study, address other arguments he makes. My discussion, I hope, will explain the title for my article, which I devote to all those who – in my view – are placing their hopes on a false Prince Charming.
Adi is correct in pointing out that the number of cases being mediated remains disappointing, both in the US and the EU.
And then much later here is the what I think is a good way to defend mandatory mediation. First, I am not saying I agree or disagree with mandatory mediation, what I am saying is his analogy is a great way for them to defend their opinion:
I argue that the human being’s initial, natural response to a legal conflict (or the threat of it) is not mediation, but litigation--despite the fact that, overall, the better approach, at least in the vast majority of the cases, is an amicable process. My point is the following: people know that wearing a seat belt or a helmet is good for them (and society); still, we have laws compelling that behavior. A “culture of safe driving” alone won’t do it.