CENTRE for EFFECTIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

www.c ed r .c om

The SeventhMediation Audit
A survey of commercial mediator attitudes and experience

11 May 2016

70 Fleet Street,
London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001
email: info@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
Registered in England no. 2422813
Registered Charity no. 1060369

Introduction
This marks the seventh occasion on which CEDR (The Centre for Effective Disputes Resolution) has undertaken a surveyof the attitudes of civil and commercial mediators to a range of issues concerning their personal background,mediation practice and experience, professional standards and regulation, and priorities for the field over the coming
years.
The survey was undertaken using an internet-based questionnaire, which was open to all mediators in the United
Kingdom, regardless of organisational affiliation. It was publicised by way of CEDR’s website and direct e-mail to themediator contacts both of CEDR and of other leading service providers and members of the Civil Mediation Council.
The primary focus of the survey is to assess how the market and mediation attitudes have changed over the past two
years. This year 319 responses were included, a statistically significant sample that represents over 50% of theindividual membership of the Civil Mediation Council. As in any survey, not all participants answered every question.
Alongside our survey of mediator attitudes, we conducted a parallel survey of lawyer attitudes in order to provide aclient-oriented perspective to some of the questions raised. We plan to release these findings separately but where
relevant we have cross-compared the responses from the lawyers’ survey with that of the mediators’ survey.
Further feedback on respondents’ views about mediation techniques which did or did not work will be publishedshortly in a separate report dealing specifically with professional skills issues.
It is important to emphasise that this is a survey of the civil and commercial mediation landscape, a field we have veryloosely defined as encompassing any and all mediation activity that might reasonably fall within the ambit of the Civil
Mediation Council. This reflects the background of the surveying organisation, CEDR, and the channels throughwhich survey responses were canvassed.
We do not, therefore, claim to cover either community or family mediation (although some of our respondents doreport also being active in those fields).
Furthermore, we do not include the statutory ACAS service or the HMCS Small Claims Mediation Service, quite simply
because the scale of their activities would each far outweigh the other findings of this survey.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

The mediation marketplace
On the basis of mediators’ reported caseloads, we estimate that the current size of the civil and commercial mediation
market in England & Wales is in the order of 10,000 cases per annum. This is just 5.2% more than the 9,500 cases
we estimated in 2014, suggesting that there has a slowing down of growth in the overall marketplace over the past
two years.
This conclusion may not, however, reflect the experience of many mediators or mediation service providers. This isbecause it appears that the shape of the market is undergoing some change – the distinction between direct referrals
and service providers is starting to disappear as some mediators move into self-organised groupings for marketing
purposes; and the number of stand-alone schemes is diminishing as they become absorbed by providers. Clearly,
therefore, there are winners and losers – when the Civil Mediation Council’s own survey asked its provider members
whether mediations were harder to come by, 42% reported that conditions were harder, whilst 33% reported an
improvement.

12,00010,0008,000
Schemes
6,000

Service Providers
Direct Referrals

4,000
2,000

0
2003

2005

2007

2010

2012

2014

2016

The pattern of commercial clients and advisers making referrals directly to their chosen mediators rather than seeking
nominations from providers continues. Our latest survey shows that 70% of ad hoc cases are being handled on thisbasis (as compared to 66% in 2014; 71% in 2012, 65% in 2010, 60% in 2007, 55% in 2005 and 45% in 2003).
The age of the service provider is not over, however. Our parallel survey of lawyers indicates that 45% of cases are stillarranged through providers (even if they are then working with their chosen mediator). Furthermore, of the caseactivity reported by the CMC’s members in its own survey, 86% was delivered by seven large providers/groupings ofover 100 mediators. These organisations may not adopt the same operating model, but their dominance in themarket confirms the power of collective marketing as well as the challenges faced by the lone professional.
Finally, the market is still dominated by a select few, with a group of around 145 individuals involved in around 85%
of all non-scheme commercial cases (i.e. an average of around 40 cases each). The size of this group has grown from
130 in 2014, suggesting that more competition is developing, albeit quite slowly.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

The mediators
In terms of personal mediation experience, respondents were split between three broad categories:o

54% Advanced mediators – who described themselves as “reasonably” or “very” experienced;o

22% Intermediates – who categorised their lead mediator experience as “some” or “limited”; ando

24% Novices – who were generally accredited but had no experience as a lead mediator.

