Why Every Dispute Deserves a Resolution Strategy Before a Legal Strategy

The most important question a lawyer can ask at the beginning of a dispute is not always, “What is our legal position?”

It may be a more fundamental question:

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

“What is our resolution strategy?”

This distinction is increasingly important in a legal environment where disputes are becoming more complex, commercial relationships are increasingly interconnected, and parties are beginning to recognise that a successful outcome cannot always be measured by a judgment alone.

As a lawyer, educator and professional engaged in the development of alternative dispute resolution, I believe that every dispute deserves a resolution strategy before it receives a legal strategy.

This is not an argument against litigation, arbitration or rigorous legal advocacy. It is an argument for using each of them intelligently.

A legal strategy tells us how we will assert, protect or enforce rights.

A resolution strategy asks what outcome actually matters, what risks the parties are willing to accept, which relationships need to be preserved, which interests can be accommodated and which process offers the most proportionate route to a sustainable outcome.

The difference is not merely semantic.

It represents a change in the way we understand the very purpose of legal practice.

The law is essential, but the law is not the whole dispute

Every dispute that enters the legal system has a legal dimension.

But not every dispute is fundamentally a legal problem.

A contractual dispute may actually be a business relationship in distress. A shareholder dispute may involve questions of control, trust and succession. A family business dispute may contain decades of unresolved interpersonal conflict. An employment dispute may be driven as much by dignity and recognition as by monetary compensation.

If the lawyer sees only the cause of action, the lawyer may miss the cause of the conflict.

This is where resolution strategy becomes important.

Before deciding what legal proceeding should be initiated, we should understand what the parties are actually trying to accomplish.

Is the objective compensation?

Is it continuity of the commercial relationship?

Is it an exit?

Is it confidentiality?

Is it restoration of trust?

Is it an apology?

Is it protection of reputation?

Is it certainty?

Is it speed?

Is it finality?

The answer may determine the appropriate dispute resolution process.

Indian law increasingly recognises the importance of resolution

India’s legal framework has progressively moved towards recognising mediation and consensual dispute resolution as essential components of modern justice.

Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 created an important statutory foundation for referring appropriate disputes towards alternative modes of settlement.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. remains an important reference point in understanding the operation of Section 89 and the role of alternative dispute resolution within civil procedure.

The Court recognised that litigation should not necessarily be the default destination for every dispute and provided important guidance concerning the categories of disputes that may appropriately be referred to alternative processes.

The significance of this jurisprudence extends beyond procedural classification.

It reflects a deeper institutional principle.

Justice is not synonymous with adjudication.

Sometimes justice requires a binding decision.

Sometimes justice requires an agreement.

Sometimes it requires restoration of a relationship.

Sometimes it requires an orderly separation.

The legal system must therefore be capable of accommodating different forms of resolution.

The Mediation Act, 2023 represents an important shift

The enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023 is particularly significant in this context.

The legislation provides a dedicated statutory framework for mediation and reflects India’s continuing movement towards institutionalising consensual dispute resolution.

The importance of the legislation is not simply that mediation has received statutory recognition.

Its greater significance lies in the message it sends about legal culture.

Mediation is not merely an informal conversation that occurs before a “real” legal process.

It is a legitimate dispute resolution mechanism in its own right.

That distinction matters.

For too long, dispute resolution has sometimes been presented as a hierarchy in which litigation occupies the centre and negotiation or mediation appear to be secondary alternatives.

The more sophisticated approach is to reject that hierarchy.

The appropriate process should depend upon the nature of the dispute, the interests of the parties, the desired outcome, the degree of urgency, the need for confidentiality, the complexity of evidence, the requirement for precedent and the importance of preserving relationships.

The Mediation Act strengthens the institutional architecture for that approach.

Arbitration is also a strategic choice

The same principle applies to arbitration.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides an important framework for private adjudication, particularly in commercial disputes.

But arbitration should not be selected simply because a contract contains an arbitration clause.

The lawyer must ask why arbitration is strategically appropriate.

Does the dispute require confidentiality?

Is specialist expertise important?

Is international enforceability relevant?

Is procedural flexibility valuable?

Do the parties require a binding adjudicatory outcome?

Would arbitration be more proportionate than litigation?

And perhaps most importantly, can the matter still be resolved consensually before substantial arbitral costs are incurred?

A well designed arbitration strategy should therefore include an assessment of settlement opportunities.

Arbitration and settlement are not conceptual opposites.

A party can prepare rigorously for arbitration while simultaneously preparing intelligently for resolution.

Indeed, the strongest settlement position is often built upon a clear understanding of what arbitration would realistically produce.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly encouraged a culture of settlement

Indian jurisprudence provides considerable support for the proposition that courts should facilitate appropriate settlements.

In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court considered the implementation of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and emphasised the importance of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in reducing the burden of litigation.

More recently, the Supreme Court’s decision in M.R. Krishna Murthi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. highlighted the broader need for strengthening institutional mechanisms for dispute resolution.

These developments should not be viewed simply through the lens of reducing judicial backlog.

There is a much larger question.

What kind of justice system do we want to build?

A system that measures success only by the number of cases disposed of is incomplete.

A mature justice system should also consider whether disputes are resolved efficiently, fairly, proportionately and sustainably.

Resolution strategy does not mean abandoning legal strategy

This distinction is critical.

There is a danger of presenting mediation and negotiation as though they require lawyers to step away from legal analysis.

