Membership Minute: A Treasure Trove of ADR Resources

This posting is the second in an ongoing series written by Niki Borofsky, Vice President of Membership, focusing on CPR Members and ways to make the most of CPR Member Benefits.

For 40 years, CPR has been bringing together in-house counsel, outside attorneys, academics and neutrals to think creatively and forge new tools, better rules, and improved processes – all with the goal of making dispute resolution more cost effective, more efficient, and better for business in the long run.

As an independent, not-for-profit think tank and dispute resolution services provider, we have the unique ability to convene all stakeholders and pick the brains of experts from every perspective.

CPR’s corporate members bring the practical in-the-trenches advice on how they use ADR, law firm advocates speak from decades of practice in multiple jurisdictions, our neutrals illuminate what is integral to their decision-making processes, and academics inject research and theory into the equation. The result is a collection of products that have been vetted, approved and road tested by businesses and top practitioners.


A Menu of Options for All Levels of Expertise

The fruits of CPR’s committees’ labors are available to members through our website. The first step is to register for our website (if you have not already done so). Once you are registered and logged in as a member, these time and money-saving tools are all at your disposal free of charge, so be sure to bookmark our Resource Center on your browser.


Start with the basics.

Even if you are a master of dispute resolution yourself, there are likely other teams or lawyers in your organization who may benefit from learning the ropes. CPR’s resources can help you to bridge the gap and give you an excellent platform to share how important careful dispute resolution clause drafting is to sustaining a business relationship through difficult times. Having thoughtful contractual dispute resolution mechanisms in place is key should conflict arises, and these choices are made when drafting.

Hone in on industry-specific learning.

The classic lawyerly response to even the most straightforward question is often – “It depends.” And rightly so, different parties and diverging matters require special consideration. Thankfully, CPR has had the time, expertise and focus to explore a variety of ADR solutions that are tailored to particular industry challenges and constraints.

Resort to the Rules.

For corporations and practitioners, one of the most concrete and powerful resources CPR has to offer (not just to members, but to all parties) is the 2014 Rules for Administered Arbitration of International Disputes. These rules benefit from CPR’s emblematic multi-stakeholder engagement, and as a result encompass best practices and are streamlined, high-quality and cost effective.

Of course, the best wat to familiarize yourself with the Rules is by reading them, skimming their Key Features, and flipping through the Frequently Asked Questions. To whet your appetite, here are a few of the most talked-about features:

  • Screened Selection Process (Rule 5.4), which enables parties to appoint arbitrators without them knowing who chose them (winner of the 2016 GAR Innovation Award)
  • Default reasoned award requirement (Rule 15.2), enhancing enforceability and discouraging unprincipled “baby-splitting”

Parties also like to know that administration of all CPR cases is handled by qualified attorneys with multilingual skills (our staff speaks French, Portuguese and Spanish).

CPR has a lot to offer, and we are always happy to help guide you through our ADR resources – including scheduling a webinar or presentation for your organization on any of our rules, tools or services.


Niki Borofsky can be reached at or 646.753.8225. 

Thoughts on Non-Administered Arbitration

johnwelborn By

Non-administered arbitration (“NAA”) is an informal dispute resolution process designed to proceed without the involvement of a separate administering entity. The arbitrator and parties administer the proceedings.

The proceedings may be guided by a procedure the parties define, or the parties may agree to use institutional rules and procedures such as Rules for Non-Administered Arbitration published by the International Institute for “alternative” Conflict Prevention and Resolution (“CPR”). The objective is a dispute resolution process that is truly alternative – more efficient, flexible and expeditious than both adversarial litigation and formal administered arbitration.

I was recently an arbitrator in an NAA proceeding under the CPR Rules. This posting provides some of my reactions.

Avoid litigation in disguise

The effectiveness of the NAA alternative is only as good as the joint effort of all participants – the parties, their representatives and the arbitrator. Everyone involved in a non-administered arbitration proceeding must share the objective and make certain that the speed, flexibility and efficiency that the NAA process offers are realized and that the proceeding doesn’t devolve into litigation in disguise.

Parties who agree contractually to resolve their disputes in an NAA process seek a non-appealable, binding, just and fair result. That’s the low hanging fruit. Those contracting parties also deserve fruit higher up the tree – they deserve a dispute resolution proceeding that is focused, flexible, and less costly and time-consuming than formal administered arbitration or litigation. Everyone involved has an obligation to work to that end.

The approach

An important factor in meeting that obligation is how each participant approaches the NAA proceeding. Helena Tavares Erickson, a Senior Vice President at CPR, published an article on point some time ago (2006). Among her several valuable messages is the view that those involved must approach the dispute “as a problem to be solved, not a contest to be won.”

I agree. Contests to win are more expensive, more time consuming and less controllable than joint problem solving efforts. The benefits of an NAA proceeding are best realized in a problem solving context.

The schedule – agree and stick to it

As soon as the parties acknowledge the existence of a dispute to be arbitrated under NAA rules, they engage a mutually acceptable arbitrator. Then all concerned, including the arbitrator, should quickly (within days, not weeks or months) confer and agree to a date for a substantive hearing on the issues. This date should be written in stone, i.e., should be changed only (i) due to force majeure events and (ii) if and when not changing the date would mean genuine prejudice to a party.

The date should be realistic in terms of time needed for preparation. The original agreement which calls for dispute arbitration may provide unrealistic timing, e.g., 60 days to select and appoint an arbitrator and get to hearing on complicated factual/legal matters. It’s fine to override that prior agreement in the face of an actual dispute.

What shouldn’t be overridden is the clear intent of the parties to have the dispute heard and resolved quickly. Not getting to a substantive hearing on the merits of the dispute many months or more after arbitrator appointment is not the expeditious, economical dispute resolution process the parties originally bargained for.

Core issues – early identification and focus

Identification of the core issues in dispute, and early focus on those issues, can and should happen in arbitration, especially NAA. The flexibility to make this happen is a major advantage of the NAA process.

To get there, the parties and their representatives need to find the courage to work together to prioritize the factual and legal issues that comprise the dispute. This makes it possible to bring these core issues to the arbitrator for preliminary, non-binding review, or perhaps even for formal determination. Either way, the expertise of the arbitrator, the primary reason he/she was retained, is taken advantage of early on, and the possibility of mediation, or even settlement, of the entire dispute is increased.

If the parties and their representatives are reluctant to single out core issues for early scrutiny, the arbitrator should be ready to encourage them in that direction. The arbitrator needs to be sensitive to the time/cost value of bringing his/her expertise into the dispute in a constructive way early on.