This overall profile is very similar to that observed in previous Audits.
The vast majority of Novice and Intermediate mediators reported personal involvement in no more than four
mediations a year. Advanced mediators reported more extensive practices but, for most in this group, commercial
mediation remains a part-time profession, with only 40% (2014: 47%; 2012: 39%; 2010: 37%) characterisingthemselves as “full-time” mediators. 56% (2014: 46%) report undertaking less than 10 mediations a year.
The age of the average female mediator, at 50, is the same as was reported in our 2014 Audit, whilst the average
male mediator remains at 57. We are, therefore, seeing a very modest impact from new, younger entrants into thefield. The Advanced mediator group are only a year or so older than the average.
There are continuing signs of increased female involvement in the field, with 35% of respondents being women(2014: 26%; 2012: 22%; 2010: 19%). If we take the Novice group as being representative of people looking to enter
the profession, the proportion of women has risen markedly from 30% in 2014 to 42%. There are also somesuggestions that women already in the profession are progressing more quickly – they now represent 29% of theAdvanced group of mediators (2014: 25%; 2012: 18%).
Other aspects of diversity remain a concern, with 92% of respondents categorising themselves as being white.
Although this figure appears to have improved slightly since the 2014 Audit reported 96% white participation, thedetailed analysis suggests that this change has arisen from the inclusion of a number of non-UK based respondents
rather than any underlying broadening of the UK marketplace.
The trend away from lawyer mediators is, however, continuing, and for the first time less than half (43%) of our
respondents were legally qualified. This is a continuation of the trend identified in previous Audits (2014: 52%; 2012:62%). Whilst the proportion of lawyers within the Advanced group remains higher, at 57%, this too has fallen
significant in recent years (2014: 60%; 2012: 70%).
The data suggests that this decline in the proportion of lawyer mediators is attributable to increased engagement ofother fields rather than any reduction of interest from the legal profession. With each successive Audit the list of
respondents’ job titles reveals the increasing professional diversity of the field, with new entrants reflecting areas ofprogress in mediation applications (e.g. workplace, tax, medical, education). There are also signs, particularly
amongst more recent entrants to the field, of increased interest in mediation amongst general managers andbusinesspeople.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

Mediator earnings
Although the 2014 Audit reported, for the first time ever, a decrease in average fee rates, that position has reversed
this time, and again we see quite significant increases:oAverage fees of the less experienced mediator group for a one-day mediation have risen by 8.6% over the
past two years to £1,545 (2014: £1,422; 2012: £1,517; 2010: £1,390).

oAverage fees for more experienced mediators have risen by an even larger amount, 17.8%, to £4,500 (2014:£3,820; 2012: £4,279; 2010: £3,450).

£5,000£4,500£4,0002005£3,500£3,0002007£2,5002010£2,0002012£1,5002014£1,000

2016

£500
£0
Junior mediators

Experienced mediators

As usual, these averages conceal a wide variation in individual rates:
Average earnings for a one-day mediation:
2016

