Why the most effective advocates know that professionalism and persuasion go hand in hand
Over the years, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has moved from the margins of legal practice to its center. According to the State of ADR 2026 report, commissioned by JAMS and conducted by Law.com, 99% of practitioners now use ADR in at least some matters, and 87% rely on mediation as a core part of their dispute resolution toolkit. ADR is no longer an alternative. It is a time-tested means of preventing litigation and resolving disputes.
While ADR, by its very nature, is not an adversarial process, its effectiveness depends on an important factor that is often overlooked: civility. The dictionary definition of “civility” is “formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech.” When it comes to resolving complex, high-stakes matters, how parties and counsel conduct themselves bears on the outcome. Civility is more than just etiquette. It is also a strategy for ADR success.
In the eyes of some, civility can be misinterpreted as a sign of weakness. Nothing could be further from the truth. Civility is, in fact, not a concession. When applied intentionally, it can be a competitive mindset leading to better outcomes.
There is a persistent myth in adversarial legal culture that aggressive, combative behavior signals strength and reassures clients that you're fighting for them. In practice, the opposite is often true. Hostility can impede progress. It can create delays and an environment where honest negotiation becomes nearly impossible. It may also bleed into the attorney-client relationship. When counsel adopts the emotional tenor of a client's anger rather than managing it, the dispute escalates in ways that serve no one.
The attorneys who understand this take a different path. They understand you can fight hard for your client without making the conflict worse. Zealous advocacy and respectful advocacy are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the most effective advocates are often the ones who project credibility, maintain composure under pressure and preserve enough of a working relationship with opposing counsel to actually get the deal done.
ADR processes, particularly mediation, are designed to create space for the kind of honest dialogue that is the antithesis of confrontational. Mediators repeatedly describe the same dynamic: Parties frequently need to feel heard before they can move toward resolution. When managed well, the mediation session provides that opportunity. Both sides get to say what they came to say. The neutral serves as a trusted go-between, learning where each side's real bottom line sits and helping each party understand the other's position without losing face.
The ADR process is perfectly suited to cooler heads prevailing, creating an atmosphere that welcomes civil dialogue.
Civility shouldn’t be a thing that gets activated only when you walk through the door of a mediation or arbitration. Instead, it should be employed throughout the entire arc of a dispute—before, during and after.
Before the process begins, how attorneys communicate with each other sets the tone. Do they manage their client's anger or amplify it? Do they look for opportunities to narrow issues, or do they treat every interaction as a chance to posture? The answers will affect how prepared both sides are when they enter the room, how much time gets consumed by ancillary conflict and whether any goodwill remains to facilitate settlement.
The shift toward virtual practice has made this harder. Previous generations of attorneys built relationships over lunches, hallway conversations and post-deposition drinks. These informal interactions created the personal trust that smoothed adversarial proceedings. That connective tissue has atrophied. In a world where much professional engagement now happens virtually on screens, the incidental relationship-building that once occurred automatically must now be intentional. The implications for civility and for dispute resolution are real.
The benefits of civility in ADR aren't abstract. They are practical and measurable. Taking such an approach can lead to:
This is not a call for attorneys to be less aggressive; it’s a call for them to be more strategic. Civility is not about giving ground; it's about not wasting energy on conflict that doesn't advance the client's interests.
ADR offers a proven track record where attorneys regularly achieve objectives through a more civil, less confrontational process. It is also important to keep in mind that those who embrace civility are modeling this behavior for the next generation of attorneys, who are still learning what it looks like to fight hard and fight clean at the same time. This begs the question, is taking a more civil approach to legal practice as a whole not worth serious consideration?
Gina Miller is senior vice president of operations at JAMS, where she oversees operations, client experience initiatives and strategic business development. With extensive leadership experience across case management, marketing and practice development, she is also a frequent speaker and author on ADR. She can be reached at gmiller@jamsadr.com.
# # #
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。