THE LAW SOCIETY'S SOLICIT ORS' ANNUAL CONFERENCE 1998This year's conference will be held at Bournemouth International Centre on 23 and 24 October.

It is accredited for ten hours of continuing professional development and is aimed at all solicitors.-- THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: adventures and experiments in dispute resolutionThis session looks at arbitration, mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution; and how to approach the drafting of ADR and arbitration clauses in commercial contracts.

The first part covers explanations of ADR in its various manifestations in both a European and international context.

The second part features a role play between an in-house lawyer and a solicitor from private practice instructed to draft a contract on behalf of the company.The session will be chaired by Richard Hegarty, a Law Society Council member, and panellists include Deanna Levine, chair of the Law Society's commercial mediation committee and Karl Mackie, chief executive of CEDR.ADR SURVEYResults from a recent survey of the construction industry found that lawyers lagged well behind their professional colleagues when it came to being chosen as an adjudicator to settle commercial disputes.The Cameron McKenna survey -- where a questionnaire was sent to 3,500 members of the construction industry, with a 9% response rate -- showed that only 13% of businesses working in the industry identified solicitors as the first choice professional to hear disputes under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 part II.

Quantity surveyors topped the table with 25% followed by engineers (17%) and architects (14%) (see [1998] Gazette, 4 June, 8).Ann Minogue, a construction law partner at Cameron McKenna, says that what she found surprising was the level of antagonism directed towards the possibility of solicitors fulfilling the role of adjudicator.

Ms Minogue says the survey showed that in some instances respondents reported they would never 'in any circumstances' choose a solicitor.

'There is a kind of emotional feeling in the construction industry that large parts of the industry's woes are caused by the intervention of lawyers,' adds Ms Minogue.

No doubt, says Ms Minogue, other members of the industry decided they did not want to have legal professionals, used to dealing with an adversarial system, sitting in judgment over them in adjudication, which is an inquisitorial arena.

Conversely, Ms Minogue suspects that many of the small number who did opt for solicitors in the survey did so only because they mistakenly associated the adjudication procedure with the court system.

Centre for Dispute Resolution (CEDR) figures released this month show that construction and engineering disputes represent the majority of the work it undertakes.

However, Peter Long, an accredited CEDR mediator and also a partner with Cameron McKenna, says alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in construction disputes is not growing as fast as it might.

He says this is particularly surprising given the 'unpopularity' of the courts.

Mr Long maintains the ADR choice for clients can sometimes be confusing.

There is after all adjudication, arbitration, mediation, conciliation, expert determination and negotiation.The Cameron McKenna survey raises wider questions about the suitability of solicitors to act as dispute handlers in all these forms of dispute resolution.

CEDR co-founder David Miles, a partner at London-based commercial lawyers Glovers, says that in the same way that there is no obvious reason why a lawyer should automatically make a good mediator, they sh ould not necessarily be the first choice as an adjudicator.

Mr Miles says: 'You are better off having a good engineer than a mediocre solicitor adjudicator.

But it does depend on the nature of the dispute.'CEDR clearly places great store in its lawyer mediators.

Of the 550 CEDR accredited mediators, 250 are solicitors.CEDR chief executive Karl Mackie says: 'Lawyers' natural tendency is to focus on strictly legal issues.

This said, those that do become accredited make extremely effective mediators.

Their legal training provides an effective approach to problem solving.'David Shapiro is the former head of litigation at a leading Washington law firm, a qualified CEDR mediator, and now a consultant at SJ Berwin & Co, where he runs the firm's ADR unit.

He argues that neither mediation nor adjudication require experts to hear the disputes.

To illustrate this point he says that when he was once asked by parties considering using him as a mediator what he knew about pizza crust technology he replied: 'What do you want, an expert pizza maker or an expert mediator?'Mr Shapiro says ignorance of the subject can in fact be a positive feature of a mediation.

Many mediations are successful because the mediator, in his quest for knowledge, has brought both parties together by forcing them to teach the mediator about the industry.Mr Miles acknowledges that solicitor demand for CEDE training places outstrips supply.

He says: 'Lawyers want to understand the ADR process.'Adds Mr Mackie: 'Lawyers who come on the CEDR mediator training course have to unlearn certain skills.

Their legal training by its very nature is based on the adversarial process where mediation is a negotiation process.'Despite all this, notes Peter Long, most cases still proceed to litigation, which, of course, is a more expensive alternative to ADR.