This preliminary issue review requires two things:

1. Confidence on the part of the arbitrator — the ability to express a high level opinion (make a call) based on the experience and expertise that he/she is bringing to the table without first having to see every possible bit of data or hear every possible legal argument.
2. Parties and party representatives who are willing to listen and act on the arbitrator’s early stage opinion regardless of whether they agree that this preliminary arbitrator opinion is binding.

Atmosphere – informal, open

This is a challenge, especially for lawyers trained in the courtroom. I’m not suggesting that everyone arrive at each session in blue jeans and flip-flops. I am suggesting that the participants strive for an atmosphere that is conducive to problem solving, that fosters professionalism as well as mutual respect and friendliness, and that leaves room for important openness and listening.

For the parties and their representatives, this requires:

• Self-control in terms of what each participant brings to the table,
• Fewer motions and objections in response to what has been put on the table,
• The courage to make their own conscience-guided determinations of what is truly relevant and helpful to the effort, and
• Confidence that the arbitrator is good enough not to need formal motions in order to see every weakness in what has been presented.

For the arbitrator, this is about not letting evidentiary issues get in the way. Let your experience, judgment and expertise (the qualities that brought you to this proceeding in the first place) tell you what you don’t need to know or listen to in order to do your job.

The record – do we need one?

The reasons for making a record in a formal dispute resolution proceeding don’t exist in an NAA proceeding. There won’t be an appeal on the merits of the final award, so that’s not a reason. Preserving a possible challenge to the final award based on arbitrator conflict or bias is also not a valid reason for a record. The potential for such a challenge should be raised and resolved long before the proceeding commences. That leaves the possible need for a record for reference purposes for final briefing and arguments to the arbitrator, and the making of the record can be tailored to that need.

So, this is not to advocate that NAA proceedings not be recorded. I am suggesting that the participants first work together to determine why a record is needed. They should then tailor the making of the record to the identified need before engaging in the expense and the additional logistics of making a record of all evidentiary presentations.

CPR is a leading NAA advocate. Their website is a valuable tool for those interested.

In summary

• The benefits of an NAA proceeding are best realized in a flexible, problem solving context.
• The judicial process, the formal administered arbitration process, and all of the evidentiary and other rules and procedures that go along with those processes, are designed for win-lose contests. They don’t allow for the flexibility that is an important benefit of an NAA proceeding, and they cost money and consume time.
• Participants (parties, representatives and arbitrators) who are committed to the expediency and effectiveness of the NAA process must avoid engaging in litigation in disguise. They should welcome and take full advantage of the flexibility that comes from working together to solve a problem.

John F. (Jeff) Welborn is Special Counsel at Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley. He specializes in serving as a mediator/facilitator in disputes that involve (U.S. and international) oil and gas, mining or other natural resource matters.  He has almost 40 years of experience in oil & gas and mining transactions and matters, both in the U.S. and globally, in natural resource regulatory matters and in negotiating and drafting natural resource development agreements, financing arrangements, and conveyance documents.

Copyright (2016) John F. (Jeff) Welborn – Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C.  All Rights Reserved. This post originally appeared on the firm’s blog at and is republished with permission.

Shall We Have an Adult Conversation About Legitimacy?

[A summary of the keynote address of Jan Paulsson on 2 March 2017 at the Annual Meeting of the CPR Institute at the Biltmore Hotel, Coral Gables, which has also been archived on CPR’s Facebook page.]

By Jan Paulsson

It is difficult to know when history is being made. Important developments tend to be incremental, and perceived only in hindsight. Yet I am willing to wager that we are in the middle of a decade this decade in which the international arbitral process seriously comes to grips with the existential need to secure acknowledgment of its legitimacy. This is not being done, and cannot be done, by individual arbitrators. The exemplary work of 50 is done in silence; the misconduct of one may become a first-page scandal. The heavy lifting must be done by arbitral institutions.

The three evils they must combat are: transparency deficits, entrenchment, and capture. Not all of the hundreds of arbitral institutions who purport to handle international disputes will do their part, because some of them were created and remain dominated by special interests, and like things the way they have them. They have other priorities than ensuring a fair and neutral process. These are not the successful institutions, but it is vital – lest all be tarred with the same brush – that they are recognized by tangible criteria for what they are. The test is not what institutions proclaim, but what they do; does their conduct prove a commitment to fairness and neutrality?

Thirty years ago Professor Hans Smit proposed in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (Vol. 25, p 30) that there should be a single global arbitral institution charged with the supervision of the arbitral process. If this could not be achieved by a voluntary process of federation, he suggested that the same goal could be reached by the establishment by the International Chamber of Commerce of a network of conveniently located branches around the world.  Existing institutions would be invited to “merge” into those branches, failing which the ICC would proceed alone. This may not have been a good idea at any time, given the dangers of bureaucratization and monopolistic complacency, not to mention prohibitive cost. And today it is surely an impossibility, given the emergence of a number of deservedly successful and robust institutions in a number of regions of the world. Still, Smit’s idea was founded on the crucial insight that international arbitration will suffer from the misconduct of what one might call its weakest links, and that it is necessary to be very clear about what the criteria of legitimacy are so that waywardness can be exposed by objective measurement.

This is not rocket science. The premise of international arbitration is that all commercial disputes, even those with stakes of billions of dollars, will be decided by three arbitrators, or even a sole arbitrator, and that the outcome is final. Let’s be frank; this is asking for a lot. Losing parties are often extremely unhappy, and quick to think that something has gone seriously wrong. When the institution has not been properly “designed for legitimacy”, the ultimate sad irony may be that each side thinks that its opponent has some occult advantage, and that each side therefore seeks achieve some compensatory secret trump card – even though their reciprocal suspicions had no foundation. This can be something like a death spiral.

Today I have the good fortune of having been asked to address the annual meeting of an organization which is known for having been created not by the service providers, but by consumers of dispute resolution services. How fitting it is therefore that in 2002 CPR took the unique initiative of developing a template for universal best practices suggested as suitable if not essential for any institution anywhere. This was called the CPR/Georgetown Commission’s 2002 Principles for ADR Provider Organizations. Much ground has been covered since then at the individual reforming initiatives of the leading institutions, but it was certainly a step in the right direction.

