Why is it that with the political will for mediation so much in evidence - when the market's professional indemnity insurers are starting to pledge, publicly, their commitment - reluctance remains entrenched within the profession that stands most to benefit?Here at the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) I have seen mediation at first hand and I know it works.

Around 80% of the cases the SIF has taken to mediation have settled either during the mediation or shortly afterwards.

It is not difficult to see why this should be so.

Speed of process, flexibility of approach, greater variety of solutions, focus on conciliation rather than confrontation and, of course, huge cost savings are all features of the mediation process.The latter, quite understandably, attracts the most interest and I am often asked to define the cost savings achieved through mediation.

This is notoriously difficult, involving as it does an estimation of exactly what would have happened had the case gone to trial.

However, one of the SIF's panel firms, which is frequently involved in mediations, estimates a cost saving that could easily reach £40,000 per case.I am not convinced by the argument that relatively few cases are suitable.

The SIF has mediated claims across almost the whole spectrum of solicitors' professional negligence, from conveyancing to matrimonial, employment to personal injury.

The most common involve commercial disputes, in which mediation gives business people a forum for making commercial decisions.

Frequently, there will be a business relationship between the claimant and the solicitor that both parties want to maintain if possible.Another common area is 'lost chance' personal injury claims, ie, cases struck out because of a missed time limit.

By the time the claimant has instructed another solicitor to sue the original, he has often had quite enough of the legal process and is happy to try something else.The recent decision by the legal aid board to fund mediations is very encouragi ng.

The legally aided litigant is frequently an 'ordinary' person, often with a strong sense of personal grievance or injustice.

The flexible environment of a mediation, allowing the claimant to make his or her feelings known, put across the sense of wrong and even, from time to time, let off steam, will, I believe, greatly aid settlement in such cases.Occasionally, mediation will not be an appropriate means of settlement.

For example, if a legal principle is involved or when, on an issue of interpretation, the guidance of a court is needed.

However such cases are rare and, as a general rule, settlement by mediation should not be the exception as at present, but the norm.I have said that the mediation snowball has begun to roll.

I believe that the SIF, seeing as it does the full spectrum of negligence cases against solicitors, is in a unique position to give it a huge push forward.

Already the SIF is sharing knowledge of how mediation works, encouraging its uptake, building automatic consideration of its suitability for each case into SIF systems and putting pressure on SIF panel firms to encourage its use whenever possible.

I have no doubt that, in 12 months time, mediation will have become far more commonplace, thanks, in part, to the work done by the SIF and some of its panel firms.However professional indemnity is provided in the future, the pressure to reduce the annual claims cost can only escalate and the ability of any insurer to seek new and innovative ways of settling disputes, without resorting to the time-honoured and costly process of litigation, will be of paramount importance.Otherwise, for how long will we continue to watch the cost of professional indemnity claims against solicitors rise and see the profession locked, often for months on end, in an uncertain and costly process of litigation, before we accept that a very attractive alternative exists?