2014

2012

2010

2007

Pro bono only

10.4%

8.1%

7.4%

10.3%

9.1%

Under £500

6.3%

4.0%

5.3%

5.8%

8.5%

£501 - £1,250

17.4%

22.1%

24.0%

22.4%

29.1%

£1,251 - £2,000

17.4%

16.8%

18.1%

19.2%

17.0%

£2,001 - £2,500

8.3%

14.8%

14.6%

10.9%

10.3%

£2,501 - £3,000

9.7%

12.1%

8.2%

7.7%

9.7%

£3,001 - £3,500

8.3%

7.3%

4.7%

9.0%

6.7%

£3,501 - £4,000

4.9%

3.4%

4.1%

4.5%

2.4%

£4,001 - £4,500

3.5%

2.0%

1.2%

1.3%

1.2%

£4,501 - £5,000

2.1%

2.0%

4.1%

5.1%

3.0%

£5,501 - £6,000

4.2%

3.4%

3.5%

2.6%

1.2%

£6,001 - £6,500

1.4%

2.0%

0.6%

-

1.8%

£6,501 - £7,000

-

0.7%

1.8%

-

-

£7,001 - £7,500

1.4%

-

-

0.6%

-

£7,501 - £8,000

0.7%

-

0.6%

0.6%

-

£8,000 - £8,500

1.4%

-

-

-

-

£8,500 +

2.8%

1.3%

1.8%

-

-

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

By combining fee rates with reported activity levels, we have projected average incomes for differing levels of
mediator activity.
oThose undertaking between 20 and 30 mediations a year are earning between £22,000 and £81,000 withan average of £55,000 (2014: £70,000; 2012: £90,000; 2010: £73,000). The decline in average earnings inthis group result from an increasing proportion of their workload being on less remunerative scheme cases.

oThose mediators undertaking between 30 to 50 mediations a year are earning between £90,000 and£330,000, with an average of £175,000 (2014: £128,000; 2012: £145,000; 2010: £126,000)oThose undertaking over 50 cases a year are earning are earning between £100,000 and £775,000, with anaverage of £400,000 pa (2014: £370,000; 2012: £414,000; 2010: £296,000).

The most successful mediator we surveyed reported average earnings of over £8,500 per case on a workload ofaround 90 cases, giving an annual income of some £775,000.
Sources of work
We asked both mediators and lawyers to assess the relative significance of a number of factors in determining why
individuals secured commercial mediation appointments, and then compared the aggregate rankings as set out in thetable below:
Mediators

Lawyers

07

10

12

14

16

16

14

12

10

07

1

1

1

1

1

Professional reputation – experience/status

1

3

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

2

Professional background/qualifications

5

4

6

5

8

4

6

4

6

3

Sector experience

3

6

7

6

7

3

4

2

2

4

Availability

6

1

3

4

4

6

5

7

7

5

Professional reputation – mediation style

2

2

4

3

3

8

9

8

4

6

Recommendation – by lawyer in previous case

8

7

5

7

2

7

8

6

5

7

Fee levels

4

5

2

2

5

10

7

9

8

8

Repeat business – with lawyer

7

9

8

8

6

5

3

5

9

9

Recommendation – by provider

13

10

14

10

9

9

10

10

10

10

Location

12

8

9

12

12

12

13

14

11

11

Professional reputation – settlement rate

9

12

13

11

13

13

15

11

12

12

Marketing activity (e.g. mailshots, website)

16

17

12

15

17

17

14

16

17

13

Recommendation – by directories

14

16

15

14

14

11

12

12

14

14

Recommendation – by client in previous case

10

13

10

9

10

16

11

15

16

15

Recommendation – by other mediators

15

14

17

17

15

15

17

13

13

16

PR activity (e.g. articles, speeches)

17

15

16

16

16

14

16

17

15

17

Repeat business – with client

11

11

11

9

11

Within this ranking, “professional reputation – experience/status” has long been the clear winner with both mediatorsand lawyers. However it is interesting that lawyers place far more emphasis on “professional reputation – mediationstyle” than do mediators. It is also interesting that “availability” has fallen back as a significant factor – this may be
another sign that mediators are not as busy as they used to be.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

We also asked mediators how often they emphasised their profession when promoting themselves; how often was ita significant factor in their securing appointments; and, finally, how often did it turn out to be actually relevant andneeded in the subsequent mediation. As the table below indicates, there were marked differences in the respective
proportions of lawyer and non-lawyer mediators reporting these situations as occurring “almost always” or“frequently”:

Lawyers

Others

2016

2014

2016

2014

Used in self-promotion

49%

43%

58%

64%

Influential in getting work

65%

65%

55%

55%

Relevant in practice

67%

62%

50%

43%

The gap between the extent to which lawyer and non-lawyer mediators market their professional background seems
to be decreasing, but it is still the non-lawyer mediators who are working harder to promote their professional
background, albeit that this does not seem to be working for them as well as it does for the lawyers. In themeantime, the debate about the respective merits of different backgrounds continues without any sign of likely
resolution – although perhaps a consensus will in due course emerge around the views of one respondent whocommented that: ”It is important to emphasise that I am an experienced mediator, not a lawyer who has grafted on askill and not undertaken the full transition to a new approach and a new profession”.
Performance in mediation
Although the overall success rate of mediation remains constant, with an aggregate settlement rate of around 86%,
there is a variation from previous years’ audits in how those settlements are achieved. The proportion of cases that
achieve settlement on the day of mediation has fallen from 75% to 67%, but this decrease has been offset by anincrease in the proportion of cases that settle shortly after mediation, rising from 11% to 19%.
When linked to the evidence that mediations are taking longer, this change in the pattern of settlement rate may wellsuggest that cases are becoming harder, with parties needing longer time to reach agreement.
We asked mediators to provide a breakdown of the number of hours they spent on a typical mediation. This revealed
that the average time spent has increased by over 2 hours, or 13%, since the 2014 Audit.
2016

2014

Reading briefing materials

5.8

4.7

Client contact

2.3

2.2

8.2

7.8

2.3

1.7

18.6

16.4

Preparation

Mediation
Working with clients on the day
Post-mediation
Follow-up / on-going involvement
Total© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

The average advanced mediator continues to spend 3 - 4 hours less on each case than a less experienced individual,with the shortfall being caused by their spending less time in preparation and also less time in post-mediation followup.
A significant proportion of mediator time continues to be unremunerated – amongst experienced mediators, anaverage of around 5½ hours (2014: 4 hours) was unpaid, either because the mediator did not charge specifically for
all of the hours incurred or because he/she was operating a fixed fee arrangement; less experienced mediators wrote
off even more time (over 6 hours, or 34% of their total time, on average).
We asked mediators for their views on the performance those lawyers and clients they encountered in their
mediations:o

69% of lawyers (2014: 71%; 2012: 64%) and 64% (2014: 62%; 2012: 59%) of clients were rated as having
performed quite well or very wello

19% (2014: 15%; 2012: 21%)% of lawyers and 21% (2014: 23%; 2012: 24%) of clients were rated ashaving performed adequatelyo

12% (2014: 14%; 2012: 15%) of lawyers and 15% (2014: 15%; 2012: 17%) of clients were rated as
performing less than adequately (with 5% of lawyers and 6% of clients rated as having been very poor).

These findings are broadly consistent with the findings of our separate survey of lawyer perceptions. Lawyers rated
60% (2014: 54%; 2012: 52%) of their counterparts, and 70% (2014: 70%; 2012: 56%) of clients, as having
performed well or very well in mediation, with 13% (2014: 20%; 2012: 17%) of lawyers and just 4% (2014: 15%;
2012: 15%) of clients performing poorly. Thus, both surveys confirm the continuing trend of lawyers becoming morefamiliar with the process and getting better at working within it, even if there remains a group of under 15% who arestill lagging behind.
Turning the tables, our separate survey of lawyers also asked for their ratings of mediator performance:o81% (2014: 82%; 2012: 69%) of mediators were reported as performing quite well or very well, with 60%(2014: 53%; 2012: 48%) in the highest category.

o

14% (2014: 12%; 2012: 22%) were reported as performing adequately.

o5% (2014: 6%; 2012: 9%) performed less than adequately, of which 1% (2014: 2%; 2012: 4%) were rated
as being very poor.

Amongst the examples of poor mediator practice that lawyers highlighted, the following reflect recurring themes:o“A well-known mediator acted in a mediation for one of my clients against a large opponent (who chosehim). He came across as being on their side”.

o“Acted as a messenger - just interested in shuttling between the parties making settlement offers.”o“Letting previous professional background influence their approach to the mediation - seeking to try or
argue a case with one team rather than explore and identify issues”© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

In order to try to obtain further insights into the challenges that mediators encounter when working with parties andtheir advisers, we asked about the frequency with which they encountered particular behaviours within clientnegotiation teams:

