Pavani Sibal has spent much of her career working in the spaces where law, conflict, and human behaviour meet. Dual-qualified in India and England & Wales, she has spent over two decades working across jurisdictions and sectors: as in-house counsel, general counsel, and advisor in areas ranging from infrastructure and energy to environment and education. She received her education at King’s College London and The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and has represented legal and conflict-resolution issues at global forums like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, giving her a rare vantage point on how disputes unfold not just in courtrooms, but across institutions and borders.
In 2025, she was appointed Head of AOI India. What makes her appointment to this role particularly compelling is the turn it represents in her journey. After decades inside traditional legal systems, Pavani is now focused on building something more patient and purposeful: strengthening ADR and ODR in India in ways that centre dignity, dialogue, and long-term relationships.
Under her leadership, AOI India is positioned as a bridge between India’s rich mediation traditions and global, technology-enabled ADR standards, with a strong emphasis on training, collaboration with law schools and institutions, and building sustainable ADR infrastructure. She believes that ADR should not sit at the margins of legal practice, but become a first, thoughtful choice for individuals, corporates, and institutions alike.
Having accomplished widely across jurisdictions, she sees this phase as one of contribution, of mentoring, institution-building, and helping shift how we think about conflict itself. It is this mix of experience and introspection, authority and humility, that makes her perspective especially worth listening to right now.
1. You’ve just taken on the role of Head of AOI India, at a point when ADR and ODR are being spoken about more seriously in India than before. What drew you to this role at this stage of your career, and what felt most important to get right from the very beginning?
Taking on the role of Head and CEO of AOI India at this moment felt less like a career pivot and more like a natural continuation of the work I’ve always believed in. ADR and now ODR are no longer peripheral conversations in India; they are steadily becoming central to how disputes ought to be resolved in a system as complex, overburdened, and diverse as ours. What drew me in was precisely this inflection point: the law is ready, institutions are listening, technology has matured, and parties are finally asking a very old question in a new way: is there a better path than prolonged litigation?
AOI India has credibility, purpose, and an opportunity to shape norms rather than merely respond to them. From the very beginning, it felt essential to get three things right. First, grounding innovation in legitimacy as ADR and ODR cannot succeed unless it is firmly anchored in procedural fairness, due process, and enforceability under Indian law. Second, inclusivity as ADR and ODR must not become an elite solution for a few, but a practical, accessible mechanism for many, including MSMEs, startups, and individual disputants. And third, institutional trust as courts, counsel, arbitrators, mediators, and users all need confidence that ADR and ODR are not shortcuts, but sound alternatives as a pre-requisite must.
My priority from day one has been to ensure that AOI India balances innovation with integrity whilst moving forward without forgetting why ADR earned its place at the table in the first place. After all, even the most modern solutions still rely on an old-fashioned principle: justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.
2. One of ADR ODR International’s unique features is its training courses. When designing these courses, how do you distinguish between ADR training that merely adds another certificate, and training that genuinely changes how a lawyer approaches conflict? What does AOI India consciously do differently?
That distinction is actually at the heart of how we think about training at AOI India. The legal ecosystem is already saturated with certificates, and another line on a CV rarely changes how a lawyer behaves in a conflict.
The legal profession, by design, trains us to win arguments. ADR requires us to resolve problems. The gap between the two is where meaningful training lives.
At AOI India, we design our courses to intervene at the decision-making stage from the moment a lawyer chooses whether to escalate, entrench, or resolve. That means focusing as much on mindset as on method. We spend time on interests and needs versus positions, on power asymmetries, on ethics and enforceability, and on the subtle psychology that drives disputes long before they reach a tribunal or platform. What we consciously do differently is threefold. First, we anchor everything in real legal consequence. Every negotiation, mediation, or ADR ODR simulation is tied back to Indian procedural law, contract enforceability, and court expectations because resolution that cannot survive judicial scrutiny is merely theoretical. We deliberately move beyond black-letter law to focus on how disputes actually behave taking into account power imbalances, commercial pressure, emotional stakes, cultural context, and timing. These are the realities lawyers face at the table, not in textbooks.
Second, we make discomfort part of the learning process. Participants are placed in roles they wouldn’t naturally choose, forced to confront bias, silence, and imbalance. We treat ADR and ODR as skills that must be practised, not concepts to be memorised. Our training places participants inside realistic conflict scenarios through drafting clauses, managing impasses, advising reluctant clients, and navigating hybrid processes. A lawyer should leave the room thinking differently about their next brief, not just their LinkedIn headline.
