Legal knowledge, organised for practical decisions.

Baghdadi Lawyers considers the Syrian Mediation Law Bill an important and necessary legislative step toward developing out-of-court dispute-resolution mechanisms. Its importance, however, lies not merely in adopting mediation, but in building an integrated framework that balances the flexibility of consensual settlement with the strength of its legal effects. The Bill gives a settlement agreement, once judicially ratified, an effect close to that of an enforceable instrument, but does not provide sufficient safeguards concerning the applicable legal framework, mediator qualifications, the mediator’s role, and protection of the parties’ will. The principal criticisms are that the Bill does not clearly identify the legal rules governing mediation, particularly in disputes involving a foreign element. It also does not adequately regulate the position of a private mediator outside the mediators’ register, nor does it require a clear professional system for training and accreditation. The text further needs to define the limits of a mediator’s expression of an opinion, so that the mediator does not provide a legal assessment beyond the scope of the role; regulate the language and translation of mediation in international disputes; and strengthen the parties’ right to obtain legal advice before signing an agreement that may become an enforceable instrument. The opinion also notes the need to restrict mandatory mediation so that it does not become an obstacle to the right of access to justice, and to give the court broader authority to prevent its abuse for delaying purposes. It further recommends expanding judicial review of settlement agreements to cover the parties’ capacity, the validity of consent, the validity of representation, and compliance with mandatory rules. In addition, mediation with criminal-law effects requires separate and precise regulation, while mediation centres—whether established, new, or foreign—should be subject to a unified system of licensing, supervision, and transparency. The final conclusion is that the Bill deserves support in principle, but requires serious legislative review before adoption. When mediation produces an agreement enforceable with the force of law, it cannot remain a flexible procedure with limited safeguards. The governing principle should be: the closer the effect of a settlement agreement is to that of a judicial judgment, the closer the safeguards for reaching it must be to the safeguards of justice.

This case study concerns a sale contract dispute in which the claimant sought rescission, recovery of SAR 3 million, and substantial compensation of SAR 12,000,000. CounselO’s strategy focused on proving that the claimant was not unaware of the subject matter of the sale: the claimant had received and benefited from the assets, transferred some employees and contracts, and operated the complex after contracting. The strategy highlighted the contradictions in the claimant’s position and the weakness of its evidence. The claim was dismissed in full, and the judgment was finally upheld by the Court of Appeal.

In a matter involving enforcement risk exceeding SAR 17 million across 16 promissory notes, CounselO developed a precise legal strategy that reconnected the notes to their contractual basis and exposed the gap between their substantial face value and the actual obligation. Through document analysis, litigation support, and management of the accounting-expertise and enforcement tracks, the dispute ended with the actual claim substantially reduced and the original notes recovered—turning a direct threat into a decisive legal gain.

This case study highlights how CounselO supported a Saudi company in a cross-border commercial dispute against a foreign company based in Bahrain by analyzing documents, developing a clear claims strategy, and coordinating with local counsel. The matter concluded with a judgment in favor of the Saudi company ordering the defendant to pay the amount due, interest, and costs.