In Conversation with Adv. Sandhya Vedullapalli

Sandhya Vedullapalli’s professional journey has been shaped by her commitment to the intersection of law, mediation, governance, and community advocacy. A law graduate from Madras Law College, University of Madras, with an LL.M. in Commercial Law from the University of Mumbai, she brings a multidisciplinary perspective to resolving disputes, navigating legal systems, and promoting accountability. Her experience spans civil and corporate law, legal advisory, and property-related matters.

Her journey in mediation and dispute resolution includes serving as a mediator at the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Alandur Combined Courts, and IAMC Hyderabad. Accredited by the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI), with additional mediation credentials, she is committed to principled, confidential, and effective dispute resolution. She also contributes to workplace safety and institutional accountability as an external member of Internal Committees under the PoSH Act, including at the Greater Chennai Corporation and LIC.

Beyond legal practice, Sandhya’s work reflects a strong commitment to civic engagement, inclusive growth, and community welfare. As Secretary of the Federation of Anna Nagar Residents’ Associations (FOARA) and President of Green Environs, she has advocated for urban issues including flood mitigation, road quality, encroachments, pollution, and the preservation of public spaces. Her professional experience, which also includes a stint at Hindustan Lever Limited, brings together legal insight, organisational understanding, and grassroots advocacy. Her journey demonstrates how law and mediation can extend beyond dispute resolution to strengthen governance, empower communities, and create meaningful social impact.

Your career has moved across corporate HR, legal practice and mediation. What prompted you to move from these different professional experiences towards mediation and dispute resolution?

For more than two decades, I balanced family and professional responsibilities while moving across different cities in India, often relocating because of my husband’s work. Each move brought with it new experiences, people, cultures and professional challenges.

When I eventually returned to my home base, I realised that these varied experiences had shaped and honed skills that were particularly well suited to dispute resolution, especially mediation. The ability to listen, understand different perspectives, adapt to diverse situations, and find practical solutions had evolved naturally through both my personal and professional journey.

Mediation, therefore, felt less like a change of direction and more like a natural culmination of the experiences I had gathered over the years.

You worked as an HR People Partner at Hindustan Unilever before returning to the legal profession. How did your experience of working with people, organisational dynamics and workplace conflicts influence the way you approach legal disputes and mediation today? 

My experience in HR gave me a valuable insight into workplace dynamics and, in particular, labour and management conflicts. Working closely with both employees and management helped me understand not just the issues involved, but also the perspectives, concerns and underlying motivations on both sides.

This experience has been extremely valuable in my mediation practice. It enables me to look at a workplace conflict from both sides, understand the different mindsets of labour and management, and appreciate the underlying interests that often lie beneath the stated positions. It helps me approach disputes objectively and work towards solutions that are practical, balanced and acceptable to both sides.

You also practised as a Legal Associate at the Gauhati High Court Bench. How did your experience with civil and commercial legal matters shape your understanding of what happens when disputes enter the formal legal system? 

My experience as a Legal Associate in Gauhati was quite different from my subsequent professional experiences as I had just started my career. It was a remote posting, and the exposure was largely confined to the High Court, particularly civil matters, as proceedings in many of the lower courts were conducted predominantly in the local language.

While this naturally limited my exposure to the lower judiciary, my time at the High Court was extremely interesting and enriching. It gave me an opportunity to observe and understand civil litigation at a different level, work with lawyers from a different legal environment, and appreciate how regional and cultural contexts can influence the way disputes are approached.

Looking back, even the limitations of that experience contributed to broadening my perspective and taught me to adapt to unfamiliar environments. I realised I had an ability that has been particularly useful in my journey towards mediation.

At what point did you realise that your strength may lie not simply in representing parties in a dispute, but in helping them find a way to resolve the dispute themselves?

I gradually realised that I had a natural inclination towards mediation. Whenever I represented a party in a dispute, I found myself looking beyond my client’s position and trying to understand the other side as well. Quite often, even while advocating for my own client, I could see that there were certain aspects of the other party’s position that had merit.

This made me realise that I was naturally inclined to look at a dispute from both perspectives rather than viewing it purely as a matter of winning or losing. I believe this ability to recognise merit on both sides, even when representing one party, was what first made me feel that mediation was something I could be genuinely good at.

You describe mediation as creating a structured and respectful environment where parties can communicate openly and arrive at mutually beneficial solutions. What does an effective mediator actually do when two parties are unwilling to listen to each other? 

The beauty of mediation lies in patiently pursuing the goal of getting parties to listen to each other. It can be a great challenge when two parties do not even want to speak to one another. That is where the real skill of a mediator comes in.

