The CPR European Advisory Board presents: “Meet CPR Distinguished Neutrals Based in Europe: Bernardo M. Cremades Sanz-Pastor”

File634497153616234884

Bernardo M. Cremades Sanz-Pastor

The CPR European Advisory Board (EAB) is proud to introduce its new CPR Speaks blog series: “Meet CPR’s Distinguished Neutrals in Europe.”  CPR’s panel of neutrals contains many experienced and skilled Neutrals, acting as arbitrator and/or mediators in dispute resolution around the globe.  Through a Q&A, covering some of the main and hot topics discussed in the world of international disputes resolution, this new blog posts series offers you an insight into the views of some of Europe’s leaders in the field. 

Bernardo M. Cremades Sanz-Pastor is the first Europe-based CPR Distinguished Neutral to have answered our Q&A. Enjoy the read and please feel free to reach out to the featured Distinguished Neutral or the authors of these posts for any questions.

By Kathleen Fadden (consultant with AMGEN) and Vanessa Alarcon Duvanel (King & Spalding LLP)

Bernardo Cremades is the founding partner of Spanish law firm B Cremades y Asociados based in Madrid.  He is without doubt a pioneer in the field of international arbitration and enjoys world-wide recognition.  His experience includes international commercial and investment arbitration.  He regularly acts as arbitrator in Spanish domestic and international disputes relating to commercial contracts and investment protection.  In addition, Bernardo regularly speaks at conferences on topics of international arbitration around the world.  As a commercial lawyer was involved in some of Spain’s most important M&A transactions.

Bernardo kindly agreed to grant us an interview for the CPR EAB blog series profiling CPR Neutrals in Europe.  His insights are a must read for anyone regardless of the level you find yourself in your career. We thank Bernardo Cremades for his honesty and the time he has dedicated to sharing his experience and insights.

  1. How did you get your start as a neutral?

When I was young, I lived a very quiet life dedicated exclusively to university teaching and research.  Despite my youth, the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce nominated me to preside over an arbitral tribunal in Vienna, in the proceeding known by its Parties NORSOLOR v. PABALK.  It was a commercial dispute regarding a purchase-sale and technical assistance contract between a Turkish and a French company.  As the arbitration was taking place in the city of Vienna, and no contractual provision gave the arbitral tribunal further powers, we had to arbitrate in law. The contract did not specify the applicable law, so the option of applying French or Turkish law was not possible as we would have reached diametrically different conclusions depending on which one was selected. This was not satisfactory. We thought the best solution would be to apply the general principles of law, invoking the Lex Mercatoria. Once the arbitration award was issued, one of the parties appealed for the annulment of the award before the Austrian courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court. The argument in support of the annulment was that a tribunal, which was obliged to render a decision in accordance with the law, had used the general principles of law. In the challenging party’s opinion, this converted an arbitration in law into an equity decision. The Supreme Court understood that, in international law, the general principles are a source of law and, therefore, considered that our arbitration decision was correct. When one of the parties subsequently attempted to execute the award in Paris, the same problem arose: the argument was that our decision converting the arbitration into one in equity violated public order. It reached the Court of Cassation, which reiterated the doctrine admitted by the Austrian Supreme Court: the application of the Lex Mercatoria did not transform the arbitration; it remained de jure due to the legal nature of the general principles of International Law [Soc. Pabalk Ticaret Ltd Sirketi v. Soc. anon. Norsolor, Cour de Cassation (1re Ch. Civ.), 3 October 1984′, Journal of International Arbitration, (© Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 1985, Volume 2 Issue 2) pp. 67 – 76]. Our decision sparked numerous doctrinal opinions and generated a lively debate. My quiet, academic life transformed into an active professional life dedicated to the world of arbitration.

  1. Who is your dispute resolution hero/heroine?

In an arbitration between the company FIAT and the Government of Spain in which the future of the SEAT car factory was discussed, I was fortunate to work with a co-arbitrator who would mark my arbitration conduct in the future. I am referring to Berthold Goldman, who can undoubtedly be considered the father of modern international arbitration. After the different hearings we held with the parties, the tribunal deliberated at length. Berthold Goldman defended with passion the claims of the FIAT company until the President tipped the balance in favour of my views. From that moment, Professor Goldman’s enthusiasm became an example of chivalry as he took me by the arm through one of the halls where we were deliberating and told me: “you have won, and you can rest assured that the arbitration award is going to be issued by unanimity.” This is an example that I have always remembered when faced with the temptation to issue a dissenting opinion.