They do not.

In fact, sophisticated negotiation requires excellent legal analysis.

A lawyer advising a client on settlement must understand the applicable law, limitation, jurisdiction, evidence, contractual interpretation, procedural risks, likely remedies, enforcement challenges and the strengths and weaknesses of the client’s case.

The difference is that the lawyer does not stop there.

The lawyer also considers the client’s interests.

This is the difference between asking:

“Can we win?”

and asking:

“What does winning actually mean for this client?”

A client may have a very strong legal claim but may not want three years of litigation.

Another client may prefer a judicial determination because a precedent or authoritative ruling is commercially important.

Another may accept a lower monetary recovery in exchange for confidentiality and immediate payment.

There is no universal answer.

There is only appropriate strategy.

The real cost of conflict

Legal practitioners must also become more sophisticated in assessing the economics of disputes.

The financial cost of litigation is only one component.

There is the cost of management time.

There is the cost of delay.

There is the opportunity cost of capital.

There is the disruption to employees.

There is reputational exposure.

There is uncertainty.

There is the cost of destroying a commercial relationship that may have been valuable for decades.

There is also the human cost.

A dispute can consume enormous emotional and institutional energy.

This is particularly important in family disputes, employment disputes, partnership disputes and institutional conflicts, where the parties may have to continue interacting after the formal legal proceeding ends.

A judgment may terminate a case.

It does not necessarily resolve the conflict.

That is why we must distinguish between case closure and conflict resolution.

They are not always the same thing.

What should a resolution strategy contain?

In my view, a proper resolution strategy should begin with a structured diagnosis.

First, identify the legal rights and liabilities.

Second, identify the interests and objectives of each party.

Third, assess the relationship between the parties.

Fourth, identify the commercial, reputational and operational consequences of continued conflict.

Fifth, evaluate the available processes.

Sixth, determine the client’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.

Seventh, assess the realistic consequences if settlement fails.

Eighth, identify possible settlement architecture.

Ninth, determine the appropriate point at which adjudication becomes necessary.

Only then should the legal strategy be finalised.

This approach does not make legal practice less rigorous.

It makes it more intelligent.

Legal education must evolve accordingly

This philosophy has significant implications for legal education.

At law schools, we must prepare students not merely to become excellent advocates but excellent dispute strategists.

Students must understand pleadings, evidence, procedure and precedent.

But they must also learn negotiation, mediation, arbitration, client counselling, conflict diagnosis and strategic decision making.

The lawyer of the future should be able to move between roles.

At one moment, the lawyer may need to be an advocate.

At another, a negotiator.

At another, a mediator advocate.

At another, a strategic adviser helping a client decide whether litigation is commercially sensible.

This is why experiential legal education matters.

Students should encounter realistic disputes in which the “correct” answer is not simply a legal conclusion.

They should be asked to determine what outcome should be pursued, what process should be selected and why.

That is how we develop lawyers who can solve problems rather than merely identify them.

From dispute management to dispute intelligence

The future of dispute resolution lies in moving from reactive dispute management towards proactive dispute intelligence.

Businesses should identify recurring sources of conflict.

Contracts should contain appropriate escalation mechanisms.

Boards should develop conflict management protocols.

Organisations should create credible internal grievance mechanisms.

Lawyers should advise clients not only after disputes arise but also on how to prevent predictable disputes from escalating.

This is where legal practice meets institutional design.

The objective is not merely to become better at fighting disputes.

The objective is to become better at understanding why disputes arise and how they can be resolved proportionately.

A new professional question

I would encourage every young lawyer to develop the habit of asking one question before recommending a legal course of action:

“What outcome are we trying to create?”

Then ask:

What happens if we litigate?

What happens if we negotiate?

What happens if we mediate?

What happens if we arbitrate?

What happens if we do nothing?

What relationship will remain after the dispute?

What will this dispute cost the client beyond legal fees?

And finally:

What does success look like when the dispute is over?

These questions transform the lawyer from an adviser on legal rights into an architect of resolution.

The future of legal practice

India is at an important moment in the evolution of dispute resolution.

The institutional development of mediation, the continuing importance of arbitration, the judicial encouragement of settlement and the growing sophistication of commercial parties all point towards a broader conception of legal practice.

The future lawyer cannot afford to see litigation, arbitration, mediation and negotiation as isolated disciplines.

They are components of a larger dispute resolution ecosystem.

The strongest legal strategy may sometimes be litigation.

It may sometimes be arbitration.

It may sometimes be mediation.

It may sometimes be a carefully structured negotiation.

And occasionally, the most sophisticated legal advice may be to prevent the dispute from becoming a legal proceeding at all.

That is not retreat from law.

That is the intelligent use of law.

As legal practitioners and educators, our responsibility is therefore not simply to teach parties how to fight their cases.

It is to teach them how to understand their conflicts.

Because a dispute is not necessarily resolved when a judgment is delivered. It is resolved when the parties have achieved an outcome that is legally sound, practically workable and sustainable for the future.

The finest legal strategy is therefore not necessarily the strategy that produces the longest battle or the most impressive pleading.

It is the strategy that best serves the client’s real objective.

And that is why, before every legal strategy, there should be a resolution strategy.

Resolution first. Legal strategy second. Justice throughout.

Author: Pavani Sibal is the CEO of ADRODR India and Professor of Law at O.P. Jindal Global University. The views expressed are personal.