An effective mediator must patiently understand what lies beneath the positions taken by the parties, identify their underlying interests, and explore what might genuinely work for both sides. It is not about imposing a solution, but about gradually reaching out to the parties, understanding what they are really seeking, and helping them move towards a resolution that they themselves can accept.

Lawyers are traditionally trained to argue for their client's position. How does the mindset of a mediator differ from that of a litigator, and what mental shift is required to become effective at mediation?

 Lawyers are traditionally trained to advocate for their client’s position and to argue their case as strongly as possible. The mindset of a mediator, however, is fundamentally different from that of a litigator. A mediator has to make a conscious mental shift from advocating for one side to understanding both sides.

For me, this shift is at the heart of effective mediation: the ability to step back, listen to both parties without judgment, and genuinely appreciate the reasoning, concerns and interests behind each position. It is not about deciding who is right or wrong, but about creating an environment where both parties feel heard and are able to explore a way forward.

In your experience, what are the biggest misconceptions that lawyers, businesses and individuals have about mediation as an alternative to litigation?

There is also a perception that litigation is the more serious or legitimate way of resolving a dispute, and that mediation is something to try only when litigation has failed. I believe the opposite can often be true. Mediation, when approached at the right stage, can preserve relationships, save time and costs, and give parties solutions that are practical and sustainable.

Most importantly, mediation does not take away a party’s voice but gives the parties the opportunity to use it. The mediator does not decide the dispute. The parties themselves remain the decision-makers. That, to me, is one of the greatest strengths of mediation

You emphasise active listening, thoughtful strategy and confidentiality in your mediation style. Which of these skills was the most difficult for you to develop, and how can young professionals consciously build them?

For me, active listening was probably the most difficult skill to develop. As a lawyer, we are trained to listen with a purpose which is to identify the legal issue, formulate our response and put forward our client’s case. In mediation, listening is very different. It requires patience, especially when parties repeat themselves, go back to the same points or take time to articulate what they really want.

My professional and life experiences have helped me develop the strategic aspect of mediation. Having worked across different fields and dealt with people from varied backgrounds, I have learnt to look at situations from different perspectives and think about what might actually work in a given situation.

Confidentiality, on the other hand, has always come naturally to me. As a lawyer and now as a mediator, I consider trust and confidentiality to be fundamental to the process.

For young professionals, I would say these skills have to be consciously practised. Learn to listen without immediately preparing your response. Be comfortable with silence. Ask questions to understand rather than to challenge. Expose yourself to different people and perspectives, and most importantly, develop the discipline of keeping what is shared in confidence truly confidential.With practice, these qualities become less of a technique and more of a mindset.

You specialise in corporate, commercial and financial disputes. How does mediating a business dispute differ from mediating a personal or family dispute, particularly when relationships and commercial interests are closely connected? 

Family disputes are often deeply emotional. Parties may come to mediation carrying years of hurt, resentment, disappointment and unresolved personal issues. Sometimes the mediation process itself becomes a space for them to express and vent these emotions before they are ready to discuss a solution. The mediator therefore has to be particularly sensitive to the emotional relationship between the parties.

Business disputes, on the other hand, are generally more structured around contractual obligations, commercial interests, financial consequences and expectations. The parties may be concerned about money, performance, timelines, liability or the interpretation of a contract. However, I would not say that business disputes are devoid of emotion. When parties have been in business together for many years, there can be considerable disappointment, mistrust and a sense of betrayal.

The difference, therefore, is not simply that one is emotional and the other is contractual. It is about understanding what is driving the conflict. In a family dispute, the relationship and emotions may be at the centre of the dispute; in a commercial dispute, the contractual and financial issues may be more prominent, even though emotions and relationships can still influence the parties.

As a mediator, I believe the challenge is to recognise both 1. the stated dispute and 2. what lies beneath it, and then help the parties move towards a solution that addresses their real interests.

Your experience as a director of a microfinance firm has given you exposure to financial systems and the challenges faced by small enterprises and communities. How does financial and commercial understanding help a mediator identify solutions that are actually workable for the parties? 

Definitely, my experience as a director of a microfinance firm has helped me considerably in this regard. Understanding financial systems is one thing, but being involved in the day-to-day functioning of an organisation gives you a much more practical understanding of how businesses actually operate.

It has exposed me to the challenges faced by small enterprises and individuals—cash-flow constraints, repayment pressures, operational costs and the practical difficulties of implementing what may look like a good solution on paper.

As a mediator, this experience helps me assess whether a proposed settlement is genuinely workable. A solution may appear reasonable from a purely legal perspective, but if it does not take into account the party’s financial capacity or the realities of running a business, it may not sustain.

