• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


GUEST-POST | From Rome to Delhi: Indian Lawyers Take Their Turn at Defending Slow Justice

0
by Victoria VanBuren

Thursday, Jun 02, 2011


Tweet

by Michael McIlwrath

Earlier this year, Italian lawyers went on strike to protest the country’s introduction of a law imposing a requirement to attempt settlement through mediation as a precondition to proceeding to litigate in court. Perhaps not wanting to be outdone by their European brethren, the Association of Indian Lawyers (AIL) has filed suit in the High Court of Delhi to thwart an innovate effort to provide parties with an alternative to a famously inefficient legal system.

Some background: in April 2009, the London Court of International Arbitration (the LCIA), a leading provider of international arbitration services, opened a subsidiary office in Delhi. Called LCIA India it is today in full operation, complete with its own set of India Arbitration Rules.

As explained on the organization’s website, LCIA India purports to offer, “all the services offered by the LCIA in the UK, and with the same care to ensure the expeditious, cost effective and totally neutral administration of arbitration and other forms of ADR conducted under its auspices, whether according to LCIA India’s own rules, or the UNCITRAL rules, or any other procedures agreed by the parties.” In other words, the same services widely available from a variety of providers in any modern economy.

This, apparently, was too much for the AIL, which petitioned the High Court of Delhi for an order removing “London Court” from the LCIA’s name, and which the High Court instructed should be notified to all concerned parties on May 31, 2011. On the surface, the petition appears to lament that the LCIA is attempting, “to create a parallel system of administration of law in defiance to the prevailing judicial system in India.”

As with the Italian lawyers strike, the invocation of what might be viewed as public interest is at most superficial. It’s the fear of losing the ability to hold clients captive to judicial inefficiency that is the real driver, as well as the fear that new forms of dispute resolution might also inject competition for legal services. India currently prohibits foreign lawyers from practicing (you’ll find none of the large firms listing offices in Delhi or Mumbai), and the AIL’s petition openly lays out the concern that the LCIA, “is trying to circumvent the law by allowing foreign legal practitioners to provide professional legal services in the grab of conducting arbitration.”

The LCIA is not the only institution feeling heat from those with vested interests in keeping litigants captive of slow justice dispensed exclusively by local practitioners. For this post, I touched base with Anil Xavier, the President of the Indian Institute of Arbitration & Mediation www.arbitrationindia.org, based in Bangalore/Cochin. Anil has been working to promote institutional arbitration and mediation in India. He calls the AIL’s allegation “absurd” and fears that India’s domestic bar will continue to undermine any effort to provide alternatives to local, ad hoc arbitration and court litigation. He calls the petition, “just another example that international or domestic arbitration have still not escaped the clutches of the majority of the Indian lawyers, who have not accepted arbitration or ADR as a main area of practice. The fact that more international arbitral institutions are coming to India, however, is an expression not just of a jurisprudential need, but a requirement for smooth business and commercial operations.”

In fact, the irony of the AIL’s protest is that it so fundamentally misunderstands what LCIA India is attempting to accomplish, or why both the Minister of Law and Justice and the Chief Justice of India attended its opening in April 2009. As an international institution, the LCIA knows well that few non-Indian commercial parties will agree to have their disputes resolved in India. The LCIA initiative of creating an Indian subsidiary would ultimately keep work in India that today goes elsewhere, and foster closer ties between Indian and foreign companies. Instead of insisting on say, arbitration in Singapore or London, international companies might actually be convinced to one day accept arbitration in Delhi. That’s not the way it is today, at least when non-Indian parties believe they have other options, which they almost always do.

Still, this may not be bad news for international dispute resolution in India or the LCIA, at least for now. While the striking Italian lawyers chose a method of protest that had an immediate impact, the AIL has chosen a different forum…. the Indian courts. According to one authority (Justice V.V. Rao), it will take until the year 2330 for the country’s courts to clear their existing backlog at the current pace of deciding cases, although most are decided in under 15 years (before appeals).

If the AIL had wanted an earlier resolution, they might have considered mediating or arbitrating instead….


MICHAEL MCILWRATH is Senior Counsel, Litigation, for the GE Oil & Gas Division in Florence, Italy. His experience in international arbitration includes representing the company in disputes under the rules of various international and regional arbitration institutions and under ad hoc procedures around the world, and in coordinating the activities of outside counsel in domestic court and arbitral proceedings. He has published numerous articles in the fields of international arbitration, mediation, and negotiation, and is co-author, with John Savage, of International Arbitration and Mediation: A Practical Guide (Kluwer Law International).

Michael is a member of the European Advisory Committee of CPR, and acted as an industry representative to the European Commission (Justice) in the creation of a European ADR Code of Conduct. He was Chair of the International Mediation Institute (IMI), in 2009. In addition, he was the co-vice chair with mediator Judith Meyer (and chair, Singapore ambassador at large Tommy Koh) of the IMI Independent Standards Committee. He is also a member of the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education, in Oakland, California.

Related Posts

  • GUEST-POST | Survey on Current and Preferred Practices in ArbitrationGUEST-POST | Survey on Current and Preferred Practices in Arbitration
  • GUEST-POST | Response to ‘Stuck in Arbitration’GUEST-POST | Response to ‘Stuck in Arbitration’
  • GUEST-POST | Italy’s Lawyers Call for National Strike Against Mediation LawGUEST-POST | Italy’s Lawyers Call for National Strike Against Mediation Law
  • Developments in International Commercial Mediation: US, UK, Asia, India and EUDevelopments in International Commercial Mediation: US, UK, Asia, India and EU
  • LCIA India Unveils its Arbitration and Mediation RulesLCIA India Unveils its Arbitration and Mediation Rules
  • Dispute System Design: A Comparative Study of India, Israel, and CaliforniaDispute System Design: A Comparative Study of India, Israel, and California

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Victoria VanBuren

Born and raised in Mexico, Victoria is a native Spanish speaker and a graduate of the Monterrey Institute of Technology (Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey), or "the MIT of Latin America." She concentrated in physics and mathematics. Immediately after completing her work at the Institute, Victoria moved to Canada to study English and French. On her way back to Mexico, she landed in Dallas and managed to have her luggage lost at the airport. Charmed by the Texas hospitality, she decided to stay and made her way back to Austin, which she's adopted as home.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy