Backing mediation

Keith Hardington's suggestion that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and, in particular, mediation are not suited to high street work is not logical and needs to be challenged (see [2001] Gazette, 12 July, 18).If this view is shared by many high street solicitors, it is hardly surprising that high street firms have been slow to adopt mediation and other ADR methods.

By so doing they may be putting aside a course of action which the informed client would want to try.I would point out that ADR, and in particular mediation, is just as relevant to lesser value disputes.

This method may present the only practicable way of improving the situation where one or both parties does not have the financial means to litigate without subjecting itself to a conditional fee arrangement, and/or is reluctant to assume the financial risks of protracted litigation.

The advantages that mediation has over litigation in large value and complex cases - such as speed, cost saving, parties controlling the outcome, no unwanted publicity - apply equally to smaller claims.Not all disputes can be mediated but in the majority of cases it presents a higher chance of achieving a satisfactory outcome for the client, and as such it should, and in time will become, the preferred method of resolving disputes where private negotiations fail.

Solicitors, in particular those less than enthusiastic about having to fund the majority of their litigation cases themselves, should see mediation as a saving grace.The high street can assist the dispute resolution revolution by at least being willing to give mediation a try and not waiting for the courts to refer the matter to mediation.

By taking the decision to try mediation themselves, the parties significantly increase the chances of the mediation being successful.

Lawrance Randall, independent mediator, Piddlehinton, Dorset