For Lawyers to Double Up as Mediators, They Need to Acquire Different Skills, Listen Than Speak
- INTRODUCTION
Lawyers are trained to advocate, argue, and persuade. These skills are essential in courtrooms and adversarial proceedings. However, when lawyers transition into the role of mediators, they step into a space that demands a fundamentally different set of skills—most notably, the ability to listen rather than speak. This article explores the contrasting skill sets of lawyers and mediators, examines why active listening is crucial in mediation, and argues that without retraining, even the most skilled litigators may struggle to become effective mediators. - LAWYERS AND MEDIATORS: A SHIFT IN MINDSET
Legal training emphasizes adversarial thinking. Law students are taught to “think like a lawyer”—to dissect arguments, challenge assumptions, and push for their client’s best outcome. This mindset is essential in litigation, but it may hinder conflict resolution in mediation settings.
In contrast, mediators are neutral facilitators. Their role is not to decide who is right, but to help both parties find common ground. This requires emotional intelligence, neutrality, and patience. Mediators must manage emotions, build trust, and support communication—not dominate it. As such, the transition from lawyer to mediator requires more than a new title; it requires a shift in values and techniques. - LISTENING AS A CORE MEDIATION SKILL
In law, success often depends on how well one speaks. In mediation, success often depends on how well one listens. Listening allows mediators to understand each party’s underlying interests, not just their stated positions. Unlike courtroom arguments, where the goal is to win, mediation is about helping people feel heard and respected.
Studies show that parties are more likely to settle when they feel their perspectives have been acknowledged.1 Active listening—using body language, verbal cues, and reflection—helps establish that acknowledgment. Lawyers must learn to step back from interrupting, reframing, or steering the discussion. Instead, they must create space for parties to speak and process their own emotions. - COMMUNICATION STYLES: ADVOCACY VS. FACILITATION
Lawyers are trained to speak persuasively, often using rhetorical devices to emphasize a client’s legal position. In mediation, such techniques can come across as manipulative or adversarial. Mediators must adopt a facilitative communication style. This includes open-ended questioning, summarizing, and reframing statements to reduce tension.
For example, if a party says, “I’ll never work with them again,” a lawyer might respond with a strategy. A mediator, however, might reframe: “It sounds like trust has been damaged. Can we explore what led to that?” This kind of gentle, non-judgmental communication encourages dialogue and resolution. - NEUTRALITY AND THE CHALLENGE FOR LAWYERS
Perhaps the hardest shift for lawyers-turned-mediators is giving up advocacy. Lawyers are trained to take sides; mediators must remain neutral. Even subtle expressions of opinion can undermine trust in the process. To maintain neutrality, mediators must manage their own biases and avoid offering legal advice during mediation sessions.
This requires retraining and self-awareness. While many lawyers are tempted to “fix” the conflict by proposing solutions, true mediation requires patience and letting the parties develop their own agreements. This shift can be uncomfortable, but is essential for success. - TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION: BRIDGING THE SKILL GAP
Most jurisdictions now require specific mediation training for lawyers who want to act as mediators. These programs often include simulations, feedback, and instruction in emotional intelligence, cultural competency, and de-escalation techniques.2 They also teach mediators how to manage power imbalances—something legal training rarely addresses.
Incorporating mediation training into continuing legal education (CLE) requirements can help lawyers better understand when and how to use mediation effectively. More importantly, it equips them to transition successfully between advocate and facilitator roles. - CONCLUSION
For lawyers to serve effectively as mediators, they must learn to listen more and speak less. Mediation is not a “soft” version of litigation; it is a fundamentally different process with distinct values and techniques. Without retraining, lawyers risk importing adversarial habits into a setting that demands collaboration and empathy.
The legal profession must recognize that mediation is not just another legal service—it is a different discipline. Lawyers who wish to enter this field must commit to learning its language: the language of listening.This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, practicing divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. This article is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer/advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.