It seems that I have achieved modest notoriety for expressing doubts about the wisdom of the widespread practice of unilateral appointments of arbitrators. Given how insistently those who disagree with my ideas on this subject distort what I say, I could perhaps be forgiven if I concluded that the propositions I articulate must be very powerful. From where I’m standing today, I cannot tell if this audience is dominated by experienced lawyers or younger ones. Younger audiences are of course idealistic and invariably agree with me.  Older audiences are cynical and set in their ways, and always protest. So obviously I prefer the latter. It’s much more fun.

My opponents say that I want to do away with the fundamental right of parties to name their arbitrators. This is unfair; I do not that at all. In the first place, I believe in the freedom of consenting and informed adults. If arbitrants agree that each of them can name its best friend or favorite lawyer as arbitrator, that’s fine with me as long as everything is out in the open. I’m not sure the result deserves the name “arbitration”, but hey – what’s in a name? Second and more importantly, my animadversions against unilateral appointments have not led me to want to tear down the temple or destroy icons, but just to a modest proposal. Here it is: the default rule should be that if the parties have agreed to a three-member tribunal all three members should be agreed by both sides, or else by an appointing institution. It’s only a default rule, but I suggest it should not be varied by agreement until the dispute has arisen. That day the claimant can measure whether the dispute is going to be civilized or brutal. If the former – and perhaps that will be the case most of the time – it takes only a phone call to agree that each side can name one of the arbitrators in the usual way. If the latter, the claimant may well have reason to rejoice, faced with a bitter clash with a party who wants to break off relations forever and is likely to deploy scorched earth tactics, that the default rule is the one I suggest.

I have written at length about the disadvantages of the practice of unilateral appointments and will not go through them here. (See The Idea of Arbitration, Oxford University Press, Sections 5.4 and 9.4.) All experienced practitioners in the international field know what it is like when unilateral nominees misbehave, or when losing parties suspect undue influence. It’s an on-going concern, and I am not mollified by the “if it ain’t broke thesis.” Things may be tolerable most of the time, but most of the time is not good enough.

This was brought home to me when I read the heart-felt account published a couple of weeks ago of the experience of a lawyer participating in his first ICSID arbitration. I do not know him, but I am certainly aware that he is a prominent fixture of several decades’ standing in the Miami legal community. Indeed his office is only a mile away from the beautiful hotel where we are meeting now.  I will call him Mr X.  His account is interesting precisely because this is a sophisticated and articulate lawyer who discovers a process with which he is not familiar and feels compelled to express serious concerns. We do well to take the concerns of such thoughtful individuals to heart. I do know the two other arbitrators involved in the case, with whom I have participated in more arbitrations I can count. From what one can read in the award and the dissenting opinion, my only sources of information about this case, all three arbitrators behaved perfectly honorably and none should be embarrassed if I named them, but I will not do so since but I would find it a distraction to personalize a matter which I am using only as an illustration of what I believe to be a frequently recurrent and seriously troubling unease, maybe even a malaise.

Here’s the story in a nutshell. The case involved Costa Rica, which is all I have to say to enable anyone here with a laptop to learn as much as I know about the case.  From the parties’ point of view, the case was over in March 2014, when the parties filed post-hearing briefs.  After that date, the process seems (to the uninitiated reader) to have entered a black box, as the next recorded event is a challenge by the claimant, like a bolt out of the blue, to all three members of the arbitral tribunal. This dramatic event occurred in June 2015. You heard me: a year and three months later which the parties were presumably waiting passively, if with mounting impatience, for the award to come out. Something was obviously not right. We do know that the claimant’s complaint was based on the fact that the Tribunal’s legal secretary, a lawyer on the ICSID staff who as part of their function are present during deliberations and typically assist in such useful ways as retrieving documents from a voluminous file which the arbitrators are unlikely to transport in its entirety to the place of arbitration from their various home offices, had left ICSID’s employ to join the law firm representing the respondent. In other words, the claimant was complaining about a form (I might perhaps venture to say a mild form) of capture.

The challenge was dismissed nine months later in accordance with the relevant rules and practice. I say nothing about that.  The arbitrators, thus confirmed in their function, went about their duty to render a final award, which they did a few weeks ago, in January.  It turned out to be one of those cases where a number of issues  were decided 2-to-1, with each of the co-arbitrators finding himself either part of the majority or in dissent, and the presiding arbitrator always part of the majority. Mr X wrote the dissent which captured my attention. The first thing to say about it is that it is entirely respectful of the other arbitrators, with whom Mr X writes that he was “honored” to serve. He explained in lucid terms some significant differences of substance with respect to which he was disappointed to find himself in disagreement. Such things happen; reasonable people differ. But then we get to the troubling passages.

Mr X notes that “the period that followed the hearing was delayed by the embarrassing and unnecessary issues caused by the change in employment of the Panel secretary and other issues related to the impartiality of the panel.” What these “other issues” involved is not specified, and the challenge decision itself has not been published as far as I know. I have seen press articles referring to information to the effect that these issues had to do with the prior relations between the presiding arbitrator and the other co-arbitrator; such complaints are frequently raised by losing parties, sometimes on quite flimsy grounds, but let’s not pay heed to gossip or speculation or anonymous sources. Mr X then goes on to write that “I choose not to add any further comment on the issue of the secretary’s employment, but do wish to address the issue of the constitution of the panel and the issues of conflicts and impartiality.”

What Mr X then has to say is notably that “the arrangement whereby two of the panel members are selected by the parties to the agreement creates an uncomfortable aura of conflict which permeates, in my view, the proceedings” and that, although “I have worked hard to neutralize his factor as I am sure my esteemed [co-arbitrator] colleague has done”, the only panelist who did not have “an inherent conflict” was the chairman. Mr X concluded that the “appointment by a party of a judge to rule on the party’s claim creates an unnecessary barrier to pure objectivity” and recommended that ICSID consider prohibiting the practice of unilateral appointments.

This is not the occasion to discuss the feasibility or even desirability of such a prohibition, particularly in the case of ICSID since its rules are constrained by the text of the international treaty by which it was created. My point is rather to insist that this measured but heart-felt comment is one that all institutes and arbitrants should take to heart, recognize as not being an isolated phenomenon, and take as a compelling reason to consider ways in which this kind of unease can be alleviated.

I think I have heard and examined at length in writing all conceivable arguments against my suggestion that we move away from the practice of unilateral appointments as a default rule, and I challenge any one of you to a debate because I am confident that I will prevail. Prevail, that is, except if you make the one argument which is Kryptonite and will defeat me every time. Here is how you win the argument: you look me in the eye and say “I don’t trust the institution, and so as long as I can name one of the arbitrators I feel that I will reduce the risk of a runaway tribunal doing something crazy – but unappealable.”

