The Lord Chancellor's consulta tion paper, 'Looking to the future' (Cm 2424), which explores the practicalities of mediation in divorce, represents a challenge to the traditional adversarial approach of courts and lawyers in family law disputes.

Central to the thinking in the paper is a desire to reduce the involvement of lawyers and the courts (see para 21).

The dominant motive behind the paper is a desire to reduce the legal aid bill, although the most persuasive argument for change is the need to take as much bitterness out of divorce as possible.The paper (the future of which has recently been the subject of speculation in the press, see page 5) recognises that in some cases mediation will be inappropriate and envisages a residual role for the adversarial approach.

The Law Commission acknowledged that exceptions would be necessary in, for example, cases of domestic violence (see Law Com 192).

Neither the Law Commission nor the Lord Chancellor's paper propose to make mediation compulsory, although alternatives may only be available to those who can afford them.If the divorce reform proposals do not fall victim to the back to basics crusade, it is likely that mediation will become the standard mechanism for resolving matrimonial disputes.

What are the implications for family lawyers?At one extreme, the role of family lawyers could be reduced to that of drawing up 'divorce contracts' as under the less adversarial French and Dutch civil law systems.

A professional mediator would replace the family lawyer as the facilitator of the divorce settlement.Under this model, lawyers would act on behalf of both parties and give legal effect to a mediated agreement.

Family lawyers' relationship with their clients would be akin to that of conveyancing lawyers acting for joint purchasers.There would be a duty to advise on the legal implications of the agreement for each of the parties.

If problems were identified, the family lawyer would have to refer them back to mediation or to separate lawyers who would deal with the case if the adversarial approach was the only way forward.

Under no circumstances could the lawyer suggest that one of the parties would be ill advised to enter into the agreement.

The opportunity for intervention would be minimal.

One major attraction for the government of this approach is its relative cheapness.An alternative model (already a feature of many in-court conciliation schemes) would be to involve family lawyers directly by enabling each party to bring their own lawyer to the mediation sessions.

This presents problems not unlike those arising from the attendance of lawyers at child protection case conferences, namely the danger that the adversarial approach will be adopted and disrupt what is essentially a conciliatory process.However, experience has shown that suitably trained lawyers can contribute much to the conciliatory approach rather than go all out to get the 'best deal' for their client.

Their role would be to advise their client whilst accepting the ethos of the mediation process in which their client has agreed to participate.Is it realistic to expect lawyers to abandon their adversarial instincts and guard their client's interest within the give and take of a mediated settlement? Such an approach has implications for solicitors' training - this may well be a feature of the ADR element of the new legal practice course.For the government this is probably the least attractive model as it will increase costs.

The figures from the Joseph Rowntree conciliation project based at Newcastle University indicate that the average co st of a mediation was £557.

However, it appears that this figure is artificially low as a result of subsidisation by the lawyers and mediators involved.The final model is that of the lawyer mediator.

There are a number of possible approaches within this model.

A possibility would be to make available 'one-stop divorce settlements' where the lawyer mediator facilitates agreements between the parties and then draws up the legal documentation.

Is this acceptable? Is there a risk of unfair and inappropriate 'agreements'? Are we confusing the roles of mediator and legal adviser?A lawyer mediator could also operate alongside a non-lawyer co-mediator.

This would expose the clients to a greater range of skills.

However, the role of lawyer mediators would have to be clearly defined to avoid them becoming solely providers of legal advice.Finally, the lawyer mediator could operate in the same way as any other mediator with the clients being referred elsewhere if specific legal advice, or the drawing up of documentation, is needed.Whichever approach is adopted, there are identifiable advantages and disadvantages in the lawyer mediator approach.

Certainly lawyers bring with them a knowledge of the law and procedure, an awareness of natural justice and potential conflicts of interests, and the ability to identify what are the relevant issues.However, lawyer mediators would need to shake off their adversarial instincts and be prepared to accept the mediation culture.

The key issues would be appropriate training for potential lawyer mediators, and the acceptance by the legal profession of this new breed of lawyers with mediation expertise.

Furthermore, it would be essential that they were enabled further to develop those skills - mediation would have to be a substantial part of their workload rather than something squeezed in between their 'real cases'.The demise of family lawyers is not imminent, but their role could well change radically.

Mediation is not necessarily a threat for those who recognise the need for change and are prepared to rise to the challenge.

Within each of the three models examined above the lawyer would have a role to play, albeit not yet clearly defined.

Defining this role is something the profession must address without delay.