Mediation offers both clients and solicitors benefits traditional litigation cannot, such as less stress and an apology, writes Jonathan Savitt

Mediation can be of enormous benefit to solicitors in providing a relatively cheap and quick resolution of clients' disputes, particularly in cases where the court outcome is uncertain.

We have all experienced the litigation lottery that is now very much part of modern-day court life.

The Woolf reforms, which promised speed and justice, have proved singularly unsuccessful, with cases taking considerably longer to come to a conclusion and with little certainty as to the ultimate outcome.

The advantage of mediation is that a contested case can be removed from the judicial helter-skelter at any stage.

The mediation appointment can be arranged within a few days, a meeting set up and discussions entered into, both in private with the mediator and between the parties, thereby significantly increasing the likelihood of a settlement.

The very fact that the parties have agreed to the mediation process means that the dispute is more likely to settle.

Statistically, 80% of cases referred to mediation are successfully settled.

The advantages to solicitors' practices are numerous:

- No trial bundles;

- No need for counsel, as the solicitor can easily represent the client in mediation;

- The cost of preparing for trial and the trial itself are avoided;

- Assessment of costs can be part of the mediation process, thereby avoiding the cumbersome and time-consuming costs process; and

- The prospect of losing a case on a no-win, no-fee basis is avoided.

Furthermore, there are real cost implications where a party declines an offer of mediation.

There is growing Court of Appeal case law, starting with Dunnett v Railtrack in 2002 where, despite winning its appeal, Railtrack was denied its costs for refusing to mediate.

In the recent case of Virani v Manuel Revert y Cia SA, indemnity costs were imposed on the unsuccessful appellant who refused to mediate.

Failure to forewarn clients of the costs sanction will lead to solicitors' practices being faced with inevitable claims for negligence.

I have recently settled two difficult cases through mediation.

The first, a weak personal injury claim against a local authority, was settled in mediation, two weeks before trial, on terms that the client received 3,000 and a further 3,000 in agreed legal expenses.

Had this case gone to trial, it would probably have lost.

Although the client had insurance in respect of his opponent's costs, this of course did not cover our own legal fees.

In the second case, the client's claim for unfair dismissal had a limited quantum value.

The danger here was that the employment tribunal was likely to grant a minimal compensatory award, which would have generated nominal fees as we were acting under the Law Society contingency fee agreement.

As a result of mediation, the client was able to settle her claim for 15,000, thereby generating a healthy contingency fee for my practice, and also securing for the client a written reference and letter of apology.

Clients like mediation.

Quite apart from the prospect of the case settling without the stress and expense of litigation, clients are able to seek other remedies not available within the court process, such as an apology and recognition of wrongdoing.

The client is far more likely to react positively towards the solicitors following mediation than the court process, with its attendant expense, stress, delays and arcane procedures.

Solicitors should be embracing mediation, for the sake of their clients, their profits and not least for their professional sanity.

Jonathan Savitt is a solicitor and accredited mediator at Just Mediation