Adapted andtranslated from the original French article « À la retraite, je serai médiateur» : un mythe à déconstruire. Published on https://www.actu-juridique.fr/marl/a-la-retraite-je-serai-mediateur-un-mythe-a-deconstruire/and co-written with Elsa Costa, Mediator.

A tenacious idea circulates in professional circles,particularly among lawyers, judges and senior executives approaching the end oftheir careers: that mediation offers a natural, gentle landing — a way to stayintellectually active, put decades of experience to use, and render a serviceto society, all without the pressures of litigation or corporate life. Thisvision presents mediation as a second professional life accessible withoutgenuine preparation or personal transformation. It is a myth, and its effectsare far from harmless. This article, focused on generalist mediation (excludingthe distinct fields of family and social mediation), examines where thisreductive representation comes from and why mediation now demands fullrecognition as an autonomous profession.

How the myth took hold

A simplifying social perception

Mediation is sometimes called "the oldest profession in the world," rooted in ancestral practices of dialogue: Socratic maieuticsin ancient Greece, the African art of the palabre, Confucian traditions in Asia, healing circles among the indigenous peoples of North America and Oceania. These origins testify to a universal aspiration to resolve conflictpeacefully — but they have also shaped an image of mediation as a peacefulinterlude, the opposite of the pressure and stress that make up a courtroom'sexperience.

The philosophy of mediation reinforces this impression. It privileges cooperation, flexibility and inventiveness over the adversariallogic of victory in court. The mediator has no power or willingness to impose a decision; the parties negotiate and craft their own agreement. Yet these principles, far from indicating a lack of rigour, reflect a differentconception of normativity — one grounded not in the authority of the State or an arbitrator, but in party autonomy in pursuit of an amicable resolution. Thewidespread belief that mediation demands little emotional or intellectual investment, and that agreements emerge through polite conversation and commonsense alone, profoundly misreads the discipline.

Institutional discourse and the trap of "free" mediation

Public institutions have compounded the problem. Across regional authorities, national employment agencies and even the French Ministry of Justice, official communications consistently promote free access to mediation as its principal selling point. The intention — removing financial barriers between institutions and dissatisfied users — is legitimate. But the framing is misleading: "free" mediators are in fact remunerated by the commissioning institution, ultimately by the taxpayer. Worse, the rhetoricof gratuity instils in the public mind the notion that a mediator's work has no market value, quietly devaluing the entire activity.

An economic reality that feeds the myth

The belief that "you cannot make a living from mediation" is largely self-sustaining. Hundreds of newly trained mediatorsenter the market each year around the world. According to a study conducted in the United States, roughly 80% of trained mediators do not earn enough from mediation and must maintain another professional activity in parallel. Only about 5% of the most recognized mediators receive enough cases to generate comfortable revenue, in a strongly polarised, winner-takes-all market. Another analysis, published in 2018, estimated that 90% of the work goes to 10% of mediators — and that within that group, only 1% earn incomes comparable tothose of lawyers.

The consequence is circular: many practitioners treat mediation as a retirement supplement, which distorts the market to the detriment of full-time mediators and locks the profession into an economic model reserved for those who no longer need to earn a living from it.

Yet the potential demand is immense. In France alone, courtshanded down over 1.9 million civil and commercial decisions in 2024, alongsidenearly 300,000 administrative cases — with ever-lengthening delays. If evenhalf of these disputes were channelled towards amicable resolution, tens ofthousands of mediators would be needed. The shortage of cases is therefore lessa question of demand than of the absence of institutional mechanisms allowinglarge-scale professional deployment. Mediation remains confined to the marginsor mobilised too late, when it could operate systematically from the firstsigns of tension — and even upstream, through project and preventive mediation.

The confusion of dual roles

Advertising oneself simultaneously as a lawyer and a mediator, or as an HR director and a mediator, risks confusing the very peopleinvited to a mediation. These roles rest on fundamentally different postures. The lawyer analyses, qualifies, advises, builds strategy and argues to win — apartisan, results-oriented stance. The mediator, by contrast, is a neutral, impartial and independent third party whose task is to create a secure space for dialogue, foster mutual understanding, and accompany the parties towards a solution they build themselves — never advising, never deciding, always equidistant. The mediator draws on skills largely foreign to legal reasoning: relationaldynamics, active listening, emotional regulation, negotiation facilitation, informed by psychology, non-violent communication and behavioural economics.

Moving from advocacy to mediation is not a lateral step but a genuine paradigm shift, both professional and personal. Practice confirms the difficulty: in court-ordered mediations, parties and their counsel frequently struggle to abandon adversarial reflexes in favor of collaboration and co-construction.

Towards a fully-fledged profession

Strengthening the regulatory framework

The absence of mandatory certification encourages candidates to enter the field with excessive optimism and little awareness of its realdemands. In France, the National Mediation Council (Conseil national de la médiation, CNM), created by law in 2021 and installed in 2023, marks a majorprogress: it is tasked with proposing a code of ethics, establishing national standards for training and certification, and harmonising practice. But as apurely consultative body, it holds no regulatory or disciplinary power. Quality remains fragile without binding standards, evaluation mechanisms and sanctionsfor ethical breaches. The next step is either an evolution of the CNM or thecreation of a dedicated body with powers of accreditation, oversight and discipline — on the model of Belgium's Federal Mediation Commission. Such areform would serve a dual purpose: genuine professional recognition for mediators, and effective guarantees of competence and probity for the public.

A regulated profession — without losing mediation'ssoul

Mediation already qualifies, in France, as a liberal profession; it is not yet a regulated one, whose access and practice are conditioned by law on specific qualifications. Regulation would guarantee high standards and credibility, though it carries risks of rigidity and uniformity. The example of psychologists in France shows that regulation need not mean a professional order: registration with public authorities or national registers offers a lighter alternative, capable of preserving the creativity, autonomy and flexibility at the heart of mediation. Regulation would also require careful treatment of dual practice with other regulated professions, within compatibility regimes and conflict-of-interest safeguards comparable to thosealready in place with other professions.

A profession to be relearned

Modern mediation emerged in structured form in the United States in the 1970s under the ADR banner, propelled by the Harvard NegotiationProject (1979) and the Program on Negotiation (1983), before spreading to Europe in the 1980s and 1990s. Today's mediator must master negotiationfundamentals, the psychology of individuals in conflict, and the decision-making processes of the organizations concerned. Basic training courses — 30 to 40 hours in the United States, up to 200 hours in France — areonly a minimal foundation. True professionalization rests on advanced study, recognised certification and, above all, regular practice sustained by peerintervision and reflective analysis. Former lawyers, judges, executives and HR professionals must fundamentally rethink their relationship to conflict:mediation's posture, ethics and skills derive neither from managementexperience nor from legal practice, however prestigious.

Building a new reputation

Finally, a reputation earned in litigation or corporate leadership does not transfer automatically. A name built on combativeness or the intransigent defence of client interests can even prove counterproductive in a practice founded on trust, listening and neutrality. Establishing oneself as a mediator means patiently building relationships with judges, lawyers and business leaders, speaking at conferences, publishing, and obtaining recognized certifications — a long-term, total commitment.

Conclusion

Mediation must no longer be imagined as an undemanding pastime for the end of a career, but recognized as a rigorous discipline withits own skills, ethics and professional identity. Its potential is immense; for now, success is assured only to a minority. The keys are competence, specialisation — and the willingness to devote oneself to mediation fully, not incidentally.

‍