  1. What is the one advice you want to give to the younger generation looking for a first appointment as neutral?

Join a team and learn the profession of arbitrator, acting as secretary to the tribunal, or as counsel under the direction of an experienced arbitrator. Time will make you an arbitration expert, able to consider flying solo.

  1. Were you ever the first in doing something?

 The award mentioned above in response to the first question where we invoked the Lex Mercatoria as the applicable law opened a wide discussion and generated controversial points, especially in the debate between arbitration experts of Anglo-Saxon and continental law.

In the ABBOTT vs. BAXTER dispute, under CPR administration, we based our decision on good faith when the applicable law was that of Ontario (USA) [Baxter Int’l Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 540 U.S. 963 (2003)]. This is what we understood from an international litigation on trademark law and the award was ratified by the US Supreme Court.

In the HESHAM TM AL WARRAQ arbitration against the Republic of Indonesia [Hesham T. M. Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 15 December 2014], we used as a basis to accept jurisdiction, the ICO (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) Treaty, the second largest intergovernmental organization. Our decision set a precedent for numerous subsequent arbitrations.

In the world of investment arbitration, the LANCO case against the Argentine Republic opened the door to investment protection arbitration in cases where the arbitration agreement consisted of the public offer for submission to arbitration by the receiving State of the investment, and for the legitimate investor to initiate an arbitration proceeding for the alleged breach of the treaty by the receiver of the investment [Lanco International Inc. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/6]. In this arbitration, different issues were raised that will later be the subject of numerous awards, such as the principle of attribution of responsibilities to the State regarding breaches of intra-State public entities.

The SALINI arbitration against the Kingdom of Morocco extended the concept of investment to administrative concessions [Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4]. Investment protection arbitration had been specially designed with a view to litigation derived from investments related to natural resources. After SALINI, the concept of investment protected by arbitration grew.

In the LUCCHETTI arbitration against the Republic of Peru [Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Peru, S.A. v. The Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4], arbitration protection was questioned when corruption was involved in making the investment, on the grounds that those whose hands are stained should not be subject to any international protection, including arbitration.

  1. What makes your conflict resolution style unique?

As in any profession, I believe that it is most important to be well educated and then to devote many hours to preparation. The arbitrator must read all the submitted documents carefully and be able to respond to the parties’ requests. There is nothing worse than storing the documentation and only dealing with it when the time comes for the hearing. Many arbitrations are unnecessarily lengthy because the arbitrators do not know the substance of the matter sufficiently well to make decisions as proceedings progress.

  1. What was the most difficult challenge you faced as a neutral?

The main challenge of the arbitrator today is to expedite the proceeding.  Today arbitration has ceased to be the artisanal activity it was many decades ago. We are facing a large arbitration industry.  To prevent that the proceedings be excessively long, the arbitrator must coordinate the agendas of the parties and their lawyers; respond promptly to excessively large document discovery requests; and try to minimize the duration of the hearings. The theatricality of certain “cross-examinations” should also be interrupted when deemed unnecessary and the abundance of witnesses and experts is sometimes unnecessary.

  1. What is the most important mistake you see counsel make?

In the written phase, counsel can write excessively long and repetitive documents, when they should perhaps concentrate their efforts more on writing an executive summary for ease of reading. In the oral phase, counsel often forgets that his or her main mission is to convince the arbitrators and not to be so aware of the transcript or the client present in the meeting room.

  1. If you could change one thing about commercial Arbitration, what would it be?

Every effort should be made to reduce the duration and the excessive costs (that can sometimes be scandalous) of arbitration proceedings.

  1. Some specific topics:

    a) What is your approach to cybersecurity and data protection in international dispute resolution?

 The requirements of cybersecurity and data protection in arbitration require both lawyers and arbitrators to strengthen the technological infrastructure of their firms. Before, during and after the arbitration there are security and protection rules that must be firmly maintained as arbitration frequently deals with very sensitive topics requiring strong guarantees.

b) Taking of evidence in arbitration: are you IBA Rules or Prague Rules? And why?