Third, AOI India is intentional about ethics and process design. We emphasise procedural safeguards, consent, neutrality, confidentiality, and enforceability under Indian law. This grounding ensures that technology enhances dispute resolution rather than diluting it.
The end goal is simple but demanding: when a lawyer walks out of an AOI India program, they should approach conflict differently the very next day. Not asking, “Which forum do I file in?” but “What outcome actually serves my client, and how do I get there responsibly?” If that question changes, the practice changes.
Ultimately, the measure of success is not the certificate on the wall, it is whether a lawyer pauses before escalating a dispute and asks, what is the smartest, fastest, and most principled way to resolve this? When that question becomes instinctive, training has done its job.
3. AOI’s partnership with the DIFC Academy focuses on AI-enabled dispute resolution and global standards. When you introduce ODR to conservative legal teams or clients, what technical reassurances do they usually seek, and how do you translate those concerns into concrete procedural or contractual safeguards they can trust?
Introducing ODR, especially AI-enabled processes, to conservative legal teams is less about selling novelty and more about addressing very traditional legal anxieties. In my experience, their questions are refreshingly orthodox: Is it lawful? Is it secure? Is it fair? And will it hold up if challenged? Once you recognise that, the conversation becomes far more constructive.
The first reassurance they seek is confidentiality and data security. Lawyers are trained to assume risk where technology is involved, and rightly so. We respond by embedding concrete safeguards rather than abstract assurances, clear data, hosting disclosures, encryption standards, access controls, audit trails, and defined data retention policies. Contractually, this translates into confidentiality clauses tailored to ODR platforms, express restrictions on data use for AI training, and clear ownership of dispute data. In other words, the same duty of confidentiality they expect in a physical hearing room is recreated digitally. There are no black boxes.
Second is procedural fairness and neutrality, particularly when AI tools are involved. There is an understandable concern that algorithms may influence outcomes or obscure reasoning. AOI’s approach, shaped by our partnership with the DIFC Academy, is to draw a bright line: AI may assist in case management, scheduling, document organisation, or pattern recognition but never replace human adjudicatory judgment. Procedurally, this is reflected in rules that mandate human oversight, transparent decision-making, party consent to any AI assistance, and the right to challenge process irregularities. That reassurance usually lands well with traditionalists. It seems familiar because it mirrors natural justice.
Third, they ask about enforceability and legal compatibility across jurisdictions. This is where global standards matter. We align ODR processes with recognised arbitration and mediation frameworks, ensure seat-specific compliance, and draft dispute resolution clauses that explicitly recognise ODR as a valid mode under governing law. Where appropriate, hybrid clauses are used with ODR first, arbitration or court fallback later so parties never feel they are burning bridges.
Finally, there is the quiet but important concern of control. Conservative clients want to know they are not surrendering autonomy to technology. Our answer is process design. Timelines, escalation points, opt-out provisions, and agreed protocols are all contractually defined. ODR is positioned not as a leap of faith, but as a carefully structured pathway with handrails on both sides.
The irony, of course, is that once these safeguards are in place, ODR often feels more predictable and disciplined than traditional proceedings. When clients realise that, resistance tends to soften.
In 2024, ADR ODR International entered into a partnership with Presolv 360, India’s largest ODR platform. I serve on their executive board of directors, and its CEO, Namita Shah, leads the design and delivery of our ODR training programs both in India and internationally.
4. One of your roles as the Head of AOI India is capacity-building. For an in-house legal team of six to ten people serving multiple business units, what is the most impactful low-cost ADR capability you would build in the first year, and how would you know if it is actually working?
If I had to choose one low-cost ADR capability for an in-house legal team of six to ten lawyers, it would be early dispute triage combined with negotiation capability that is formally structured, consistently applied, and institutionally owned. A bit like the NHS set up in the UK! It’s unglamorous, but in dispute resolution, the quiet mechanisms usually deliver the loudest results.
In the first year, I would help the team build a simple internal dispute-assessment protocol that every matter must pass through before escalation. This is not another policy document that gathers dust; it’s a working tool. Each dispute is assessed at intake on a few disciplined parameters: commercial value versus relationship value, legal risk versus reputational risk, urgency, evidence maturity, and suitability for negotiation, mediation, or ODR. This forces lawyers to think like problem-solvers before they think like litigators, very much in line with traditional ADR philosophy.
Alongside this, I would invest in targeted negotiation and mediation-adjacent skills, rather than full scale arbitration training. Teaching in-house counsel how to frame interests, manage internal stakeholders, handle power asymmetries, and conduct structured settlement conversations pays immediate dividends. It costs little, but it changes posture.
To make this stick, I would encourage the designation of one or two team members as ADR champions. Their role is not to replace external counsel or neutrals, but to act as internal process guardians ensuring triage happens, settlement windows are identified, and ADR options are not an afterthought.
How do you know it’s working? Not by counting certificates. You look for behavioural and commercial indicators. Are disputes being escalated later, or not at all? Are external counsel being briefed after negotiation has been attempted, rather than before? Are business teams reporting faster closure and fewer “zombie disputes” that linger for years? And perhaps most telling are senior managers starting to ask, “Can we resolve this without filing?” before asking who the best litigator is. When those shifts occur, capacity has been built.
5. Despite years of discussion, ADR in India is still treated as something to try after relationships have broken down. Why do you think that is the case, and what would need to change for mediation or negotiation to become a genuine first response rather than a fallback?
This persists because, in India, ADR has largely been positioned as a repair mechanism rather than a management tool. We reach for mediation after trust has collapsed, pleadings have hardened, and egos are fully invested. By then, ADR is asked to perform a miracle, undo months or years of adversarial conditioning. That’s not a failure of mediation; it’s a failure of timing.
There are three structural reasons for this mindset. First, our legal training still treats litigation as the default expression of seriousness. Filing quickly is equated with protecting rights, while negotiation is often misread as weakness or concession. That instinct is deeply ingrained, reinforced by procedural milestones and limitation anxieties. Second, businesses tend to involve lawyers late, when positions are already entrenched. By the time counsel arrives, the question is no longer how do we resolve this, but how do we defend this. And third, there is a persistent misunderstanding of mediation as a soft, informal conversation rather than a disciplined, interest-based process governed by law and ethics.
For mediation or negotiation to become a genuine first response, a few things must shift quietly but decisively.
The first is front-end integration. ADR must be designed into contracts, policies, and escalation frameworks at the outset, not bolted on in distress. Well drafted multi-tier dispute resolution clauses, internal negotiation windows, and mandatory cooling-off periods change behavioural responses before conflict hardens. When the process is pre-agreed, no one loses face by using it.
Second, we need procedural legitimacy, not just statutory recognition as enshrined under Article 39 A, Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (amended in 2021). Courts have done important work in endorsing mediation, but lawyers and clients need repeat exposure to well-run processes that feel serious, confidential, and outcome-oriented. When mediation is conducted with the same discipline as arbitration: with clear agendas, skilled neutrals, documented outcomes, it earns trust. Familiarity, as always in law, breeds confidence.
Third, there must be realignment of incentives. Lawyers are rarely rewarded financially or reputationally for resolving disputes early. In-house teams, in particular, are often judged on how well they “hold the line,” not how efficiently they close matters. That needs recalibration. When businesses begin valuing speed, cost control, and relationship preservation as legal success metrics, negotiation naturally moves to the front.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there needs to be a cultural reframe. Mediation is not about being agreeable; it is about being strategic. Negotiation is not surrender; it is risk management. Once clients and counsels start seeing ADR as a way to exercise control rather than relinquish it, the hierarchy reverses: talk first, file later.
Ironically, this is not a radical idea. It reflects how disputes were traditionally settled long before formal courts became the default. Lok Adalats as governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 inspired by Article 39A are a case in point. The challenge now is to restore that wisdom within modern legal systems, with proper safeguards and professional rigour. When that happens, ADR will stop being the last resort and start becoming the first instinct.
6. A lot of ADR reform focuses on training lawyers, but far less on changing client expectations. From your experience, how much of the resistance to ADR in India comes from lawyers themselves, and how much comes from clients- particularly institutional or government clients?
In practice, resistance to ADR in India is rarely owned by a single group, it’s a shared ecosystem problem but the sources of resistance are not evenly distributed. If I had to apportion responsibility, I would say lawyers shape the narrative, while clients, especially institutional and government clients, control the risk appetite. The result is a stalemate where each waits for the other to move first.
