SOLICITORS LIKE MEDIATION, JUDGING BY THE NUMBER OF MEDIATION GROUPS THEY ARE SETTING UP, SUE ALLEN FINDSThe Centre for Dispute Resolution (CEDR) celebrates its tenth anniversary this year and the accreditation of its 1,000th mediator.

Those at the group and other mediation providers say demand has exploded in the past 12 months.

But the evidence so far suggests that solicitors are keener on becoming mediators themselves than their clients are on using the service.After a decade of meditations, CEDR, like other providers, is still hamstrung by the inevitable confidentiality clauses that attach to mediated settlements.

Of all its concluded cases, there are few that can be spoken about.

One is its involvement in the conclusion last year of an £850 million claim arising out of the British & Commonwealth Holdings' disastrous acquisition of Atlantic Computers, which was subsequently found to be riddled with liabilities.

CEDR was also involved in brokering a settlement between boxing promoter Frank Warren and former world super middleweight boxing champion Richie Woodall when relations soured.Despite CEDR's difficulty in promoting its success on the back of high-profile cases, figures released by the centre show that people are definitely turning to mediators more regularly.

The trend was helped by Lord Woolf's civil justice reforms last April which gave judges the power to stay actions where parties wanted to explore alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Perhaps more importantly, judges can also look at the conduct of the parties, including efforts to resolve disputes, when awarding costs.Since its establishment in 1990, CEDR has undertaken more than 1,000 mediations; around half were completed in the last year, a 100% increase on the 252 undertaken in the preceding 12 months.Figures from mediation firm ADR Group reveal a three-fold increase in its workload; it dealt with around 123 mediations in the six months up to March this year.

Although figures show a clear rise in the number of people using mediation, the overall take-up remains relatively low.

Particularly when compa red with the two million cases issued in the county courts last year, 99,000 of which were settled by trial or arbitration before a judge.A low current take-up rate for mediation does not seem to be acting as a deterrent to providers, particularly those from the legal profession.

Each month, the number of organisations offering mediation services is growing.

Old players, like CEDR and the ADR Group, have now been joined by young Turks: the Panel of Independent Mediators (PIM), Dispute Mediation, Association of Mediation Solicitors, and the London Mediation Service to name just a few which have sprung up over the last year or so.

Some time ago, The British Association of Lawyer Mediators snapped up the most appropriate acronym of the lot -- BALM.Although there is no central body recording the number of individuals trained to undertake mediations, CEDR and the ADR group together boast around 950 mediators on their panels.

This takes no account of those working through smaller groups.

So the providers are there in force, many of whom are solicitors.Those involved in mediation are enthusiastic about its potential.

The rise in the number of solicitors qualifying and joining CEDR or one of its counterparts indicates the strong belief in the profession that mediation is a growth area and a money-spinner for the future as other sources of work dry up.While some organisations offer free mediations, these are rare in the civil non-family field, and remuneration is good.Although rates vary depending on which organisation is quoting a fee, a CEDR mediator can expect to earn between £450 and £2,500 a day depending on the size and complexity of case and their experience.

ADR Group mediators are paid a minimum of £405 to undertake a mediation and £135 for each hour after the first three hours, although a spokesman for the company said the rates were often considerably higher.The opportunity to make money from providing mediation services and its importance as a service to keep clients happy have been spotted by firms of all sizes.A glimpse at Chambers' Guide to the Legal Profession shows that many firms have embraced the change by a rapid renaming of former fearsome litigation departments to 'dispute resolution' groups.

As Chambers says, '"aggressive" may cease to be a compliment'.

CMS Cameron McKenna has gone so far as to train all its litigation partners to become accredited mediators.Tim Hardy, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Camerons, says the whole point in training partners in mediation is to encourage clients to use it.

'It is frequently in clients' best interest to use mediation rather than to litigate because of time, cost and to maintain relationships.

The best way to explain it is to draw on experience both in mediations with clients and as a mediator,' he explains.John Roney, head of litigation at London firm Lee & Pembertons, admits that the business opportunity presented by mediation was part of the motivation in founding the London Mediation Service.

The group targets disputes of up to £15,000, but will deal with disputes of any size.

The group was set up as a business opportunity, a service to clients and a means of maintaining his own qualification as a mediator, he says.

Although he admits that as a business venture, there is not enough work to go round at present.Tony Willis, former head of litigation of Clifford Chance, a qualified CEDR mediator and one of the founder members of the seven-strong PIM -- which specialises in high-value, multi-party disputes -- agrees.

