CEDR Solve, the dispute resolution services arm of the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution, announced that it has just dealt with its 15,000th referred dispute since its launch in 1990, a milestone that prompted its chief executive, Karl Mackie, to say alternative dispute resolution has now become advanced dispute resolution. But is that claim perhaps a little premature?

ADR came to the UK from across ‘the pond’ almost two decades ago. Despite being championed by some highly skilled practitioners who have been evangelical about its many benefits, and despite its undoubted success at achieving faster, cheaper, less stressful solutions than litigation, and despite strong encouragement for its use by the Court of Appeal, it still encounters resistance and remains the alternative to litigation, rather than the mainstream option.

Is that resistance due to lack of knowledge, a fear of making less money than could have been earned from protracted litigation, or simply a fear of the unknown? Well, none of these, actually, if one listens to the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke.

At a conference organised by the Forum of Insurance Lawyers earlier this year, Clarke blamed a lack of will on the part of solicitors and barristers for preventing the takeup of mediation in personal injury cases. He said there needed to be a culture change among lawyers, coupled with greater support from insurers and more active and robust case management by judges, applying greater pressure on parties to explain refusal to mediate.

Clarke’s call seems to have been heeded by some – last month claimant firm Thompsons and insurer AXA joined CEDR, in a move that demonstrates greater interest in ADR in two key groups that need to get on board. So perhaps Mackie is right – ADR is advancing, and the scales are starting to drop. Litigation could yet become the alternative path to dispute resolution.