Among lawyers, the resistance is often subtle rather than ideological. Most lawyers today will publicly endorse mediation and negotiation, but few will instinctively lead with it. This comes from training and incentives. Litigation is familiar, defensible, and procedurally safe. Advising ADR, particularly early-stage ADR, requires judgment calls that are harder to justify after the fact. If a negotiated outcome is criticised internally, it can look like a concession; a court order, even an adverse one, comes with institutional cover. So, lawyers default to processes that minimise personal exposure rather than systemic cost. That hesitation accounts for a significant portion of the inertia.
Clients, however, bring a different kind of resistance, especially institutional and government clients. Their concerns are less about law and more about accountability optics. Settlements raise uncomfortable questions: Who approved this? Why didn’t we fight? Will this be audited? In government and PSU contexts, ADR is often perceived as discretion-heavy and therefore risk-prone, even when it is economically sensible. Litigation, paradoxically, feels safer because responsibility is deferred to the system. Delay becomes a feature, not a bug.
Where it becomes interesting is that each side reinforces the other. Lawyers anticipate client conservatism and therefore do not push for ADR with conviction. Clients sense this lack of confidence and retreat further into formal proceedings. Everyone agrees ADR is “a good idea,” but no one wants to be the first to operationalise it.
Changing this dynamic requires shifting focus from persuasion to process protection. Clients adopt ADR more readily when it is embedded in pre-approved frameworks, standard operating procedures, model clauses, panelled neutrals, documented decision matrices. These mechanisms reduce discretion and therefore fear. For lawyers, resistance diminishes when ADR advice is backed by structure, clear triggers, defined stages, and recordable rationale.
In short, lawyers hesitate because they fear being second guessed; clients resist because they fear being blamed. ADR reform will move faster when both sides are offered something very traditional and very comforting: rules, records, and repeatable processes. Once that happens, even the most cautious institutions discover that resolving disputes early is not risky at all; what’s truly risky is letting them linger indefinitely under the illusion of safety.
7. Law school trains students to think that disputes have a very marked start- when a notice is issued or a breach occurs. In your experience, at what point do disputes actually begin, and what early warning signs should young lawyers learn to watch out for before matters turn adversarial?
In practice, disputes rarely begin with a notice, a breach, or a sharply worded email drafted at 11:58 p.m. They begin much earlier: quietly, informally, and almost always off the record. By the time a legal trigger is visible, the dispute has already matured. Law school teaches us to spot causes of action; experience teaches us to spot causes of conflict. The two are not the same.
Disputes usually begin at the point where expectations quietly diverge. This could be during contract performance, not contract formation when timelines slip without explanation, scope subtly expands, invoices are queried rather than paid, or decisions start getting deferred without clear reasons. Nothing has “gone wrong” yet, but alignment has been lost. That is the true origin point.
For young lawyers, there are several early warning signs worth learning to recognise.
The first is a shift in communication tone or frequency. When routine conversations move from collaborative to formal, when calls become emails, and emails become copied to seniors, something has changed. This procedural stiffening often precedes legal escalation. The dispute has not started but positions are forming.
Second, watch for internal escalation before external accusation. When a business team starts asking for document collation, historical emails, or contract interpretations “just in case,” they are preparing for conflict, even if no one admits it yet. This is the window where early negotiation or clarification can still reset expectations.
Third is asymmetry in risk perception. One party believes the issue is minor or temporary; the other treats it as systemic or reputational. That mismatch more than the breach itself drives disputes. Lawyers who can identify and address that imbalance early often prevent formal proceedings altogether.
Fourth, and most overlooked, is silence. Delayed responses, vague assurances, or non answers are often more dangerous than open disagreement. Silence creates narratives, and narratives harden into legal positions. Once that happens, even reasonable solutions feel like losses.
From an ADR perspective, this is where young lawyers should intervene not with threats or notices, but with questions: What has changed? What does the other side actually need? What would resolution look like for them right now? These are not soft inquiries; they are strategic diagnostics.
The irony is that the best dispute lawyers often work hardest before there is a dispute to manage. If young lawyers learn to treat early friction as a signal rather than a nuisance, they develop a skill rarely taught but deeply valued: preventing yesterday’s misunderstanding from becoming tomorrow’s litigation. And in a profession that rewards battles, quietly avoiding one is still the most elegant win.