That argument is indeed made, like it or not. Decent arbitral institution cannot fail to realize that it is a disappointing and sobering message, indeed something of an indictment. They must absorb this reality, and do try to do two things about it. The Big Thing is to earn such trust that this kind of worry about a runaway tribunal evaporates. The Little Thing is far easier, and may in practical terms be just about as good. It is to focus on the involvement of the parties in the selection of arbitrators, and to attend to the numerous adaptations and refinements that may take the edge off the disadvantages of what one might call unreconstructed unilateralism.

The CPR Institute took a noteworthy step in this direction with the well-known Rule 5.4 of its Rules for Administrated Arbitration of International Disputes, for which it deservedly won a prize as the best innovation of 2016 [from Global Arbitration Review]. It introduces what CPR calls a “screened selection process,” which allows parties to choose among proposed arbitrators but in a manner designed to keep the ultimately appointed panel members from knowing individual parties’ preferences. We need to see how this works in practice, and how similar initiatives function elsewhere. There will always, believe me, be attempts to game the system. If I may put it as a paradox, the only thing that must be constant is the readiness to change as we learn. The poacher never rests; neither can the gamekeeper…

But this is not enough. Institutions should not only be inventive themselves, but encourage parties to be inventive as well. Most often this concerns the parties’ lawyers. Why are we lawyers, so unbelievably inventive in argument, stuck in the mud when it comes to patterns of process? Can’t we all agree that in ideal circumstances an arbitral tribunal should operate as a team, and not as three sole arbitrators cobbling together something of dubious coherence that achieves an unappealable result but does not deserve to be called “consensus?” If we agree want cohesive tribunals capable of producing greater quality than their individual members, aren’t presiding arbitrators the captain of those teams? Why not give them an important role in the constitution of the team – perhaps identifying a number of individuals they find compatible, or complementary, and asking the parties to rank them. (This, by the way, seems to be a more likely route to diversity than to expect it from unilateral appointments by parties whose entire focus in making appointments is to win the case. The presiding arbitrator might say “I’m comfortable with the industrial context, but would like a member of the tribunal to be conversant with public international law; then we’ll be all set so the third member can be someone less experienced whom I believe will make a solid contribution and who merits the experience and exposure.”) Or how about each side giving the presiding arbitrator a list from which to chose each co-arbitrator on the basis of compatibility? Or even, when full confidence reigns, go all the way and allow the presiding arbitrator simply to come up with the two others, constrained by nothing except perhaps observations by the parties as to what kind of qualities or experience the case calls for?

Parties have also been known to achieve quite surprising things – if only they will pick up the phone and try. I have observed an interesting dynamic when two lawyers with a minimum of mutual respect agree (between themselves) to give each a right of veto with respect to the unilateral nominees, maybe once or twice. A cynic might say that the result will be that each will immediately propose wholly unacceptable names and then move on – but I say that such is not the unavoidable result, and no harm trying.  Or how about saying “If I appoint A, whom will you appoint? Are you saying B? Oh, no, then I’d appoint C.  What’s that, you like A? Well then, think of someone other than B”.

The possibilities are limited only by our imagination, and it is urgent that we unleash our capacity for innovation. As we have heard this morning from Noah Hanft as he enters his third year of leadership of the CPR, he and his staff are determined to give fresh impetus to the vigorous improvement of the dispute resolution process in all of its forms, and it behooves all of us to take a sympathetic interest in their efforts, which can only benefit all who believe that legitimacy in the resolution of disputes should not be negotiable.

Jan Paulsson is a founding partner of Three Crowns LLP, a specialist international arbitration firm. He holds the Michael Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair as professor of law at the University of Miami. 



A Mock Challenge under the CPR Rules for Administered Arbitration of International Disputes – An Overview

By Ksenia Koriukalova

On December 6, 2016 CPR’s Young Attorneys in Dispute Resolution (“Y-ADR”) and New York International Arbitration Center (“NYIAC”) hosted a seminar in New York City. The event featured a panel discussion on hot topics in international dispute resolution in 2016, as well as the mock challenge of an arbitrator under the CPR Rules for Administered Arbitration of International Disputes (“CPR Rules”).

The mock exercise was based on a hypothetical case involving the challenge of an arbitrator after a draft award had been circulated based on his alleged connection to the officer of the winning party, as well as on the views he expressed in his prior publications. The arbitrator in question served on a three-member panel which rendered a unanimous award in favor of one of the parties. The draft award signed by all three arbitrators was circulated to the parties by the chairman of the tribunal, and indicated that it would become effective if no comments were received from either party within 10 days.  The award was not delivered by CPR as required under its Rules. The losing party filed a request to correct the award within 20 days of the date of the Award, as provided for under Rule 15.6 of the CPR Rules. It simultaneously challenged one of the arbitrators. The challenge alleged “evident partiality” based on the fact that the arbitrator had been connected to the winning party’s CFO on LinkedIn for four years, and the two of them served on several committees of the college they had both graduated from. Another ground for the challenge was the alleged issue conflict, based on the arbitrator’s prior publications on the legal questions raised in the arbitration.

The mock challenge was considered by a panel of three CPR Challenge Review Board members, which included James H. Carter of WilmerHale, Lawrence W. Newman of Baker & McKenzie, and Hon. Curtis E. von Kann (Ret.). Anna Tevini of Shearman & Sterling LLP argued the case on behalf of the challenging party, while Ank Santens of White & Case LLP represented the party opposing the challenge.

The challenging party argued that the challenge was admissible, and that the challenge should have been granted, as the circumstances of the case allegedly gave rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality. The challenge was based on Rules 7.5 and 7.6 of the CPR Rules, as well as on the provisions of the CPR Challenge Protocol.

The counsel stated that the challenging party had timely filed the challenge within 15 days of the time it had become aware of the respective circumstances, as provided for in the CPR Rule 7.6. She explained that submitting the challenge at the late stage of the proceedings was due to the arbitrator’s failure to disclose the relevant facts, which he allegedly had a duty to do. She also pointed out that, although the challenge was filed after the 10-day period for commenting on the draft award had lapsed, that did not make the award effective and the challenge – inadmissible, as the latter was submitted within the 20 days granted under CPR Rule 15.6 for seeking corrections of the award.

