Is it really “clear”?

The anonymous “NJmediator” writes today,

“Clearly, as a mediator, I cannot believe that legal confrontation will lead to the best outcome, for either party.”

Is it really that clear?  Does being a mediator permanently and mutually exclude you from believing that sometimes, a “legal confrontation” is both necessary and essential to reaching the “best outcome”?

As a mediator, I believe that many (and possibly, the vast majority of) cases could be better resolved by communication, cooperation, and compromise. But I also understand the need for the adversarial legal system. Sometimes a party must fight to protect their legal rights. Sometimes compromise does not satisfy a party’s needs.

I understand njmediator’s sentiment, and it would appear from perusing the site that this opinion stems from njmediator’s family law focus; but I am not certain that I can make that jump that all litigation is bad and all mediation is good.