In divorce mediation, two spouses contemplating divorce work with each other and with a skilled professional who has been trained to help them mutually resolve issues of parenting, property, and support. The divorce agreement is negotiated cooperatively, and neither party wins at the expense of the other. A judge must approve any settlement agreement during the dissolution hearing, and independent legal counsel must prepare a legally binding agreement that reflects the results of the mediation and also represents the parties in the court proceeding. Yet, mediation remains a distinctive conflict-reducing technique that is neither the practice of law nor of therapy. The mediation profession, however, faces potential criticisms from both the established bar and therapists. Lawyers criticize mediation because it is not a reflection of the adversarial process in which they are trained, and they further argue that it amounts to the practice of law by mediators who may not be members of the bar. Therapists tend to challenge mediation because it employs the psychological principles of conflict resolution without adhering to many of the goals and techniques of therapy. Both lawyers and therapists must come to accept that mediation is neither a challenge to nor a hybrid of their professions but rather a distinctive practice requiring distinctive professional skills. Allies of mediation tend to be judges who appreciate the capacity of mediation to reduce overcrowded court dockets without reducing the court's ultimate authority over divorce agreements, lawyers who view mediation as a more effective means of handling divorce cases than the adversarial approach as well as a way to expand their incomes by serving as mediators, and therapists who view mediation as an arena appropriate for their skills and as a new source of income. This paper also describes Illinois' experience in developing professional mediators. Fourteen references are listed.