On the merits of the challenge, the counsel argued that the arbitrator’s connections to the other party’s CFO on LinkedIn and via college committees, his prior publications expressing views favoring the winning party’s position in the arbitration, and his failure to disclose these circumstances gave rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality. She referred to the 2004 Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes to support the argument that even the “appearance of partiality”, not necessarily actual partiality, satisfied the justifiable doubts standard.

The party opposing the challenge argued that the challenge was inadmissible, because the challenging party had been able to learn about the relevant facts from public sources well before the time of the challenge. The counsel referred to U.S. case law, the practice of England, France and Switzerland, as well as to the provisions of the American Arbitration Association and the CPR Rules applicable to challenges to prove that the right to challenge had been waived.

She further argued that the CPR Rule 7.5 “justifiable doubts” standard for arbitrator disqualification was not satisfied. The counsel referred to the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, which put arbitrators’ social media contacts on a “green list” and as such do not create even an appearance of bias, and thus do not require disclosure by an arbitrator. The same is true about prior expression of opinion on an issue arising in an arbitration, where such opinion does not focus on the case at issue. Finally, counsel argued that the arbitrator had no duty to disclose the facts at issue, and, in any event, non-disclosure was not an independent ground for disqualification.

After the oral arguments, the members of the CPR Challenge Review Board panel deliberated in front of the audience. They concluded that the challenge should be denied, as none of the facts referred to by the challenging party created grounds for disqualification of the arbitrator.

The mock was an interesting exercise which not only focused the attention of the attendees on current legal questions, but also demonstrated how the challenge of an arbitrator under CPR administered arbitration works in practice. Stay tuned for other upcoming Y-ADR events in 2017!

Ksenia Koriukalova is a CPR Fall intern

Y-ADR Mock Procedural Hearing under CPR Rules for Administered Arbitration of International Disputes – An Overview

By Ksenia Koriukalova

On September 8, 2016 CPR’s Young Attorneys in Dispute Resolution (“Y-ADR”) held the Mock Procedural Hearing under the CPR Rules for Administered Arbitration of International Disputes at the offices of Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, DC.

The mock case involved a multi-million-Euro energy dispute between business parties from both sides of the Atlantic. Vento, a French energy business company, and Vento España, its wholly-owned Spanish subsidiary operating a windmill plant, initiated arbitration against Wind Corporation, a windmill manufacturer based in Chicago, Illinois. The claim arose out of the purchase by Vento España of 25 windmills produced by Wind Corporation, at the price of €1 million per unit, with the right of first refusal with respect to 25 additional units to be produced by the manufacturer following the execution of the contract. Claimants alleged that Respondent breached the right of first refusal provision by selling windmills to a different buyer.

In late June 2016, Claimants filed their notice of arbitration based on the arbitration clause found in Vento España’s contract with Respondent, which called for arbitration under the CPR Rules for Administered Arbitration of International Disputes (CPR Rules). One month later, Respondent submitted its notice of defense and counterclaim objecting to the tribunal’s jurisdiction on the grounds that one of the Claimants, Vento, did not sign the contract containing the relevant arbitration clause.

Meanwhile, three arbitrators were appointed to hear the case on August 1, 2016. Two of the arbitrators were appointed pursuant to CPR’s screened selection process provided in Rule 5.4 of the CPR Rules. Under this selection process, two out of three arbitrators are designated by the parties without them knowing which party designated each of them. It is worth noting that CPR’s unique Screened Selection Process was the winner of the 2016 Global Arbitration Review (GAR) Innovation Award.

Pursuant to Rule 9.3 of the CPR Rules, the arbitrators scheduled the initial pre-hearing conference promptly after their appointment to discuss the procedural issues of the case. The Y-ADR event simulated this pre-hearing procedural hearing before the tribunal composed of Dana MacGrath (Sidley Austin LLP), Patrick Norton (Law Offices of Patrick M. Norton), and Allan B. Moore (Covington & Burling LLP). David L. Earnest of Shearman & Sterling LLP, C.J. Mahoney of Williams & Connolly LLP, Mallory B. Silberman of Arnold & Porter LLP, and Laura J. Stipanowic of Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP played the roles of party representatives and counsel.

The first issue argued before the tribunal was whether the question of the tribunal’s jurisdiction should be considered separately leading to bi- or even trifurcation of the arbitral proceedings. Respondent stated that because one of the Claimants, Vento, was not a signatory of the contract containing the relevant arbitration clause, the tribunal had no jurisdiction over its claims. In support of its argument on separate consideration of the question of jurisdiction over the non-signatory, counsel for Respondent referred to Guideline 2 of the CPR Guidelines on Early Disposition of Issues in Arbitration, which lists jurisdiction and standing as issues for which early disposition may be appropriate. The tribunal ruled against separate consideration of Respondent’s jurisdictional objections, primarily due to the tight time-frame of the arbitration. According to the arbitration clause, the arbitrators had to conduct an oral hearing on the merits within six months and render the award within nine months of its constitution. Another reason for denying the request for bi- or trifurcation were potential overlaps between the facts of the case relevant for deciding both on Respondent’s jurisdictional objections and on the merits of the dispute.

Next, the parties and the tribunal discussed the necessary length of the merits hearing and the dates suitable for all expected participants. This task appeared to be not an easy one because of the parties’ different positions on the optimal hearing length, other commitments of the chair of the tribunal, and the approaching holiday season.

The third issue the arbitrators had to decide was the number, sequence and content of written submissions, as well as the timing and scope of the disclosure. Claimants, European companies, insisted on limited document exchange and referred to the CPR Protocol on Disclosure of Documents and Presentation of Witnesses in Commercial Arbitration to support their position. Respondent, a U.S. corporation, sought broad discovery and depositions, and argued that they were possible under the CPR Protocol if allowed by the tribunal or agreed upon by the parties. Claimants and Respondent also had different views on the number and content of submissions. The arbitrators ordered to have two rounds of simultaneous pre-hearing submissions, with the first round containing full positions of each party supported by evidence, and the second one being the response to the opposing party’s brief. The tribunal also decided that the discovery process with the use of the Redfern schedule should take place before the first round of written submissions. Respondent’s request for depositions was denied.

At the end of the procedural hearing, the chair of the tribunal asked the parties to consider settlement negotiations, and draw their attention to relevant Rules 9.3(e) and 21 of the CPR Rules.  Rule 9.3(2) of the CPR Rules expressly provides the possibility for the parties to engage in settlement negotiations, with or without the assistance of a mediator, as one of the matters to be discussed during the pre-hearing conference. Counsel and their clients discussed the possibility but, ultimately, there was no agreement between the parties to engage in mediation.

