Commercial suicide or good business sense?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Commercial suicide or good business sense?

Judges, IP offices, parties and even some lawyers are in favour of mediation in IP cases. So why is it not more common?

arnold-richard-200.jpg

I was at a seminar on mediation organised by the UK IPO and hosted by Wiggin in London last night for companies and trade associations in the creative industries

The Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys is holding another event on Tuesday, which suggests that the topic is on something of a roll at the moment (it’s also the subject of Managing IP’s next cover story). So what’s going on?

The new push to sell the benefits of mediation has trickled down from the 2009 Jackson report into ways to rein in costs in civil litigation in the UK. In it, Lord Justice Jackson recommended there be a “serious campaign” to ensure judges, lawyers and businesses know about the benefits of ADR.

Mr Justice Arnold (right) spoke last night, and it was clear that he is already an enthusiast (“It works so go and do it” were his closing words).

The speakers also made clear that there was plenty in it for businesses, particularly for those who want to maintain a working relationship with the parties with whom they are in dispute. As mediator Andrew Hildebrand said: “It can be hard to reassure the other side that you want to do business after litigation. It certainly isn’t helped by the words ‘we have been instructed by’.”

But what’s in it for law firms? After all, there must be pressure in the partners’ dining room on litigation lawyers to bring in the cash, and the biggest cheques invariably follow trips to the High Court (and beyond).

Wiggin lawyer Simon Baggs referred to that in his presentation, saying that barristers and solicitors had been asking him whether a talk advocating mediation didn’t amount to commercial suicide.

But when one audience member asked why private practice lawyers would encourage clients to settle through mediation, Baggs said that it was a matter of economics: it was in his interest to keep his clients satisfied, he said. “There’s lots to be said for clients leaving mediation happy. They tell people and that means we get more buyers of legal services. Any referral is good.”

Although there’s an element of “well he would say that, wouldn’t he?” in his comments, one of Baggs’s clients later told me that he was right: good law firms focus on keeping existing clients happy – and returning – rather than burning them with one piece of expensive, but traumatising, litigation, especially when legal budgets are under pressure.

“We talk,” she said. “The word soon gets around.”

If you have experience of mediation (good or bad) and want to share those with us for our forthcoming article, do let us know.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article