8. Young lawyers are trained to look for the strongest legal argument, but very few are trained to ask where that argument should be made. Looking back at disputes you’ve handled, can you recall a situation where choosing the right forum mattered more than the argument itself? What is your rule-of-thumb when deciding the strategically best-suited forum between litigation, arbitration, and mediation?
Absolutely, and most experienced practitioners will admit, if pressed, that some of their “best” arguments died simply because they were born in the wrong forum. One dispute I often reflect on involved a long-standing commercial relationship where the legal position was technically sound, even elegant. On paper, it belonged in court. In reality, the court was the worst place for it.
The matter involved a contractual interpretation issue with reputational undertones and ongoing business dependencies. Litigating would have meant public pleadings, rigid timelines, and years of uncertainty. The strongest argument would eventually have prevailed but at the cost of the relationship, the market perception, and the client’s appetite for continued engagement. We chose structured negotiation first, backed by the credible shadow of arbitration. The legal argument did not disappear; it simply changed its posture. It became leverage rather than ammunition. The dispute resolved in weeks, not years. In hindsight, the forum, not the force of the argument, determined the outcome.
My rule of thumb is deceptively simple and deeply traditional: match the forum to the real risk, not the legal issue.
If the dominant risk is precedent, public accountability, or constitutional clarity, litigation is usually unavoidable. Courts are designed for authoritative pronouncement, not commercial compromise. But one must enter that arena knowing that control is surrendered the moment the first pleading is filed.
If the dominant risk is time, confidentiality, technical complexity, or cross-border enforceability, arbitration often offers the best balance. It allows legal arguments to be fully aired before decision-makers who understand the industry, while containing exposure. That said, arbitration is still adjudication where positions harden, and outcomes are binary.
If the dominant risk is relationship damage, business disruption, or internal optics, negotiation or mediation should almost always be the first stop. This is where strong legal arguments are most powerful not as verdict-seeking devices, but as credibility signals. A good argument in negotiation expands options; the same argument in court narrows them.
So, when deciding the forum, I ask three questions before I look at the cause of action:
Who needs to be convinced?
How much control does the client want to retain?
And what does a “win” actually look like six months after the dispute ends?
Young lawyers are taught to sharpen arguments; seasoned lawyers learn where to deploy them. Choosing the right forum is not a concession, it is strategy. Or, to put it more bluntly, even the finest sword is useless if you bring it to the wrong battlefield.
9. You’ve likely seen situations where a party is clearly right on the law. At what point does insisting on that correctness begin to undermine resolution? How can a lawyer reframe the conversation to move parties away from adversarial positions to mutual interests?
Being right on the law is a powerful position but it is also a dangerous one if handled without restraint. In many disputes I’ve seen, the moment a party becomes emotionally invested in correctness, resolution quietly slips out of reach. The law may be on your side, yet the dispute remains very much alive. That’s usually the inflection point.
Insisting on legal correctness begins to undermine resolution when it stops functioning as leverage and starts becoming identity. When the conversation shifts from “this is our position” to “this proves we are right and you are wrong,” the dispute ceases to be about outcomes and becomes about validation. At that stage, even reasonable settlement proposals feel like moral defeats. Lawyers, unintentionally, often accelerate this by over-performing the argument with long notices, exhaustive citations, and a tone that leaves the other side with only two options: surrender or fight.
From an ADR perspective, the lawyer’s task is to de-centre correctness without abandoning it. The first reframing move is to relocate the legal argument from the foreground to the background. Instead of saying, “We will win,” you say, “This is how a court or tribunal is likely to view the risk.” The law becomes a shared risk assessment tool rather than a weapon. This subtle shift lowers defensiveness while preserving credibility.
Second, the conversation must pivotfrom positions to consequences. Positions are static; consequences are dynamic. A lawyer can ask what does winning actually cost in time, money, management bandwidth, market reputation, or regulatory exposure? When those costs are articulated calmly, even a legally strong party begins to see settlement not as compromise, but as optimisation.
Third, effective reframing requires acknowledging the other side’s non-legal drivers without conceding the law. Rarely is a dispute sustained purely by doctrine. Cash flow pressure, internal approvals, face saving, or future dependency often matter more. Naming these interests carefully and without accusation creates movement. A lawyer might say, “If timing and certainty matter to you, there may be ways to address that without either side walking away from principle.”