The mock pre-hearing conference provided a realistic picture of how various procedural issues are discussed and determined at an early stage of arbitral proceedings. It also demonstrates how CPR Rules and other tools available to the parties in CPR arbitrations are used in practice. Well-prepared party representatives and arbitrators made the proceedings very dynamic and interesting to observe. The recording of the hearing is available to CPR members (who are logged into the website) HERE.

Ksenia Koriukalova is a CPR Fall intern

Avoiding and Resolving Information Technology Disputes (CPR Master Guide)

By Meghna Talwar

The latest survey released by Queen Mary University of London, in collaboration with Pinsent Masons (“the Survey”), highlights the growth of ADR in Technology, Media and Telecommunications (TMT) disputes. The Survey records 67% of the total disputes which are IT related.

Foreshadowing this important development, in 2005, CPR’s IT Committee released its master guide titled “Avoiding and Resolving Information Technology Disputes” which provides detailed information about resolution of IT disputes with the help of ADR mechanisms. The master guide’s 7 chapters provide different methods for addressing IT disputes from avoiding them in the first place to resolving them by arbitration. The first chapter gives companies a head start to set things in place prior to dealing with external parties. The chapter provides cues on how companies can assess, prioritize and define their goals and identify the possibility of dispute in the long run in order to plan their resolution techniques right from the beginning.

Chart 5 of the Survey states that 61% of the disputes related to IT systems are caused due to delay. The survey also mentions that such delay may be caused due to several attributing factors rather than one cause. Chapter 2 of the master guide suggests practices which companies may adopt to avoid delay. The chapter which is titled “Avoiding Disconnect Between Negotiation and Implementation” describes ways in which companies can formulate healthy negotiations with other parties thereby building a strong working relation with them. The chapter also focuses on how parties can develop a good understanding of the project as well as their own interpersonal relations which could ultimately lead to limiting the risk of contracting any disputes.

While Chapter 2 discusses building strong relations, Chapter 3 encapsulates the technique of building a strong project foundation based on strong partnerships. The chapter highlights the advantage of building partnerships at an early stage and describes methods to sustain such partnerships once they are formed. Also, the chapter offers interesting suggestions on conducting workshops with stakeholders to create synergistic relationships.

Often guidelines are limited to dos and don’ts of a process which are purely theoretical in nature. However, Chapter 4 of the master guide carries out case study of an IT dispute which enables companies to understand the practical implications of the master guide. The case study is an interesting concoction of facts and analysis with suggestions from the IT professionals who comprised the CPR IT Committee. Thus, the master guide provides a well-rounded view of IT disputes and the complications involved therein.

The Survey states that 50% of the respondents prefer mediation followed by 47% who prefer arbitration. Hence, there is an earnest intention on the part of the companies to resolve disputes without resorting to courts. However, it would be effective to resolve disputes at a preliminary level. Chapter 5 of the master guide speaks about the use of hierarchical positions to defuse disputes at an early stage. The chapter also emphasis on the need for protecting stakeholders, thereby maintaining a dispute-free atmosphere.

Chapter 6 introduces the concept of appointing a standing neutral. The chapter describes a standing neutral as someone who is appointed as a neutral in advance of any conflict. The appointment of a standing neutral could save the parties a substantial amount of time and cost in a way that the parties would get neutral assistance immediately on detecting a dispute without having to search for it when the dispute arises.

It is understandable that in certain cases it is impossible to avoid disputes despite adopting prevention mechanisms. Proliferation of social media is an example of unavoidable disputes. The Survey recorded 93% disputes arising out of social media attacks and 54% disputes arising out of traditional media attack. Chapter 7 of the master guide describes the dispute resolution program which companies may adopt if avoidance strategies do not work. The Survey points out the importance of Dispute Resolution (DR) policies which companies adopt. It stated that only 25% of the respondent companies did not have a DR policy. Thus, Chapter 7 could be helpful for companies which fall within the 25% bracket and could give the remaining 75% some tips for improvement, if required. The chapter also introduces the CPR Rules on Expedited Technology Dispute Resolution which includes rules for both arbitration and mediation proceedings.

The CPR master guide was introduced long before the introduction of the Survey. However, from the Survey it is quite evident that the issues revolving around IT disputes that were discussed in the manual remain to be a cause of concern, even today. Hence, the master guide proves to be an effective tool for addressing such problems and acts as a catalyst to innovate and introduce mechanisms for resolving IT related disputes.

Meghna Talwar is a fall intern at CPR.

To order a copy of CPR’s Master Guide, “Avoiding and Resolving Information Technology Disputes,” click HERE. And be sure to browse our many other publications in The CPR Store HERE.


Brexit and ADR, Untangling the Complexities

The United Kingdom’s recent referendum vote to leave the European Union (EU) is just a few weeks old, and dealmakers are rightfully concerned about its ramifications. The falling pound, the most immediate consequence, is just one of many factors that could affect pending deals with British companies. Many parties entered into contracts with UK-based companies with certain assumptions based upon the country’s membership in the EU. Now, with the UK’s situation uncertain, the lawyers are lining up to figure out next steps.

On July 18, CPR’s arbitration committee convened a panel on the topic of Brexit’s impact on cross-border arbitration and litigation involving the UK, hopefully clearing up some of the mystery. The panel was moderated by Jean-Claude Najar (France) of Lazareff Le Bars, and featured Tim Hardy (UK) of CMS Cameron McKenna LLP, Vanessa Alarcon Duvanel (Switzerland) of White & Case LLP, and Clifford J. Hendel (Spain) of Araoz & Rueda Abogados, S.L.P.

As explained by Mr. Hardy, Brexit’s main immediate impact on cross border litigation in the EU is the uncertainty as to what will happen post-exit to the existing unified regime for dispute resolution applying to all Member States. Since 1973, the UK has been required to adopt unifying arrangements to avoid duplicate litigation in different States through a series of rules intended to determine that the court of only one State can have jurisdiction and that the decision of that court should be respected by all other courts of Member States. Initially, the incorporation of these reciprocal arrangements into the legal framework of Member States was undertaken through a  series of treaties – each requiring each State to approve, ratify and implement each Treaty.  As this was extremely cumbersome and slow, subsequently, EU Regulations were implemented directly applying the rules into the law of each member state.