The IBA Rules emerged – and I can testify to this since I was part of the drafting team of the first version – as a result of a real need to unify criteria between common law and continental law jurists. It is rare to see an arbitration proceeding today without, at least, a reference to the IBA Rules, which have become a true customary international procedural law. In fact, there is much talk about the Prague Rules in conferences and colloquiums, but I have never seen them applied or invoked in arbitration proceedings. The authors of the Prague Rules wanted to draw attention to the excessive costs and duration of the arbitration proceedings and they can serve as a wake-up call in the daily life of our arbitrations or even be taken into account when modifying the IBA Rules in the future, giving greater space to criteria from civil law legal systems. The message of the Prague Rules is very interesting, but in practice its application should be questioned, simply by analysing the fourth paragraph of its first article when it states that “At all stages of the arbitration and in implementing the Prague Rules, the arbitral tribunal shall ensure fair and equal treatment of the parties and provide them with a reasonable opportunity to present their respective cases.”  If the aim with these rules was to avoid the due process paranoia, different articles of these rules, such as the aforementioned article, question their effectiveness – which is why arbitrators are reluctant to use them. It cannot be forgotten that the purpose of the IBA Rules was limited to the taking of evidence, while the title of the Prague Rules is “Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration”.

  1. What do you see as the next “big thing” in global dispute prevention and resolution?

An important event in the world of dispute prevention and resolution is the emergence of third-party funding. Many arbitration proceedings are initiated today because the claimant and possibly the defendant have funding to undertake costly arbitration proceedings and subsequent court proceedings. Third-party financing is acquiring a very important dimension and is introducing the system of syndicated foreign currency loans to the financing of large litigations. Litigation has become a financial asset, and funders monetize their financing activity with the outsourcing of parts of the financing. Litigation and especially arbitration awards are bought and sold. A true secondary market has been created for the financial assets that arbitrations have become.

  1. For which types of conflicts would you recommend ADR?

I consider that ADR is recommendable for particularly personalized disputes. In terms of investment protection, it is unthinkable to reach agreements with sovereign states, which would undoubtedly be analysed in the country in question under the inquisitorial magnifying glass of corruption. I believe that disputes with consumers or those that occur in family businesses are very suitable for resolution through ADR. Equally, agreements between companies whose directors have full powers are good ADR candidates, since the positive result of a conciliation or mediation is only possible when those acting on behalf of the companies have sufficient decision-making capacity to reach a negotiated agreement. In construction disputes and, in general, disputes in which many awards are discussed, dispute boards are highly recommended. The periodic presence of the dispute board members from the beginning of the construction solves many problems that are not intelligible over time.

  1. In your view, what makes CPR unique?

Its speed. Arbitration administration centres have become excessively bureaucratic institutions, with internal policies regarding the appointment of arbitrators which are not always in the best interests of the parties to the dispute. Arbitration administration centres are service companies and as such they must compete with others; their speed of action is probably the most attractive asset to their clientele.

  1. Do you have an anecdote you would like to share? 

There is much talk about the clash of cultures in international arbitration and it is undoubtedly greatly exaggerated. I remember many years ago at the meetings of the former ICCA, the representative of China, the famous and much-loved Professor Tang, insisted that I should participate in arbitrations in China to learn the difference between how arbitration proceedings are run in different cultures. I was appointed arbitrator under CIETAC to resolve a dispute between a French car company and its distributor in China. Professor Tang presided over the tribunal and from the first day he tried to get the parties to reach agreements under his mediation. On the third day, after seeing that the President’s attempts to mediate between the parties were unsuccessful, both parties formally told us that if they had gone to CIETAC it was precisely for us to resolve their differences in arbitration, and could we please set aside the conciliation and mediation attempts – which we did. It was a good lesson for me that maybe the much talked-about cultural differences are not so true in practice. A good and experienced president of the tribunal should know when he or she can help the parties to reach an agreement and when the limits of arbitration prevent it.

