During the London International Disputes Week (LIDW) 2026, Mahesh Agarwal, Managing Partner at Agarwal Law Associates, expressed concerns about India’s readiness to embrace success-based fee arrangements for lawyers. Agarwal, speaking at the event held at the Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) Governor’s House in London on June 5, cautioned against intertwining legal representation with financial interests in litigation.
Agarwal stated, “Lawyers should not be getting any success fees. They can charge whatever they want to, but they should not be part of the litigation. Litigation funding is quite a separate thing and should be recognised.” He emphasized that the Indian legal system is not mature enough for such arrangements.
The panel discussion, titled “Dispute Resolution 2.0: Arbitration, Mediation & Technology in a Digital Economy,” was part of the General Counsels’ Association of India’s “Two Nations, One Legal Future: India–UK Partnership 2026” event. The session was moderated by Shivani Sanghi, Partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, and Sherina Petit, Partner and Head of International Arbitration and the India Practice at Stewarts Law. Notable panelists included Sapan Gupta, Group General Counsel at ArcelorMittal Group; Gourab Banerji, President of the Arbitration Bar of India (ABI); and Karishma Vora, Barrister and Arbitrator at 39 Essex Chambers.
On the topic of success fees, Agarwal differentiated between third-party funding and lawyers’ involvement in litigation outcomes, arguing that while litigation funding should be formally recognized, lawyer participation could compromise professional integrity. However, Banerji offered a contrasting view, pointing out that success-linked arrangements already exist indirectly through third-party funders. He suggested regulation rather than resistance, stating, “The fact is… it’s already there. However much we might think that it’s not there, it is already there in some fashion… We should regulate it, instead of saying law is a noble profession.”
The discussion also explored whether adopting stricter cost regimes, akin to the English “loser pays” principle, could alleviate India’s backlog of cases. Agarwal noted that historically low litigation costs have encouraged prolonged disputes, remarking, “Most of the time, even after a contentious matter which has gone on for days together, the last order is ‘no order as to costs’. Basically, nobody has to pay anybody.” This lack of financial consequences allows parties to engage in “frivolous” litigation without risk.
While legislative changes have introduced the concept of awarding actual costs, Agarwal observed that enforcement remains inconsistent, describing the system as “very nascent.” Vora echoed this sentiment, suggesting that proportionality principles used in England could be adapted for Indian courts. She noted, “Costs is also a manner in which the pendency of cases in England considerably reduced. It actually worked.”
Banerji highlighted a deeper structural issue rooted in judicial mindset, explaining that historically low costs were intended to ensure access to justice. The panel also discussed the enforcement of foreign awards and judgments, a persistent concern in cross-border disputes involving Indian parties.
Agarwal advised parties in cross-border disputes to prefer arbitration over litigation when Indian assets are involved, due to challenges in enforcing foreign judgments. “The answer is arbitrate. Get a foreign award rather than a foreign judgment if it involves an Indian party or assets in India,” he advised, noting the lengthy enforcement process in India.
Vora and Gupta also commented on the issue, with Vora stating that enforcement delays often lead parties to settle, and Gupta describing enforcement as a global concern. “In enforcement, India is worse than the UK, but I wouldn’t really say the UK is great at enforcement,” Gupta said, highlighting challenges such as asset tracing and jurisdictional delays.
Looking to the future, Agarwal suggested that mediation could play a larger role in resolving commercial disputes in India, especially given the delays associated with arbitration and court challenges. “In India, mediation would be very, very successful, for one simple reason: that in India, arbitration has lost respect,” he concluded.
