An independent mediator managing their own caseload and an ADR centre coordinating hundreds of proceedings both need case management software. They rarely need the same software.
It is tempting to assume the difference is size: small practices need small tools, large centres need large ones. In practice, the deciding factors are the complexity of the cases, the number of stakeholders in each one, the volume of proceedings running at the same time and how much administrative coordination sits between the parties and the outcome. A two-person arbitration practice handling international disputes can need more structure than a larger team handling simple, uniform cases.
This guide compares what mediation software for small practices needs to do with what ADR centres need, using recent data from the UK, Belgium and the EU. It also sets out how to tell which category your organisation falls into, and what to look for in mediation case management software at each stage.
Three operating models, three sets of requirements
The ADR market is often described as one sector, but the organisations in it work in very different ways. Most fit one of three operating models:
- Practitioners managing their own caseload. Independent mediators, arbitrators and small chambers who receive referrals directly and handle most administration themselves.
- Service providers coordinating cases. Mediation providers, panels and arbitration institutions that allocate cases, manage referrals and oversee proceedings they do not conduct personally.
- Structured, high-volume services. Ombudsman schemes, consumer ADR bodies and court-connected programmes that run intake, eligibility checks, triage, resolution and performance reporting at scale.
Recent data shows why the distinction matters.
United Kingdom: more mediation, and more of it coordinated
The CEDR Mediation Audit 2025 estimates the commercial mediation market in England and Wales at around 21,000 cases in the year to September 2024, up 24% from roughly 17,000 in 2022. Around 63% of ad hoc mediations were handled through service providers rather than arranged directly with individual mediators. Scheme mediations accounted for a further 6,000 cases, about 29% of the total.
Mediation is also now built into the small claims process. Ministry of Justice figures, published in a parliamentary answer in January 2026, show that between August 2024 and August 2025, 81,206 cases were referred to mediation, 56,268 mediations took place and 19,536 settled: a settlement rate of around 35%.
At that scale, managing referrals, allocating cases, coordinating participants and tracking outcomes becomes an operational task in its own right. We look at what this means for UK providers in The future of UK mediation: navigating compulsory ADR with integrated case management.
Belgium: international, multilingual and varied
CEPANI’s 2024 statistical survey shows how much variety can sit inside a single institution. 42% of its arbitrations involved at least one international party. Half were conducted in English, with the rest split equally between Dutch and French, and 53% had three-member tribunals.
Case values ranged widely: 32% of disputes were below €100,000 and eligible for expedited proceedings, while 38% exceeded €1 million. Ordinary arbitrations lasted 16 months on average; expedited proceedings, 10.5 months.
Belgium’s sector ombudsman services illustrate the high-volume model. In 2024, the Consumer Mediation Service recorded 14,981 contacts, initiated 3,602 mediation procedures and reached 2,092 amicable settlements. The Telecommunications Ombudsman received 13,319 mediation complaints and the Postal Ombudsman 4,178 disputes.
European Union: many mandates, one direction of travel
A February 2024 European Parliament Research Service summary of the Commission’s ADR implementation report counted around 430 notified consumer ADR entities. Data from 23 Member States pointed to roughly 300,000 eligible disputes a year, with an average resolution rate above 50%. Mandates differ: 64% of entities issue non-binding outcomes and 20% issue outcomes binding on both parties.
These figures cover consumer ADR under Directive 2013/11/EU, not commercial mediation or arbitration as a whole. The same is true of its successor, Directive (EU) 2025/2647, which updates the framework for digital and cross-border disputes and addresses the use of technology, including automated systems and machine translation. Member States have 26 months from publication to transpose it, and the new rules apply after 32 months.
For consumer ADR bodies, the directive makes configurable, multilingual and digitally accessible case management more relevant. For commercial mediators, it signals a direction of travel rather than a requirement.
The common thread across all three markets: a high-volume ADR organisation is not simply a larger mediation practice. It runs a service, and its software has to support the whole service lifecycle, not one mediator’s caseload.
What mediation software for small practices needs to do
For practitioners managing their own caseload, software should take administration off their plate without adding new layers of it. Five capabilities matter most:
- Centralised case records. One place for case information, party details, correspondence and documents, instead of records scattered across inboxes, spreadsheets and local folders.
- Document management. Submissions, agreements, evidence and procedural documents, organised so they are easy to retrieve and visible only to the right people.
- Scheduling. Sessions, hearings and meetings, with reminders that keep deadlines from slipping.
- Secure sharing with parties. Even a straightforward mediation can involve several parties, their representatives and outside experts. Controlled document sharing reduces reliance on email attachments and informal channels.
- Simple case tracking. A clear view of active, pending and closed cases, and the next action on each.
For a solo mediator with a modest caseload, secure storage, a calendar and basic tracking may genuinely be enough. An enterprise system would add cost and complexity without much return. For a closer look at how individual practitioners use these tools day to day, see Case management made easy for arbitrators and mediators.
What should not be compromised, whatever the size of the practice, is confidentiality, data protection, reliable backups and the ability to retrieve a complete case record.
What ADR centres need beyond basic case management
Service providers and high-volume services are not just organising documents and appointments. They are running a process, often across many neutrals, administrators and external participants at once. That is where dedicated ADR case management software earns its place, with a further set of requirements:
- Structured intake and registration. Configurable submission forms, document upload, eligibility checks, categorisation and allocation, so every case starts with the same information.
