For the past 15 years there has been growing support for mediation as a better way of settling matrimonial disputes, yet the legal reins have been firmly held against a precipitate social work takeover.

Current proposals for divorce reform have been met with cynicism: a government anxious to reduce the legal aid bill is erroneously viewing mediation as a panacea, promoting a system of private ordering which threa tens to undermine the protection afforded individuals by legal principles and due process.

But is this a realistic scenario?Suddenly, mediation has become a prized commodity: increasing numbers of lawyers are seeking specialist training.

Mediators have been anxious that lawyers will 'take over' mediation practice, while the lawyers are concerned that mediators will acquire sufficient legal skills to render solicitors redundant in family law matters.In reality, however, what is emerging is a new partnership between lawyers and family mediators which has the potential to offer clients an alternative approach.

Divorcing couples increasingly recognise the value of consensual decision-making, yet they look to lawyers to provide technical competence, particularly in relation to financial and property matters, and to act as a safeguard against injustice arising from conflicts of interest.The technical competence is becoming integral to the mediation process as lawyers step into a different role, while solicitors giving partisan advice and reassurance provide support for couples before, during or beyond mediation.

These shifts do not necessarily challenge the role of lawyers in divorce, but merely change their arena of influence.What we seem to require is a highly flexible organisational forum which can respond to the problems associated with the dissolution of marriage.

Just as we seek to create co-operative relations between separating couples, so too, changes in family law enhance opportunities for new professional connections and co-operation.Janet Walker.In 1976 Australia adopted no-fault divorce, coupled with mandatory conciliation, to replace a fault-based adversarial system very similar to that still used in England and Wales.

As a lawyer who practises in both jurisdictions, I have been invited to offer a view on the proposed divorce law reforms outlined in the government's green paper.Judging by the Australian experience, family lawyers in this jurisdiction have little to fear from no-fault divorce and mandatory conciliation.

Australian lawyers experienced a massive increase in work after the 1976 changes.

There was a huge leap in divorces from 1976 to 1978, after which the figures dropped back, although never to pre-reform levels.

More pertinently, the number of financial and child-related applications has grown steadily, with periodic fluctuations, in the two decades since reform.

Mandatory conciliation does not mean less work for lawyers, but rather a change in our work practices.Currently in Australia about half of all disputes over money and children are resolved in conciliation and, as in England, only about 5% of such disputes go to a judge for determination.

In both jurisdictions lawyers settle about 95% of their matrimonial cases, with or without the assistance of conciliation services.There are, however, significant procedural differences between the Australian system and the current practice here.

Most importantly, the Australian system mandates detailed pleadings of the parties' claims in initiating applications and the Family Court of Australia operates strict case management guidelines to supervise litigation and conciliation procedures.

The relative success of the Australian system lies as much in the procedural and administrative efficiency of the Family Court as in the statutory framework.The most important lesson to be learned from the Australian experience is that legislative reform of the divorce law needs to be backed up with procedural and administrative changes, including robust supervision of matrimonial litigation by the courts.

This is the most effective way to reduce the cost of divorce.David Truex.The publication of the green paper on divorce reform and mediation in December 1993 caused concern amongst divorce lawyers and mediators for different reasons.

Family lawyers saw their livelihood under further threat by a government which seemed determined to exclude them from certain areas of family law, eg child maintenance, and to reduce their income, eg by cuts in the availability of legal aid.

Mediators were delighted that mediation seemed at last to be receiving proper recognition, but apprehensive that without substantial public funding they would not be able to cope with compulsory mediation of an estimated 150,000 divorces each year.From my perspective as both a family lawyer and mediator it is now tolerably clear that many of the proposals in the green paper will make little difference to our professional lives.

The LCD has now indicated that compulsory mediation is an unlikely prospect, and the rapidly escalating cost of litigation in recent years has already concentrated the minds of experienced family lawyers to encourage clients to choose compromise rather than confrontation as a means of resolving disputes.The new proposals can, however, be a positive stimulus to all of us to examine critically our current practices.

The availability and use of mediation schemes will depend both on funding and the attitude of the profession.

Mediation can never provide a magic remedy appropriate in every case, but surely it should always be actively considered by every family lawyer who really wants to provide the best possible service to clients.Mary Kane.1994