ADR is primed for growth, as witnessed by the expansion of court-related programs, the participation of lawyers and nonlawyers in mediation training seminars, and the pledge of many businesses and large law firms to consider ADR options. Critics of ADR, however, say it is just another assault on juries and the civil justice system and charge its secret, "kangaroo" courts delivered a skewed brand of justice that fails to provide adequate remedies for weaker parties such as women and minorities. The legal profession has long had a strained relationship with ADR. A fundamental difference between mediation and binding ADR methods is that parties decide themselves how to resolve their dispute in mediation. Nonetheless, mediation raises questions not found in law, and experienced lawyers trying their hand at mediation often find the mediation process awkward and frustrating. Differences between mediation and arbitration are discussed, as well as characteristics and qualifications of mediators, ethical standards of conduct for mediators, and the integration of ADR and the law. Because mediation and other ADR techniques are often forced on litigators and their clients by courts and legislatures and the growth of ADR seems assured, attorneys need to become aware of and skilled in ADR techniques. 1 figure and 6 photographs