In commercial disputes, parties may be focused heavily on financial claims. How can a mediator uncover the underlying business interests, relationships or concerns that may be driving the dispute?

In a commercial dispute, the financial claim is often what is visible on the surface, but it may not always be the real reason behind the conflict. A mediator has to patiently go beneath that stated claim and understand what is really important to the parties.

This comes through careful listening and, importantly, by asking the right questions. Why is this amount so important to the party? What would resolving the dispute mean for their business? Is there a concern about future business, reputation, cash flow, control, or simply a breakdown of trust between the parties?

Sometimes I find that the parties are not only fighting over money. They may be concerned about being treated fairly, protecting a long-standing business relationship, or wanting their position to be acknowledged.

The mediator's role is not to assume what the underlying interest is, but to create the space for the parties to articulate it themselves. Once those interests come to the surface, the range of possible solutions becomes much wider than simply deciding how much money one party should pay the other.

What should young lawyers learn about negotiation and dispute prevention if they want to help clients avoid litigation rather than simply deal with disputes after they arise?

I think young lawyers need to understand that their role is not merely to fight a dispute once it reaches the court. A good lawyer should also be able to anticipate where a dispute may arise and help the client prevent it.

They should learn to negotiate early, understand the client’s real interests rather than only the legal position, and communicate clearly about expectations, obligations and possible risks. A lawyer should also be able to identify the early signs of a conflict and address them before positions become rigid.

Most importantly, young lawyers should understand that negotiation is not about giving in. It is about knowing what is important to your client, understanding what is important to the other side, and finding common ground without compromising your client’s legitimate interests.

 Your work in HR, community leadership and mediation has involved dealing with people from different professional, social and cultural backgrounds. How important is emotional intelligence in resolving conflict, and can it actually be developed as a professional skill? 

 I certainly believe emotional intelligence is essential in conflict resolution. In fact, I feel it is one of those skills that cannot be learnt entirely from books or classrooms. Knowledge can tell you what to do, but experience teaches you how to deal with people.

In conflict situations, people do not always say what they actually feel or need. A mediator has to be sensitive to emotions, body language, tone and even silence, while remaining objective and not getting emotionally involved in the dispute.

My experiences in HR, community work and mediation have brought me into contact with people from very different professional, social and cultural backgrounds. Over time, these experiences have taught me to pause, listen, understand where a person is coming from and respond appropriately rather than reacting immediately.

You conduct mediations in English, Hindi, Tamil and Telugu. How can language and cultural differences affect negotiations, and what should professionals keep in mind when working across different linguistic or cultural backgrounds? 

My experience has shown me that knowing the language and understanding the cultural background of the parties can give a mediator a significant advantage. Language is not merely a means of communication; it also carries emotions, nuances and cultural context.

When a party is able to express themselves in a language they are comfortable with, there is often an immediate sense of trust and emotional connection. They feel that the mediator understands not just their words, but also what they are trying to convey. This can make a significant difference, particularly when the dispute involves sensitive personal or cultural issues.

At the same time, a mediator must be careful not to make assumptions based on culture or language. Every individual is different. Cultural awareness should help us understand people better, not stereotype them.

 

Sometimes parties may come into mediation wanting to “win” rather than resolve the dispute. How do you help them move from a position-based approach to an interest-based conversation?

It is quite common for parties to come into mediation wanting to “win”. After all, they have often been in conflict for a considerable period of time and have already taken strong positions. I don't think the mediator should immediately try to change that mindset. Instead, I try to understand what “winning” means to that particular party.

Through patient listening and appropriate questioning, I try to move the conversation from “What do you want?” to “Why is this important to you?” That often helps uncover the underlying interest behind the position.

I also try to ensure that both parties get an opportunity to speak and, importantly, to listen to the other side. Sometimes just hearing the reasoning and concerns of the other party begins to soften a rigid position.

Having worked both within organisations and at the community level, what have you learned about the difference between solving the legal problem and actually solving the human conflict behind it?

My experiences in organisations, legal practice and community work have taught me that solving a legal problem and solving the human conflict behind it are not always the same thing.

A legal problem can often be defined quite clearly, who has a right, who has breached an obligation, or what remedy is available. But behind that legal issue are people, and their emotions, relationships, expectations and perceptions. A court may decide the legal rights of the parties, but the underlying resentment, mistrust or hurt may still remain.

I have seen this particularly in disputes where the parties have to continue dealing with each other even after the legal issue is resolved. A judgment may settle the issue, but it may not repair the relationship.