- Configurable workflows. A commercial mediation, a consumer complaint and an institutional arbitration follow different stages, approvals and timelines. A workflow engine lets the organisation define those stages, assign responsibility and trigger notifications without manual chasing.
- Role-based access. Administrators, mediators, arbitrators, representatives and parties each need different permissions. Granular access control keeps confidential material with the people entitled to see it.
- Deadline and milestone management. Automated reminders and overdue alerts across every open case. This matters most where proceedings run for months, as CEPANI’s do.
- Multilingual and cross-border support. Where proceedings run in several languages or involve international parties, the system needs to handle both without workarounds.
- Management reporting. Dashboards covering caseload, status, outcomes, processing times and resource allocation, to spot bottlenecks and report on performance.
- Integration and room to grow. Connections to existing email, calendar, document and reporting systems, plus the flexibility to add new services or procedural rules without replacing the platform.
Side by side: how requirements change
Requirement | Independent practitioner | Small practice or chambers | ADR centre or high-volume service |
|---|---|---|---|
Case registration | Basic | Structured | Automated, configurable intake |
Document management | Organised storage | Shared and centralised | Advanced, role-based |
Scheduling | Individual calendar | Shared scheduling | Multi-party, procedural scheduling |
Case tracking | Status updates | Case-level tracking | Organisation-wide oversight |
Workflow automation | Minimal | Selected processes | Multiple configurable workflows |
User permissions | Basic | Role-based | Granular |
Collaboration | Mediator and parties | Several professionals | Multiple teams and external stakeholders |
Deadlines | Calendar reminders | Automated notifications | Centralised milestone monitoring |
Languages | Usually one | Sometimes several | Often several |
Reporting | Own caseload | Practice performance | Operational dashboards and analytics |
Integrations | Few | Selected | Multiple systems |
Treat the columns as a guide, not a rule. Complexity, not headcount, decides which column your organisation really sits in.
Signs a small practice has outgrown its tools
A practice does not need enterprise software from day one. These are the signals that its current tools are no longer enough:
- Case information is spread across spreadsheets, inboxes and folders.
- Administration is taking a growing share of working time.
- Coordinating neutrals and parties means constant manual follow-up.
- Deadlines and procedural milestones are getting harder to track.
- The practice is adding new mediation or arbitration services.
- Someone needs a consolidated view of case volumes and outcomes.
- Existing tools cannot accommodate new workflows or access rules.
Growth is not only about handling more cases. It is about handling more procedural complexity without creating more administrative work. That is especially true for providers moving into combined processes such as med-arb, which we cover in The rise of hybrid ADR in the UK.
How to choose ADR case management software
Before comparing vendors, answer five questions:
- What is your caseload now, and in two years? Count active cases and the administrative work each one generates.
- How complex are your proceedings? List the dispute types, procedural stages, participants, languages and approval steps you need to support.
- How sensitive is the information? Check data protection, access permissions, audit trails and where case data is stored.
- Can the platform adapt? It should fit your procedures and connect to the systems you already use.
- What is the total cost? Include licensing, implementation, training, support and future configuration.
Then map your current case lifecycle, from first contact to closure, and mark where work is manual, information is fragmented or cases stall. That map is a far better basis for evaluating software than a feature checklist. Public-sector bodies in the UK will find a step-by-step approach in our guide on how to procure ADR case management software in the UK.
How Casedoc supports mediation and arbitration organisations
Casedoc provides configurable case management software for mediation and arbitration, as well as other dispute resolution processes. Its Mediation and Arbitration Process Pack brings case information, documents, participant details, scheduling and collaboration into one environment, with workflows configured around each organisation’s own procedures.
For smaller practices, that means a structured place to manage cases without stitching together separate tools. For ADR centres, configurable workflows, permissions, centralised information and reporting support more complex administration and organisation-wide oversight.
Rather than one fixed configuration for everyone, the platform is scoped to the processes that matter to each organisation, and can grow with it. For a practical example, see how Casedoc saves time in processing arbitration and mediation cases.
Explore Casedoc Mediation and Arbitration
Frequently asked questions
Does an independent mediator need dedicated case management software?
Not always. With a modest caseload, secure storage, scheduling and basic tracking may be enough. Dedicated mediation software for small practices becomes worthwhile as coordination, confidentiality demands and case complexity grow.
What is the difference between mediation software and ADR centre case management software?
Mediation software typically focuses on individual case administration: documents, scheduling and tracking. ADR centre software adds structured intake, case allocation, configurable workflows, multiple user roles, reporting and organisation-wide oversight.
Can small practices and ADR centres use the same platform?
They can, if the platform is configurable enough to be scoped down for a small practice without unnecessary cost or complexity, and scaled up for a centre without needing to be replaced.
When should an ADR organisation move off spreadsheets?
When spreadsheets and disconnected tools make it hard to keep records accurate, coordinate participants, monitor deadlines or report on progress. Rising caseloads and new procedures are the usual triggers.
Finding the right fit
The right mediation and arbitration software is not the one with the most features. It is the one that fits your caseload, procedures, administrative structure and where your organisation is heading.
For an independent practitioner, that may be a straightforward way to organise cases and documents. For an ADR centre, it is a configurable platform that supports complex workflows, many stakeholders and organisation-wide reporting.
Looking for case management that adapts to your organisation? Discover how Casedoc supports mediation and arbitration.