But he adds that from a pe rsonal point-of-view it has been a 'pleasant surprise' that his work as a mediator has become a 'viable business activity' over the last year.

It will not make 'millions but it is rewarding and adding value in the way we want to', he says.Mr Willis concedes that in business disputes, 'there is little doubt that mediators would like more work .

.

.

however, that is the nature of a growing market which obviously depends on take-up.' He adds that mediation would receive a boost if personal injury, which accounts for more than half of litigation in courts, embraced mediation in resolving disputes.According to the judiciary, while solicitors may be spotting the business potential for mediation, there appears little appetite for it in the cases coming before them.

District Judge Richard Holloway, chairman of the Association of District Judges, says that despite the courts' new powers, solicitors rarely ask for actions to be stayed to take up alternatives.

'I have occasionally suggested it in appropriate cases, but there has been no enthusiasm for it when I have,' he says.

'Maybe it is more in demand in larger commercial centres.

It does not really pay, unless the claim is of a reasonable value.'Research seems to support the judiciary's view that solicitors may have provided a stumbling block to the take up of mediation.

Last June, CEDR and Dibb Lupton Alsop produced evidence that 61% of the top 500 firms in the midlands and north have received no advice from their lawyers about the possibility of using mediation to resolve disputes.

Only 14% had received advice about including mediation clauses in contracts.Karl Mackie, CEDR's chief executive, says there is a dichotomy between solicitors who sense that mediation is an emerging field and want to get into it and those who are still uncomfortable with it.

In terms of offering a business opportunity Mr Mackie says: 'The real value to solicitors is at the advice end.

Acting as a mediator is a short-term process usually lasting only one or two days.

The bulk of the work is done in advance of the mediation so solicitors have more to gain as advisers than offering themselves as mediators.' There is a degree of glamour in being a mediator which explains the rush from the supplier end rather than the user end,' he adds.Katie Bradford, head of property litigation at City giant Linklaters and a CEDR-accredited mediator, voices the concern of many that without an over-arching body ensuring standards, mediation will be hampered in its development.

'With so many providers it is difficult to know what people's credentials are to do the job.

For some, a multitude of organisations offering mediation services might be off putting because there is no clear starting point,' she says.Richard Schiffer, chairman of the ADR Group, says at the moment it is a case of 'the more the merrier' as far as providers go.

'Not all will succeed but it is a sign of vitality in the market and a growing interest in mediation.' Although he adds that at some point, regulation in some form is definitely going to happen.

'Mediators want recognition, acceptance and to be seen as a viable alternative to litigation, as part of the system, it needs regulation.'So what is in store for mediators in the next ten years? Mr Mackie says CEDR has achieved its goal for the first ten years in getting ADR established in the civil justice system.

The group must now move 'beyond the missionary stage'; the next phase is to look at where to find quality mediators, which techniques get best results and which organisations will be desirabl e in the new market.THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS FOR THE DRAGGING OF LEGAL FEET OVER MEDIATION, SAYS JACKY LEWISHave Lord Woolf's fast-track reforms of April 1999 failed to deliver their promise? The new Civil Procedure Rules, which were presented with such a flourish and offered a fresh way of working, do not yet seem to have been acted on in any meaningful way by the legal establishment.While statistics show that fewer claims have been issued, the courts appear no emptier.

Litigants still do not seem eager to save costs by mediating their disputes.

Professor Hazel Genn's 1998 research in the Central London Country Court showed at that time only 3.5% of those invited by the court to mediate took up the offer.

She also found that amounts won in court-directed mediations were less than damages awarded in similar cases that went to court.

Furthermore, her study found evidence that solicitors were acting as a 'deterrent' to clients reaching ADR settlements.So why is this process -- which at its best can offer confidentiality, time, space, empathy and is non-judgmental -- seemingly so slow to take hold? Bill Marsh, director of ADR services at the Centre for Dispute Resolution (CEDR), reports that CEDR mediated 250 cases last year and has already mediated twice that many in 2000 so far.

It considers that signs show growth is 'still rapid', although he admits that the 'starting base [of 250 cases] is low'.While many lawyers express interest in the concept of mediation, their everyday experience is that there is not too much of it about.

Barrister Paul Randolph, an accredited CEDR mediator, maintains that it may take one high-profile publicised case, in which one or more of the parties are financially sanctioned for not seeking mediation, to really get the ball rolling.There seem to be differing reasons for the dragging of legal feet and it is clear that many lawyers still do not understand what mediation really means.

Mr Randolph cites several reasons for this.

Firstly, lawyers sometimes consider the process to be a negotiation and already being highly trained in this field, they believe they know all there is to know about the mediation process.