For me, truly resolving a conflict means going beyond finding who is right or wrong. It means helping people find a way forward that they can live with and, where possible, preserving the relationship rather than merely ending the dispute.

You hold accreditation as a Civil and Commercial Mediator and certification from the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, in addition to being on the IAMC panel. For a young lawyer interested in mediation, what should their first three to five years of career development look like?

I would tell a young lawyer not to rush into calling themselves a mediator simply because they have completed a mediation course. The first few years should be about building a strong foundation as a lawyer and, at the same time, consciously developing the skills required for mediation.

In the first three to five years, they should get good exposure to litigation and understand how disputes actually develop.

At the same time, they should actively learn negotiation, communication, active listening and conflict management. They should attend good mediation training programmes, observe mediations wherever possible, and seek opportunities to assist or co-mediate with experienced mediators.

Most importantly, they should develop the right mindset. A mediator is not there to demonstrate how much law they know or to decide who is right. The ability to listen patiently, remain neutral, understand different perspectives and help parties find their own solution is far more important.

My own journey has taught me that mediation is not simply another professional qualification. It is a way of thinking, and that mindset develops with experience, exposure and continuous learning.

Beyond legal knowledge, what practical skills should aspiring mediators develop—communication, negotiation, psychology, business understanding, listening or conflict analysis—and how can students gain genuine experience in these areas?

Beyond legal knowledge, I would say that an aspiring mediator needs a combination of communication, negotiation, listening, conflict analysis and an understanding of human behaviour. Business understanding is particularly valuable when dealing with commercial disputes.

Students can start developing these skills by participating in negotiation and mediation competitions, joining legal aid and community initiatives, observing court-annexed mediations, and learning from experienced practitioners. They should also interact with people outside the legal profession. Understanding how people think and respond in real-life situations is as important as understanding the law.

For me, genuine mediation experience comes from a combination of knowledge, observation and exposure to people. The law provides the foundation, but it is the ability to understand people and conflicts that makes someone an effective mediator.

Mediation requires patience and the ability to remain neutral even when emotions are high. What has mediation taught you about professional temperament, patience and handling difficult people that law school cannot teach? 

Mediation has taught me that professional temperament is very different from simply knowing the law. Law school teaches us to analyse, argue and find solutions to legal problems. Mediation teaches us how to remain calm and patient when people are emotional, angry, unreasonable or simply not ready to listen.

One of the biggest lessons for me has been that patience does not mean being passive. Sometimes you have to patiently listen to the same point several times, allow a person to vent, and wait until they are ready to move beyond their position. If you react to their emotion, you become part of the conflict. The mediator has to remain steady.

It has also taught me not to label people as “difficult”. What may appear to be difficult behaviour often has something behind it, hurt, fear, mistrust, frustration or a feeling of not being heard. Understanding that changes the way you respond.

Most importantly, mediation has taught me the value of emotional discipline. You have to remain neutral even when you personally understand or sympathise with one party. You can acknowledge someone's feelings without taking their side.

These are lessons that cannot really be learnt from a textbook. They come from sitting across the table from real people, listening to their stories and learning, case by case, how to remain patient, objective and respectful, even in the most difficult situations.

Finally, for a young legal professional deciding between litigation, corporate law, arbitration and mediation, what would you tell them to consider when choosing their path—and what is the one lesson you would want them to understand about building a career around resolving conflicts rather than simply fighting them?

I would tell a young legal professional not to choose between litigation, corporate law, arbitration and mediation simply based on which one appears more successful or fashionable. They should first understand their own temperament, strengths and what kind of professional they want to become.

Litigation may suit someone who enjoys advocacy and the courtroom. Corporate law may appeal to someone who enjoys transactions, structure and business. Arbitration requires strong legal and analytical skills, while mediation requires patience, empathy, active listening and the ability to understand people and relationships.

I would also say that these paths are not mutually exclusive. In fact, experience in litigation, corporate work or arbitration can make someone a better mediator because it gives them a deeper understanding of disputes and the realities faced by parties.

If there is one lesson I would want young professionals to take away, it is this: “there is a difference between winning a dispute and resolving a conflict.” As lawyers, we are trained to fight for our clients and protect their interests, and that is important. But there is also great professional satisfaction in helping people move from conflict towards resolution.

My own journey has taught me that resolving conflicts does not mean being less of a lawyer. It means using your legal knowledge differently, along with patience, strategy, listening and an understanding of people.

Ultimately, I would encourage young lawyers to build a career not merely around asking, “How do I win this case?” but also, “How do I help my client find the best way forward?” That shift in thinking can open an entirely different and deeply fulfilling dimension to the legal profession.