The Singapore Law Gazette

Law Society Mediation Scheme – Strengthening Access to Justice

“Mediation challenges the conventional wisdom that “cheap” and “good” are mutually exclusive; and its allure lies in its recognition of the increasingly felt desire of disputants for a less costly and adversarial method of dispute resolution and for autonomy in resolving their disputes.”¹ See “Mediation and the Rule of Law”, Keynote Address by the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon at the Law Society Mediation Forum (10 March 2017) <https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/Data/Editor/Documents/Keynote%20Address%20-%20Mediation%20and%20the%20Rule%20of%20Law%20(Final%20edition%20after%20delivery%20-%20090317).pdf> (accessed 3 April 2018).

– Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Mediation and the Rule of Law

Officially launched in March last year, the Law Society Mediation Scheme (LSMS) was introduced as part of the Law Society of Singapore’s (Law Society) suite of dispute resolution options. LSMS allows for the resolution of disputes through mediation in a cost-effective and timely manner by providing disputants with an opportunity to resolve their disputes without having to resort to or continue with litigation or arbitration. Unlike the latter two modes of dispute resolution, the mediation process is not dependant on a third party imposing a decision on the parties. Mediation under the LSMS is available for all types of civil disputes.² More information on Law Society Mediation Scheme can be accessed here <http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/For-Public/Dispute-Resolution-Schemes/Mediation-Scheme>.

In the same year, the LSMS gained the support of the State Courts as it was incorporated as one of the modes of alternative dispute resolution in the State Courts Practice Directions.³ See Practice Direction 35 of the State Courts Practice Direction <https://www.statecourts.gov.sg/Lawyer/Documents/EPD/State%20Courts%20ePD%20-%20effective%201%20Oct%202017.pdf > (accessed 3 April 2018).

LSMS is intended to be a “user-centric [and] low-cost mediation scheme” to make mediation services available to persons with limited means and to give parties the flexibility to present their cases to the mediators.⁴ See “Upholding the Rule of Law: The Law Society Mediation Scheme”, Singapore Law Gazette (April 2017) <http://v1.lawgazette.com.sg/2017-04/1819.htm> (accessed 3 April 2018). It is important to note that the LSMS’s mediation costs are kept low because the LSMS provides a strictly no-frills mediation and focuses only on the essentials, such as providing the facilities to create a conducive environment for the parties to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute with the assistance of the mediators.⁵ See “The Law Society Mediation Scheme – Frequently Asked Questions” <http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/For-Public/Dispute-Resolution-Schemes/Mediation-Scheme> (accessed 3 April 2018). The mediators are drawn from a panel of experienced lawyers who have been accredited by the Law Society.

Since its inception, the LSMS has handled a total of 12 cases. Of these, the Law Society’s senior mediators and associate mediators have facilitated the resolution of seven cases. Matters which have been referred for mediation under the LSMS include breach of director’s duties, misappropriation of estate monies and breach of contract etc.

Interestingly, the requests for mediation under the LSMS has been for large claims (and counterclaim(s), in certain cases) between the range of $250,000 and $13,600,000. It is hoped that the user-centric and low-cost nature of the LSMS will incentivise persons with limited means to access the scheme’s services in the near future. The Law Society would at the request of parties arrange for facilities for the conduct of the mediation. The fees schedule also sets out the costs charged by the Law Society for providing administrative support and for arranging facilities, which are reasonable. The Law Society may review these costs from time to time and the current rates would be set out on its website.⁶ Ibid.

Mr Rabi Ahmad (pictured) shared his views about a matter which he had referred for mediation under the LSMS. He said:

“The matter involved a very contentious partnership and property dispute between two closely related parties. There was bad blood between them with lots of unpleasant allegations made against each other in the affidavits that were filed in court. It looked as if the matter was going to be hotly contested in what my opposing counsel and I thought was going to be a long drawn and expensive trial.”

Because of the “deep seated distrust and animosity” between the parties, he thought that at times the mediation was at “the verge of faltering”, and that negotiations would collapse. However, he added:

“[B]oth the mediators, being experienced litigators themselves, drew on their experience in dealing with such dynamics on and off the courts to keep the mediation going and the parties’ tempers under control. The mediators were alive to the personal and cultural sensitivities of the parties and they were able to use these in a positive way to appeal to the parties’ sensibilities to arrive at an amicable settlement of the disputes between them.

On the whole, it was a very satisfying experience for my client as he felt that the mediators had facilitated the settlement of the disputes between the parties by encouraging dialogue, even when tempers were flaring, and by helping them explore all possible alternatives to arrive at an amicable settlement without feeling pressured to make concessions on their respective position at any time.”

On his experience in using the LSMS for his client’s matter and his views on the LSMS as a whole, he answered:

“Personally, I am happy with my experience with the LSMS. I felt involved in a mediation where the mediators appreciated not only the personal and commercial issues but also the legal issues that stood in the way of the parties arriving at an amicable resolution of their disputes.

The support given by the Law Society to the mediation was also excellent in terms of the rooms assigned and the administrative support provided to us.

I also found the LSMS to be a cost-effective forum for dispute resolution as the fees charged for the mediation and for the use of the Law Society’s facilities were very reasonable and highly competitive with those offered by other organisations providing such services.”