Secondly, barristers and judges can often have a mind-set about which cases may or may not be 'suitable' for mediation, whereas it could be suggested that there is little reason not to mediate any dispute between two adversaries.

Other reasons may be that barristers or their clients want their 'day in court'.A Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) spokesperson confirms that the government believes litigation should be the last resort.

However, it is also accepted that 'ADR does not prove itself -- it must be proved to be effective'.

The LCD says it is awaiting the results of its recent discussion paper on ADR; this will be published shortly and this will 'set out the way forward for improving the use of ADR'.Nevertheless, many lawyers do come out in favour of the process.

Camilla Baldwin, a family law specialist at City law firm Withers says: 'I am very committed to mediation.

I am always pushing people towards mediation; it is a very empowering process for the right people.

In a divorce situation, the very process of mediation pushes clients to settle their disputes centring on children.'Her disclaimer might be that there may be parties for whom the process is unsuitable.

Those who are less powerful within a relationship, for example or those who may be less articulate, will need mediation that is more skilled if they are not to fare less well.While it is certainly possible that AD R has become more popular during the past six months, it is by no means common.

Litigator Andrew Hearn, a partner at City-based Titmuss Sainer Dechert, says that, although some judges are exhibiting a propensity under the Civil Procedure Rules to encourage mediation in their courts, others are more constrained.

Some parties are going ahead and 'doing it', while others are merely 'paying lip-service to it'.

He considers that this shows a lack of understanding on their part.

Furthermore, while litigators understand the concept of mediation, the process may by anathematic to non-litigators.

He also says that many old-style litigators believe there is 'little place' for mediation.One anecdotal story that illustrates the difficulties, is that of a recent case involving three parties: two parties agreed to mediate while the third refused -- there was no mediation.

Mr Hearn thinks the future for ADR will be 'slow but sure rather than revolutionary'.

As younger lawyers go through the system there will be more openness to it, and more understanding of it.

Nevertheless, he maintains that there is a negativity about mediation among the highest echelons of the law and some more senior judges and masters remain lukewarm about it.However, litigator Richard Gerstein, managing partner of London firm Finers Stephens Innocent, finds himself steeped in the world of mediation.

It is his experience that virtually every one of his current cases is suggested for mediation.

Indeed, cases appearing in court which have not attempted mediation warrant explanation to the judge as to why this is so.

He says many judges will not let a trial start unless they have seen that a real attempt has been made to mediate and under the Civil Procedure Rules -- so there is little choice.On many occasions a case will settle shortly after the mediation process.

Bernard Eder QC, a commercial silk at Essex Court Chambers, considers mediation to be 'excellent'.

He says it is especially beneficial in multi-party disputes, as a well-trained mediator will be 'in the best position to bring different groups together'.

Often one or more parties will be unwilling to take the first step towards settlement and a skilled and sensitive mediator, 'will on many occasions be able to facilitate a settlement'.

Frequently cases do not settle during mediation, but a 'shift has been facilitated, the ground has moved'.

Interestingly, he has never actually known a case to settle during the mediation, but several very big cases have settled soon after as a direct result of the process.

He considers that a 'huge amount of time, effort, and legal expenses are saved in the process'.Richard Barnett, senior partner at London law firm Barnett Sampson, sees another stumbling block.

He is concerned at the danger of the 'broad-brush' approach of mediation, which may favour a party with a weak case.

This might apply where, in broad terms, one party believes it has a good claim and so a strong case to mediate, but if the case were to go to court, the legal 'unpicking' of its arguments would show the stronger merits of the other claim.

While he viewed mediation as 'worth considering for any case' even before the Civil Procedure Rules came into force, lawyers now have 'a duty to consider it even before we go into litigation'.

He also considers that mediation is a 'far better' solution for parties in situations such as matrimonial disputes or in commercial cases, where it is important to maintain a continuing relationship.So the present lack of take-up would not appear to be through lack of enthusiasm amo ng many solicitors and barristers.

Paul Randolph suggests that a 'widespread campaign of education of the entire legal profession is vital if mediation and the ADR process is to be taken seriously'.

Barristers and solicitors must properly understand ADR if they are to go on to advise their clients effectively.Ultimately, teaching mediation skills on any meaningful level means helping lawyers to unlearn the basic skills they learned in their first year at law school.

These skills become ingrained.

If mediation is to succeed and become well-used, legal thinking must move from the adversarial to the facilitative.

There must, effectively, be a change of culture in the legal profession.

For some lawyers, this is not why they entered the law.