Finally, tone matters more than tactics. Resolution becomes possible when the lawyer models confidence without triumphalism. That balance reassures the other side that settlement is not capitulation, it is a rational choice in the shadow of the law.
The paradox is this: the stronger your legal position, the less you should need to shout about it. Used wisely, correctness opens doors. Clung to rigidly, it closes them. The mark of a mature dispute lawyer is knowing when the law has done its job and when it needs to step aside so resolution can enter the room.
10. Going back a little to your in-house and general counsel days: there is a tendency to treat “the client” as a single rational actor. In reality, how fragmented is decision-making inside corporations or institutions, and how should a lawyer advise when different internal stakeholders want fundamentally different outcomes?
Treating “the client” as a single, rational decision-maker is one of the more enduring legal fictions we carry from textbooks into practice. In reality, especially inside large corporations, PSUs, or institutions, the client is a coalition, not a person. Decision-making is fragmented, layered, and often driven by incentives that have very little to do with the legal merits of the dispute.
From my in-house and general counsel experience, you will typically see at least four parallel stakeholders in any serious dispute: the business unit that feels wronged and wants vindication; finance, which wants cost certainty and clean closure; compliance or audit, which wants defensibility and paper trails; and senior management, which wants the issue to disappear without reputational fallout. Add government entities or joint ventures to the mix, and the fragmentation multiplies. Each group defines “success” differently and none of them is being irrational. They are optimising for their own exposure.
The danger for lawyers is assuming that a single, well-reasoned legal memo will align these interests. It rarely does. Advising effectively in this environment requires shifting from legal advisor to process architect.
The first step is diagnosis. Before recommending any forum or strategy, the lawyer must map internal interests with the same care used to analyse external parties. Who carries personal accountability? Who signs off on settlements? Who bears the downside if things go wrong? These questions matter more than who has the strongest opinion in the room.
Second, advice must be framed in options, not answers. When stakeholders want fundamentally different outcomes, the lawyer’s role is not to pick a side, but to present structured pathways which could be litigation, arbitration, negotiated settlement, each clearly linked to risks, costs, timelines, and optics. This allows internal decision makers to see trade-offs rather than argue positions. It also protects the lawyer, a quietly important consideration.
Third, lawyers should create internal alignment moments before external escalation. Joint briefings, decision matrices, or even mediated internal discussions can surface hidden concerns early. This is where ADR thinking is invaluable: not just outward-facing, but inward-facing. Corporations often need internal mediation before they attempt external resolution.
Finally, when alignment is impossible, the lawyer must anchor the strategy to the institution’s risk tolerance, not individual preferences. That may mean recommending a conservative path even when one stakeholder wants an aggressive stance. Clarity and documentation here are essential both ethically and professionally.
The uncomfortable truth is that disputes inside institutions are often sustained by internal misalignment rather than external hostility. A lawyer who recognises this early can prevent the organisation from litigating its own indecision through the courts. And that, quietly, is some of the most valuable counsel a lawyer can give.
11. Many young lawyers worry that ADR is a soft or secondary track. From a career-trajectory perspective, what kinds of lawyers genuinely thrive in ADR, and who might actually struggle or feel constrained in this space?
ADR is often misperceived as a “soft” or secondary track because it doesn’t conform to the adversarial heroics many young lawyers are trained to admire. But the lawyers who genuinely thrive in ADR are not necessarily the ones with the loudest voices, they are the ones who combine strategic thinking with emotional intelligence, patience, and intellectual flexibility.
Those who flourish tend to share a few key traits:
• Curiosity beyond the law: They care as much about the business, the relationships, and the practical consequences of a dispute as they do about precedent or textual interpretation.
• Comfort with ambiguity: ADR rarely offers a black and white answer. Lawyers who thrive enjoy navigating grey areas, exploring options, and designing creative solutions within legal boundaries.
• People skills married to rigor: Strong listening, empathy, and negotiation skills matter, but they are anchored in structured thinking, procedural discipline, and ethical certainty. ADR is not “feel-good law”, it’s applied law with a human dimension.
• Long-term perspective: They understand that winning today may mean losing tomorrow if relationships are damaged. The horizon is broader than the immediate “point of law.”
Mr Kapil Sibal who is the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association says:
“In today’s geopolitical climate, aggressive reactions are counterproductive. Our foundation must be constructive dialogue, fostering understanding and resolving conflicts. Solutions always exist, and the key lies in attentive and active listening.”