Frequently or
almost always
Over-reliance on advisers

48%

Group think

41%

Avoidance

24%

Inter-personal conflict within team

14%

Disagreement about strategy

7%

Poor negotiation strategy

3%

As for more positive behaviours, mediators reported encountering effective leadership of client negotiation team on
40% of occasions, and good negotiation strategies on just 24%.
Finally we asked mediators about the approach that they adopted within mediation. There has been a long-running
discussion in the field about the respective merits of facilitative and evaluative approaches, but we wanted to find out
what is happening in practice.
Firstly we asked mediators about their personal philosophy for mediation. As might be expected given the nature ofmost mediator skills training, respondents showed a marked preference towards the lower end of the spectrum (onthe basis that a score of 0 means fully facilitative, 10 means fully evaluative and 5 is 50/50).
Personal philosophy of mediation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

However, this did not always match with where mediators believe that parties and their advisers expect them to be(based on what is said during mediations) – clearly they are looking for a more evaluative approach.
Parties’ expectations

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

We then asked mediators for more details about the approaches they adopted at different stages of the mediation
process.
First phase of mediation – when you are uncovering information

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Trying to get negotiations moving

0

1

2

When everything is stuck0

1

Closing the deal

0

1Arguably this sort of pattern is what one might expect – mediators trained in a facilitative doctrine tend to favour thatapproach and start out using it, but many (although clearly not all) veer towards more evaluative strategies when thegoing gets tough.
Further analysis on this topic will be provided in a subsequent report. Particular questions still to be addressed include(a) does a mediator’s preferred approach vary according to their level of experience; (b) is there any correlation
between mediator approach and settlement rates; and (c) are lawyer mediators more, or less, evaluative than nonlawyer mediators. These questions, along with feedback on respondents’ views about mediation techniques which
did or did not work will be published shortly in a separate report dealing specifically with professional skills issues.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

Standards and regulation
We asked both mediators and lawyers about the Jackson reforms and whether they had had any impact on either thenumber of cases coming to mediation or the ease/difficulty of settling cases at mediation.
(a).

What impact have the Jackson reforms had on the number of cases coming to mediation?
Mediators(b).

Lawyers

2016

2014

2016

2014

Decrease

6%

12%

7%

5%

No difference / too early to tell

54%

70%

50%

70%

Increase

41%

18%

43%

25%

What impact have the Jackson reforms had on the ease/difficulty of settling cases at mediation?
Mediators

Lawyers

2016

2014

2016

2014

Harder

13%

9%

3%

3%

No difference / too early to tell

58%

73%

73%

79%

Easier

29%

18%

24%

17%

So whereas respondents were largely sitting on the fence two years ago – and most still are – those who are prepared
to express a view are tending to give the Jackson reforms a positive assessment, although it is clear that there are still
mixed views about the double-edged sword of the costs provisions.
As for mediators’ views on what should be the main priorities of the Civil Mediation Council for the next two years,
there were some critical comments about the CMC but a clear consensus is emerging around the notion of the CMC
as a professional body whose primary role is work with governments, clients and advisers to increase the take-up of
mediation. However, many are critical about the extent of the CMC’s present marketing efforts.
There seems little support for detailed regulation of mediation practice, but some believe that more proactive
promotion of the significance of Registered Mediator status would provide reassurance to government and the public;
others are concerned that uniform standards for training and accreditation need to be introduced as a means of
avoiding a proliferation of training providers.
Lawyers’ views on the priorities for the CMC largely mirrored those of mediators in that they still see a significant needfor further promotion of the benefits of mediation. A number of lawyers also mentioned the need to do further workwith the judiciary in particular.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