To exit the EU the UK will have to repeal the European Communities Act which will automatically repeal all Regulations but it will not repeal all treaties. Accordingly, a complex situation could develop where arguably some treaties will survive and may be applicable and relevant to determining parties’ positions if disputes arise. “One would hope,” said Mr. Hardy, “that the legislature will do what it can to avoid this mess. But at the moment, we don’t know what steps will be taken to address and tidy it up.”

As for the practice of international arbitration in the UK or London, Mr. Hendel explained, there is no reason to think that Brexit will have any legal effect because the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), which is the lifeblood of international arbitration, is immune from what will happen with Brexit. The situation is different, however, in the world of judicial dispute resolution. Mr. Hendel referenced the falling away of important EU regulations concerning the automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments throughout the EU, jurisdiction and choice of courts, as well as choice of law, in two years’ time or so, unless the UK takes action before then through negotiation with the EU or unilateral action to keep these legal mechanisms in place. These regulations currently provide an important degree of harmonized certainty on how to deal with everyday issues that arise in EU cross-border disputes, and Brexit will inevitably undermine this certainty. Mr. Hendel noted that the UK might have an incentive to preserve this framework one way or another in order to preserve its perceived supremacy in the financial and legal industries.

Ms. Duvanel examined how Switzerland has managed in the years since it voted in 1992 not to join the European Economic Area (EEA) to overcome isolationism vis-à-vis the EU. Although it took several decades, Switzerland managed to negotiate and ratify bilateral agreements with the EU to harmonize its legislation with that of the EU. For example, the Lugano Convention addresses the issues relating to jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions between Switzerland and the EU. In the end, she explained that Switzerland has its own set of legislation, but that much of it is inspired by the EU, “fully harmonized but always a bit later.” The harmonization of the two legislative systems has been long and difficult for Switzerland, and it is likely to be difficult for the UK as well. She stressed, however, that all of that had no effect on international arbitration in Switzerland. Switzerland remains very attractive. Swiss arbitrators are among the most nominated in the world in international arbitration cases. Switzerland is the second most chosen seat for international arbitration and Swiss law is one of the most chosen applicable law due to the stability of the Swiss legal system.

From an in-house perspective, explained Mr. Najar (who held various senior legal positions in GE for close to 24 years), companies must analyze the potential consequences of Brexit on their contracts governed by English law, particularly long-term contracts, and determine how to best mitigate the uncertainty related to the impact of Brexit. There is a wide array of potential issues to consider, such as currency fluctuation, access to the EU market, organization setups, employees’ rights, corporate governance, and specific regulations. Dispute resolution clauses will also need to be reviewed closely. Najar pointed out that some companies had already started to opt out of the UK, in favor of jurisdictions such as France and Switzerland, several years ago out of other concerns, such as costs or being closer to a civil law environment. Najar stressed that English law enjoys a longstanding and solid reputation as the governing law in many contracts. However, it incorporates many elements of EU law, and Brexit will therefore create some uncertainty as these elements are being pulled out of English law. Since businesses do not like uncertainty, Brexit might deter companies from choosing the UK as a seat or English law as the applicable law.

For anyone involved in business in the UK, CPR’s European Advisory Board (EAB) is an excellent resource for efficient dispute prevention and resolution. The EAB, a highly experienced and distinguished group of sophisticated practitioners and users from Europe’s leading law firms and corporations, has recently released a European Mediation and ADR Guide. Developed under the leadership of CPR’s EAB, the Guide provides a valuable overview of the most widely used alternative dispute resolution processes (particularly mediation) and when they might be suitable, with practical suggestions on how to make use of them.

While Brexit may seem like an ugly divorce, the fallout for companies doesn’t have to be messy.

Screened Selection Offers Best of Both Worlds

We at the CPR Institute are still abuzz over our receipt, earlier this month, of Global Arbitration Review’s (GAR’s) Innovation Award 2016 for our unique Screened Selection Process, which allows parties to select arbitrators without revealing to the neutral which party selected them. We are pleased and proud that our efforts to improve the arbitration process have received the recognition of the ADR community.

What’s so special about the screened selection option, one of many that CPR offers in its Rules? In a recent article published in Law360, CPR’s Olivier Andre and Charles B. Rosenberg of White & Case discuss how the process avoids the “moral hazard” of party-appointed arbitrators who may subtly favor the party that chose them.

How does it work exactly, when this option is selected? CPR carefully vets a list of neutrals based upon the qualifications that the parties require, conflicts, schedules and fees. The parties rank them by preference and include any objections to specific candidates without the neutrals’ knowledge. CPR then uses these rankings and objections to assign each side’s highest ranked neutral and the individual with the highest combined ranking is chosen as Chair. Then the case proceeds using CPR Rules.

Further detail about this Screened Selection Process can be found in the commentary to Rule 5.4:

Rule 5.4 presents a unique “screened” procedure for constituting a three-member Tribunal, two of whom are designated by the parties without knowing which party designated each of them. The procedure is intended to offer the benefits, while avoiding some of the drawbacks, of having party-appointed arbitrators. On the one hand, parties are able to designate arbitrators whom they consider to be well-qualified to sit on the Tribunal. On the other hand, any tendency (subtle or otherwise) of party-appointed arbitrators to favor or advocate the position of the parties who appointed them is avoided because those arbitrators are approached and appointed by CPR rather than the parties and are not told which party designated each of them. The Rules governing ex parte communications (Rule 7.4), challenges (Rule 7.6), and resignations (Rule 7.9) contain specific provisions designed to preserve the “screen” for the party-designated arbitrators under Rule 5.4 throughout the arbitration. The parties may choose the “screened” selection procedure in their pre-dispute arbitration clause (see standard pre-dispute clause), or agree to the screened procedure once a dispute arises.

CPR recognizes that, as a practical matter, some party-designated arbitrators selected pursuant to Rule 5.4 may deduce or learn which parties designated them – i.e., the “screen” may not, in all instances, be perfect. CPR nevertheless believes that the screened procedure is worthy of consideration by parties as a means to enhance the integrity of arbitrations involving party-appointed arbitrators. Any party-designated arbitrator who does, in fact, learn which party appointed him or her should disclose that fact to each of the parties and the other members of the Tribunal in order to ensure a level playing field. In the event an arbitrator discovers who appointed him or her, such knowledge would not be a basis for disqualification or challenge per se, and the arbitration can continue uninterrupted on a non-screened basis.