He adds on the role of women in ADR In India:
“The landscape for women in ADR and ODR in India today is dynamic and forward-looking. For those who thrive on strategic insight, dialogue-centred problem-solving, and constructive influence, this space isn’t just an alternative to litigation, it’s a central pillar of modern law and dispute practice.
Women in ADR and ODR in India, especially those who choose paths outside traditional litigation, is both vibrant and increasingly rewarding. In fact, dispute resolution today offers women lawyers and professionals a platform to lead, innovate, and influence the way conflicts are managed in business, government, and civil society across India. It’s a pivotal moment in the new age practice of law in India and women are taking the command.”
Conversely, lawyers who may struggle or feel constrained in ADR often fall into predictable categories:
• Argument-first thinkers: Those trained to fight at every opportunity, who measure success by verdicts or precedents rather than outcomes and efficiencies.
• Control-oriented litigators: Lawyers who derive authority from dictating process or controlling every narrative may feel frustrated by negotiation, mediation, or collaborative problem-solving, where control is shared.
• Risk-intolerant personalities: ADR requires judgment calls and incremental progress. Lawyers who seek absolute certainty or binary outcomes may feel constrained by the iterative, sometimes slow, process of consensus building.
In short, ADR is not “soft”, it is different. It rewards intellectual dexterity, interpersonal skill, and strategic patience. Lawyers who can balance rigor with flexibility, advocacy with listening, and correctness with pragmatism are the ones who thrive. The rest may find it frustrating precisely because it challenges the instincts honed in traditional litigation but those instincts are exactly what ADR asks you to evolve.
12. Looking back at your own career and those you’ve mentored, what personal qualities or habits matter most for someone who wants to do serious, long-term work in dispute resolution?
From my experience both in practice and mentoring, long-term success in dispute resolution is not built on flashy wins or memorised rules; it’s built on a combination of personal qualities, habits, and mindset that sustain you over years of complex, often subtle work.
First, curiosity and analytical patience. Disputes are rarely what they appear on the surface. Lawyers who ask the right questions, dig beyond the contract, and understand the people, culture, and commercial pressures behind a conflict consistently uncover solutions others miss. This requires patience: the discipline to slow down before rushing to conclusions.
Second, emotional intelligence coupled with self-control. ADR isn’t about winning arguments, it’s about understanding interests, managing perceptions, and staying calm when tensions rise. Lawyers who can read moods, anticipate reactions, and respond strategically rather than emotionally are far more effective.
Third, resilience and long-term thinking. Disputes can be drawn-out, frustrating, and sometimes personally uncomfortable. The ability to remain focused on outcomes rather than short-term gratification, and to weather setbacks without losing perspective, separates successful practitioners from those who burn out.
Fourth, a habit of disciplined preparation and documentation. ADR may feel informal, but credibility is earned through structured well-prepared briefs, clear options, process design, and precise records. Small lapses in discipline can erode trust faster than any legal argument.
Fifth, flexibility and adaptability. Every dispute is different. Lawyers who cling rigidly to a single process, mindset, or template will struggle. Those who adapt their approach to context- blending negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and ODR as needed- consistently deliver value.
Finally, a mindset that values collaboration without sacrificing rigor. Successful dispute resolvers treat correctness as a tool, not a weapon. They combine strategic advocacy with practical problem-solving and maintain credibility even when outcomes require compromise.
In short, the lawyers who do serious, long term ADR work are less defined by how aggressively they argue and more by how thoughtfully, patiently, and strategically they engage with conflict. The habits that support this are listening deeply, preparing meticulously, reflecting continuously, and managing both people and process. This is what makes ADR a sustainable, high-impact career.
13. When a private settlement resolves a dispute but leaves environmental or social harms unaddressed, what do you think about the tension between client confidentiality and the public interest? Is there a personal principle that guides you in these situations?
This is one of the most delicate balances in dispute resolution: the lawyer’s duty to maintain client confidentiality versus the broader public interest in preventing or remedying environmental or social harms. In practice, this tension is rarely theoretical as it shows up in boardrooms, negotiation tables, and mediated settlements where what’s privately resolved could have public consequences.