Future aspirations
Looking to the future, 33% (2014: 32%: 2012: 38%) of mediators expect to be mediating more, although this would
still not be their main occupation; whilst a further 29% (2014: 32%; 2012: 28%) expect to have become full-time
mediators. Only 8% (2014: 7%: 2012: 3%) expect to have developed a more specialist mediation practice.
As to potential obstacles or challenges in their way, the individual who commented that “I would love to mediate but
don’t have any opportunity” captured the sentiments of many – respondents remain deterred by what they see as a
combination of an insufficient number of mediation opportunities and an over-supply of aspiring mediators seeking
to break into a marketplace that remains dominated by a limited number of established players.
It seems that the field is, therefore, likely to remain one in which there are a considerable number of part-timepractitioners. However, one lawyer sounds a note of caution: “The number of people out there who are "playing at
mediation" - a hobby alongside their real job - is the biggest risk factor in relation to the credibility of our profession. It
is very difficult to succeed at being a litigator 98% of the time and a mediator 2% of the time”.
Growth areas
We asked mediators to identify which types of dispute or sector of business would see the most growth in mediation
usage over the next two years. Many felt that the mainstream areas of general commercial disputes still had a lot ofgrowth potential, but Employment/Workplace, Professional Negligence and Personal Injury were the most frequently
mentioned sectors. Family mediation was also identified as a potential growth area.
Contribution of the field
Finally, by combining the results of the Mediator Audit surveys with detailed operational statistics taken from CEDR’s
own caseload, we can update our assessment as to the overall economic impact of the commercial mediation field asa whole:o

The total value of cases mediated (i.e. the amount at issue) can be significantly influenced by the impact ofmega-cases. If, however, the effect of such cases is excluded, the value of cases mediated each year isapproximately £10.5 billion (2014: £9 billion).

oSince 1990, effectively the launch point of civil and commercial mediation with England & Wales, the total
value of mediated cases is approaching £85 billion.

o

By achieving earlier resolution of cases that would otherwise have proceeded through litigation, thecommercial mediation profession this year will save business around £2.8 billion a year in wasted
management time, damaged relationships, lost productivity and legal fees.

o

Since 1990, our profession has contributed savings of £22.6 billion.

By way of a comparator to these figures, our Audit results suggest that the aggregate value of the mediation
profession in terms of total fee income is around £26.5 million.

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001

Conclusion
Although the findings of this latest CEDR Mediation Audit may lack the spectacular growth rates of previous years,
there is a consistent message coming through in the data, and reinforced by the feedback from lawyers, namely thatcommercial mediation is firmly established in the dispute resolution landscape.
We are, however, still a very young profession. We face many of the practical realities that confront otherprofessions, notably that our pyramid has a broad base and steep slopes to climb, with only a small proportion
getting to the very top. The supply of willing and available mediators still outweighs the level of demand for ourservices, but we still see many situations where parties would have benefitted from more effective, and earlier,
mediation intervention; and when we do get involved the benefits are usually clear for all to see.
Many of our structures are hardly designed to assist individual advancement as mediation is essentially a solo
profession in which we need to market ourselves as individuals; but collectively we are looking for the Civil Mediation
Council and others to take the lead in growing the market for the benefit of all. Perhaps, however, there is more that
we aspiring mediators should do to assist the cause – to repeat a thought from the very first Mediation Audit in 2002,
if every mediator could generate just one additional mediation opportunity from his/her day-to-day workload, the sizeof the market would double overnight.
We are still debating the merits of practice standards and regulation, but clearly many mediators see this as anintegral part of growing the field. As with other new markets there is a concern that new opportunities attract
opportunists, and there is, therefore, an emerging sense of the need to move forward with common minimum
standards for training which would at least serve as a barrier to exclude the under-trained venturers. We should not,however, lose sight of the need also to raise our game at the top of the profession – there are signs in these Audit
results that mediations are becoming harder, something which should not be surprising given that lawyers’
negotiation skills are getting better. After all, no-one is going to pay us to push at an open door.
Graham Massie
CEDR Director
11 May 2016

The Mediation Audit is a biennial initiative undertaken by CEDR as part of its public mission to cut the cost of conflictand create a world of choice and capability in conflict prevention and resolution.
CEDR is grateful for the support of its members.
For further details, see our website: www.cedr.com
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
International Dispute Resolution Centre
70 Fleet Street
London EC4Y 1EU
Registered charity no: 1060369© Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution, 2016

© CEDR 2016
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution
70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7536 6000
For general information: info@cedr.com
For ADR enquiries: adr@cedr.com
www.cedr.com
Registered in England no. 2422813 Registered Charity no. 1060369

Fax: +44 (0)20 7536 6001