The Screened Selection Process is just one of the many tools CPR makes available to its users to customize an arbitration process that works best for the parties involved. If you have any questions about the Screened Selection Process or any other aspect of CPR’s rules, please contact Helena Erickson at

Interview: Users Respond to CPR’s New International Rules – Most surprising and valued reported features

InternationalRulesSlimJimCPR recently launched a new set of Rules for Administered Arbitration of International Disputes for use in cross-border business transactions. These new Rules reflect best practices, including the arbitration work of UNCITRAL, and address current issues in international arbitration, such as arbitrator impartiality, lengthy time frames to reach resolution, burdensome and unpredictable administrative costs and requirements. To celebrate their release, and introduce them across the globe, CPR held a series of well-attended launch events in London, Paris, Miami, Geneva, Madrid, Brazil and Washington, DC.

CPR’s newest event takes a deeper dive into one of the Rules’ most buzzed-about aspects, the Screened Selection Process for Party-Appointed Arbitrators ™. Responding to the need to both preserve the right of the parties to appoint their arbitrators and guarantee the fairness and impartiality of arbitration, the Screened Selection Process ™ is available under the new CPR Arbitration Rules, and will be discussed from the perspectives of the users, outside counsel and arbitrators on July 30, 2015 at Jenner & Block in Chicago and via live webcast.

Olivier P. AndreToday, we sat down with CPR’s Olivier André, Vice President, International and Dispute Resolution Services, for a recap of the launch events and a preview into our upcoming event.

To begin, could you provide a quick recap of CPR’s recent launch events celebrating the new rules? 

Over the past few months, we have organized eight events to celebrate the launch of the new CPR Rules for Administered Arbitration of International Disputes.  At each of these events, panelists discussed the key benefits and innovations of the rules from different perspectives – the corporate counsel, arbitration practitioner, arbitrator, and institutional perspectives.   The events were well attended and, whether they were held in the US, Europe or Brazil, they triggered a lot of interest.

What were some of the most memorable responses you received about the rules, either at the launch events or otherwise. What are people most surprised about, thrilled about, etc.?  

The new rules triggered a lot of interest because attendees felt that they really address many of the criticisms we currently hear about arbitration, such as high costs, lengthy timeframes, and bureaucratic administration of the proceedings.   With the new rules, CPR provides only the services that are necessary from an administering institution, and no more.  Thus, CPR gets involved at the very beginning – at the commencement and arbitrator appointment stages – and at the end – to provide a “light” review of the awards and to issue them.

In between, CPR handles all billing aspects, but lets the tribunal interface directly with the parties on all other matters.  All pleadings and filings to CPR are in electronic format only.  As a result of this “lean administration,” CPR is able to offer a very competitive schedule of administrative costs.  Administrative costs are capped at US$34,000 for disputes over US$500 million.   At a time when all companies are trying to contain the costs of dispute resolution – and where smaller companies simply cannot afford an expensive dispute resolution process – that was particularly appealing.

Another feature which triggered a lot interest is the provision under the rules for the issuing of the award within 12 months of the constitution of the tribunal.  Very often, users of arbitration have had terrible experiences of proceedings that lasted longer than court proceedings, when arbitration is supposed to offer a fast dispute resolution process.  The CPR rules require all actors of an arbitration to use their best efforts to comply with this time requirement.  Any scheduling order or extension from the tribunal that would result in extending this timeline must be approved by CPR.  Such extension requests are not new, but what was interesting to the attendees of these events was the fact that these approvals are not automatic.  Whenever such an approval is requested, CPR can convene all involved in the arbitration to discuss the factors that have led to the extension request.  This mechanism increases the accountability of all actors of the arbitral process while asking them to comply with a reasonable timeframe.   I say reasonable because historically the average length of CPR cases is a little over 11 months.

Finally, there was a lot of interest – particularly from the corporate counsel – for the provision in the rules which encourages the arbitral tribunal to propose settlement and assist the parties in initiating mediation at any stage of the arbitration proceedings.

CPR’s event in Chicago delves deeper into one of the most unique and valued features of the rules—the screened selection process. What were the challenges that necessitated this specific Rules feature? How did we address those challenges? What have responses from users of the new rules been like on this point in particular?  

Arbitrator selection is a key phase of any arbitration and getting qualified arbitrators appointed for a particular dispute is critical to ensure smooth proceedings.  The ability for the parties to choose their decision makers is also one of the main advantages of arbitration.  The CPR rules offer many options that arbitration users can choose from in their arbitration clause depending on the specific nature of the disputes they anticipate.  The bottom line is that they have the ability – and are encouraged – to really control the arbitrator selection process.

One of the options provided is called the CPR Screened Selection Process ™ for party-appointed arbitrators.  That process – which is unique to CPR arbitration rules – enables each party to choose their “party-appointed” arbitrators without them knowing which party has designated them.  CPR acts as a screen between the parties and their candidates.  This is an interesting process because, even though all arbitrators under CPR Rules must be impartial and independent, there can be some degree of ambiguity around the role that a party-appointed arbitrator is supposed to play.  This selection offers the parties the ability to choose their arbitrators while, at the same time, removing that ambiguity and changing the working dynamics among the members of a tribunal.

Olivier André is CPR’s Vice President, International and Dispute Resolution Services. In this capacity, Mr. André is responsible for CPR’s international activities, as well as international arbitration and mediation matters which are brought before CPR pursuant to its rules. He can be reached at For Mr. André’s full bio, click here.

On Norton Rose Fulbright Litigation Survey: In Litigation v. Arbitration Debate, Best Answer is “It Depends”

In mid-May, law firm Norton Rose Fulbright released its 11th annual Litigation Trends Survey—the broadest the firm had ever undertaken, compiling results from more than 800 corporate counsel (primarily general counsel) representing companies across 26 countries on dispute-related issues and challenges. According to the firm survey summary, “While each country or region surveyed is unique, one common theme comes through loud and clear—corporate counsel around the world see the growing litigiousness of the  business environment as an important trend that bears watching.”

Survey results reflected significant corporate spend on litigation, with 34% of US respondents reporting litigation budgets of 1 million to 5 million, as compared to only 26% two years ago. There was also a slight increase in the companies reporting litigation budgets of $10 million or more.

One point of particular interest was the broad utilization of international arbitration, particularly for larger companies (more than $1 billion in revenue). Across all regions and industries, more than two-thirds of companies with $5 to $10 billion in revenue preferred arbitration, and were also much more likely to have been involved in an arbitration in the past 12 months (38%). Specifically, given the choice, for disputes that were international in nature, nearly half of total respondents said they preferred arbitration over litigation, with about a quarter choosing litigation and the remaining quarter answering, “It depends.” Continue reading