When I was in private practice in 1999, I voiced concern to one of the partners about the future direction of the firm. He asked me to attend one of the partners’ meetings. The main point I made was that, as a firm, we needed to make the practice more cost-efficient in delivering a first-class service to clients.

At that point the senior partner turned a deep shade of purple and could barely contain himself as he spat back at me: ‘Good god woman we are a profession not a bloody service!’

You will not be surprised to learn that this partner’s method of costing a file was to narrow his eyes as he studied the physical file, pick it up and assess the weight, before dictating a bill to his secretary saying: ‘To our professional charges in connection with the above matter £2,500 plus VAT…’

It is perhaps with this type of lawyer in mind that Richard Susskind said: ‘The law is not there to provide a livelihood for lawyers any more than illness prevails in order to offer a living for doctors.’

The reality is that we are trained to be highly skilled crafts people and not business people. The firms that have taken this on board have grown from strength to strength. Nevertheless, the rapid change in technology and the demand from clients for more for less meant that firms had to re-evaluate their business models, even before alternative business structures were conceived.

I continued as a litigation solicitor in private practice until 2007. I found myself focusing increasingly on what clients really wanted to achieve when they sought my advice. It was easy (most of the time) to tell them how the law worked; what their prospects of success were; and how much it would cost. But what did they really want and how deep were their pockets? Many commented that I did not sound like a normal solicitor.

I qualified as a mediator in 2002 and, like all newly qualified mediators, I was brimming with enthusiasm about the potential for this form of alternative dispute resolution. While there is no doubt that it is a growth area, there is still resistance from litigators to the concept. From my own research, I have found that the reasons for this include: lack of knowledge of what mediation is; closed minds as to its application to caseloads; and a wish to remain within the ‘comfort zone’ of adversarial training. Last but by no means least, there remains a fear that mediation will affect the profitability of a case.

I spoke to a solicitor recently who was honest enough to say that he did not want to use mediation because he was ‘clinging on to what little litigation he had left’. How long will firms with this mindset last?

Legal practices will undoubtedly have to look to outsource, downgrade fee-earning work, review their pricing structures and embrace the technologies of the future. But they would do well to look at mediation to meet the demands of their clients.

The more progressive fee-earners have recognised this. The pressure on the legal profession is to deliver greater value to clients for less cost. Isn’t this called client satisfaction? Advising clients about mediation and encouraging them to use it as a first resort should be a core component of meeting client demand for value for money.

In March this year, the government proposed compulsory mediation information sessions in all cases valued at less than £100,000 and an increase in the small claims limit to £15,000. The National Mediation Providers Association agreed to run a Ministry of Justice-endorsed pilot in the civil justice centres in Birmingham, Manchester and London, where there is an on-call mediator on duty each day who is available to give parties information on the use of mediation (including costs).

The mediators are all members of accredited and MoJ-approved mediation providers. This information service is free. Lawyers should take the initiative and not wait for legislation to impose mediation upon them.

Suzanne Lowe is managing director of Talk Mediation and co-ordinator of the mediation pilot. Email suzannelowe@talkmediation.co.uk or telephone 01432 344666