CAMP hosts conferences on Complementary Nature of Arbitration and Mediation and on How Lawyers can win in Mediation

The Centre for Advanced Mediation Practice (CAMP) recently organised two discussions in Bangalore on various aspects of alternative dispute resolution methods..The first event held on February 6 was a private participatory discussion on how Arbitration and Mediation can complement each other. The discussion was led by former Supreme Court judge Justice RV Raveendran and Laila Ollapally, founder of CAMP. The event was moderated by Promod Nair of Arista Chambers, and was attended by six retired Karnataka High Court judges, mediators from Bangalore Mediation Centre and CAMP, and partners of several law firms..A senior arbitrator and retired judge kicked off the discussion by stating that he saw the value of promoting mediation using arbitration and vice versa. He also encouraged the provision of mediation services in arbitration centres and the provision of arbitration services in mediation centres, in order to strengthen the alternative dispute resolution structures and increase the usage of mediation in India..The participants discussed the Singapore International Arbitration Centre and Singapore International Mediation Centre’s model for implementing the Arb-Med-Arb protocol, where a case starts as an arbitration and remains an arbitration until the stage where pleadings are filed. The participants admitted that there was limited experience in India in mixing modes of dispute resolution to effectively resolve disputes. However, one senior mediator-cum-arbitrator has already started implementing arbitration and mediation for effective resolution. He shared with the group his method for combining the two processes, without compromising the efficacy of either..The conversation touched upon several other topics, such as: whether the same neutral can be an arbitrator and mediator (the strong consensus was against the same neutral implementing both processes unless the neutral is well experienced in both processes); the concerns of fee-split for arbitrators and mediators; the loss of revenue for lawyers by recommending their clients to mediation; if the Indian litigant is ready to make his/her final decision in a dispute; challenges that lawyers face when recommending clients to mediation; and use of mixed-modes of dispute resolution to effectively resolve disputes..By the end of the talk, the participants saw the value in combining arbitration and mediation to holistically resolve disputes. However, it was a question of how to implement the mixed-mode dispute resolution processes. The general consensus was that more such discussions were needed, with more stakeholders (General Counsels of companies, for example) to take this conversation forward..CAMP also hosted a talk on the topic ‘How Lawyers Can Win in Mediation’ at the State Commission of Jurists office at the Karnataka High Court..The event saw Laila Ollapally and Senior Advocate Shiv Kumar shed light on the various aspects of mediation, including how lawyers should approach the process. The discussion was moderated by Advocate and founder of Aarna Law, Shreyas Jayasimha, and had former Karnataka High Court judge Justice Anand Byrareddy listening in..On benefits of mediation over litigation, Ollapally stated that many disputes could be better resolved using non-adversarial methods, which also coincidentally cost the client less time and money..Speaking from his three decades of experience as both a litigating lawyer and a mediator, Shiv Kumar said that lawyers must learn to rein themselves in and adopt a different approach while advising clients in mediations. Taking an aggressive stance, as lawyers are accustomed to, would defeat the purpose of the exercise, he added..Coming to the main issue at hand, the free-flowing discussion prompted varied responses on what lawyers consider “winning” to be, especially in a process that involves the parties compromising in order to reach a settlement..Subsequently, a question was raised as to what incentive lawyers have to refer their clients to mediation. A lawyer in the audience highlighted the practical difficulties that come with urging a client to go for mediation. He was of the opinion that if the same is done, clients would think that their case was not strong enough, or that the lawyer was trying to shirk from his duty. Moreover, lawyers would be loath to give up their fees by suggesting mediation..At the end of the discussion, there was a consensus among the panel as well as those present that it was the duty of a lawyer to educate clients on the benefits of non-adversarial dispute resolution, and that more awareness on the benefits of mediation was very much the need of the hour.