My guiding principle is straightforward: protect the client without enabling harm. Confidentiality is a cornerstone of legal practice and ADR as it allows parties to speak freely, explore creative solutions, and reach resolution. But it does not mean blind consent to outcomes that perpetuate harm or violate law. The lawyer’s role is to ensure that any settlement complies with regulatory obligations, includes appropriate safeguards, and, where possible, encourages remedial action without breaching client trust.
In practical terms, this means:
1. Proactively identifying risks: Before agreeing to confidentiality clauses, I assess whether the dispute implicates statutory or regulatory duties which include environmental impact disclosures, public safety, labour rights, or similar obligations. Parties can be guided to address these obligations within the settlement framework.
2. Structuring settlements to allow accountability: Even if the details remain confidential, settlements can include provisions that ensure remedial measures, monitoring, or reporting to relevant authorities. Confidentiality does not have to mean invisibility.
3. Advising clients on reputational and legal risks: Often, clients underestimate the long-term consequences of ignoring social or environmental harm. Framing the resolution in terms of compliance, risk mitigation, and public perception usually encourages action voluntarily.
4. Refusing to participate in arrangements that would constitute illegality or gross public harm: There are limits to confidentiality. No professional obligation compels complicity in ongoing unlawful activity or significant societal damage.
So, the personal principle is: honour confidentiality, but do not treat it as a shield for wrongdoing. Effective ADR can resolve disputes and preserve privacy while still safeguarding broader public interests. The art and the ethical responsibility lies in designing settlements that protect the client without silencing the law or the public good.
14. You live between Delhi and London, juggle demanding professional responsibilities while being a mother and your own individual self. When everything feels fast-moving and conflict-heavy, what helps you stay centred?
Staying centred in a life that moves between Delhi and London and between boardrooms, mediation tables, and family life requires a combination of structure, perspective, and deliberate self-care. The first and simplest tool is my clarity of priorities. When everything feels urgent, I pause to ask: which decisions are irreversible, which affect others most directly, and which can safely wait? That lens helps distinguish noise from what truly matters.
Second is ritualised grounding. For me, that often means small, consistent routines like early morning reading, brief reflection, meditation (not to be confused with mediation), or even a walk as these moments help me create space to step back from immediate pressures. These practices are not about escaping the work, but about resetting mental bandwidth so I can engage thoughtfully rather than reactively.
Third, I rely on strategic compartmentalisation. Conflict-heavy days can feel emotionally draining. I consciously separate professional intensity from personal life. At home, I focus fully on family or personal pursuits; at work, I give disputes the analytical and emotional attention they deserve. It’s not always perfect, but even small boundaries preserve my equilibrium.
Fourth is perspective and humour. In ADR, no matter how serious a dispute feels in the moment, most conflicts are resolvable, most outcomes manageable, and very few crises are existential. Keeping that broader lens often with a touch of dry humour prevents the immediacy of conflict from overwhelming judgment or wellbeing. A nice glass of red wine to end the day is always welcomed.
Finally, I practise intentional reflection and learning. At the end of a week or a particularly intense day, I step back to consider what went well, what could have been handled differently, and what I have learned about people, process, and myself. This reflection turns high pressure experiences into growth rather than just exhaustion. With 3 children, my youngest being just 11, and a Golden Retriever named Dorian, life presents itself with all forms trials where the practice of ADR is an absolute must!
In short, staying centred is less about controlling the pace of life and more about creating mental and emotional anchor points: clarity, routine, boundaries, perspective, and reflection. They allow me to remain present, make principled decisions, and engage fully with both the professional challenges and the personal life that matter most.
15. What are the milestones achieved by ADR ODR International in 2025?
2025 marked a significant year for ADR ODR International, reflecting its growing global footprint and influence in dispute resolution education. The organisation hosted its 10th Dispute Resolution Week in Dubai on 10-14 November, bringing together over 500 delegates across advanced negotiation and conflict management programmes.
A key milestone was the expanded partnership with the DIFC Academy, which enables advanced training in mediation, arbitration, and AI-enabled dispute resolution, as well as an LLM in Digital Dispute Resolution in collaboration with the Leeds Beckett University. The initiative is supported by MoUs with prominent Indian law schools such as Symbiosis Law School, and prospective collaborations with Jindal Global Law School.
ADR ODR International also strengthened professional pathways through a new collaboration with BARBRI SQE Prep to offer preparation for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination, and hosted its annual Ad Hoc Negotiation Competition, reinforcing its role as a hub for innovation, education, and community-building in ADR and ODR.