 

A Report on the 2019 CPR European Congress on Business Dispute Management (Part I)

EU flagBy Vanessa Alarcón Duvanel and Kathleen Fadden

On 15 May 2019, CPR held its third annual European Congress on Business Dispute Management, in London. Organized by CPR’s European Advisory Board (the “EAB”) and kindly hosted once more by SwissRe in the magnificent Gherkin building, the Congress inspired thought provoking considerations on topics of dispute prevention and resolution. As with last year’s summary, we have split this reporting in two parts: a Part I sharing the morning panel sessions, and a Part II covering the afternoon panels.

“The Future of ADR”

The first panel examined how the ADR community was responding to recent attacks on traditional arbitration and mediation and how ADR can remain relevant.  It was moderated by Mark McNeill (EAB member, Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (then Sherman & Sterling).  The panelists sharing their perspectives were: Stefano Catelani (DuPont), Ferdinando Emanuele (Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton), Jennifer Glasser (White & Case) and Noah Hanft (CPR).

Considering the recent developments in dispute resolution, the panel’s remit was to consider whether ADR was approaching crisis point or, whether in fact, there were new opportunities to be seized.  The panel tackled a variety of topics:

Driving mediation into the arbitration process and whether arbitrators should encourage mediation.

Some jurisdictions still have limited acceptance of mediation for multifarious reasons: it can be difficult to find qualified mediators, arbitrators are reluctant to promote mediation and model escalation clauses often force a “check the box” type approach where mediation is not given adequate consideration and viewed solely as a mandatory step.  CPR has been actively encouraging mediation over the world and made a particular push in Brazil.  It has been considering a more flexible model escalation clause that whilst mandating mediation, is not prescriptive about when it shall occur – provided it is before the case is heard.  The use of mediation is referenced in the new 2019 CPR Rules for Administered Arbitration of International Disputes and mediation is now a topic for discussion within the preliminary conference (Rule 9.3e).

How will this change the ADR landscape in the coming years?

Noah Hanft offered his perspective on the evolution of ADR: In his view there is no dispute that mediation is effective so it really is in companies’ interests to adopt mediation.  He anticipates a growth in mediation even though he noted that user complaints have succeeded in driving down the average time it takes to conclude an arbitration.  But there will also be more use of hybrid approaches and the desire for efficiency and cost containment will drive innovation in the area.  These thoughtful comments led the panel to add that mediation was in fact being used nowadays in various stages of a commercial relationship.  For example, mediation is resorted to in transactions to facilitate deals and in the joint venture space consideration was being given to the early identification of those issues that may lead to a dispute with the engagement of a standing neutral and/or the introduction of turnkey provisions requiring stakeholders to focus on the health of the joint venture.

Is ADR at all relevant in investor state disputes?

When it comes to mediation or settlement negotiation, it is often politically very difficult for states to settle disputes with investors.  Andy Rogers of CEDR reported on an interesting development whereby CEDR, in collaboration with other organisations, is currently organizing training for mediators, ISDS practitioners and government officials to equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary to mediate investment disputes.

Will Brexit change the ADR landscape?

Since the Congress was hosted in the United Kingdom (UK) it would have been remiss not to consider the impact of Brexit on ADR!  English governing law and jurisdiction clauses have historically been popular choices for commercial parties and panelists were asked for their views on whether businesses should rethink this choice in light of Brexit.  The overall reaction was that there is no clear answer to the question and the area of greatest uncertainty likely concerns the enforcement of judgments.  Currently, under the Recast Brussels Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) also known as the “Brussels regime”), a judgment rendered in an EU member state and enforceable in that member state is enforceable in all other member states.  If the UK exits the EU without an agreement on the continued operation of the Brussels regime, the latter will cease to apply and the reciprocity will be lost.  This could be remedied – to some extent – as the UK is seeking to become a member, in its own right, of the Hague Choice of Court Convention. As the panel noted, if the UK accedes to this international instrument, then as contracting state its courts must give effect to exclusive jurisdiction clauses and enforce any judgments resulting from such clauses. This blog cautions that the Hague Convention is narrower in scope than the Recast Brussels Regulation and questions still remain about the application of the Convention in circumstances where an exclusive jurisdiction clause has been entered into prior to the U.K.’s exit from the EU.   Post Congress, a new “Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters” was adopted on 2 July 2019.  The UK adherence to this new treaty would resolve many of the enforcement issues triggered by Brexit.  Although the 2018 Queen Mary & White & Case International Arbitration Survey reported that London remained the most preferred seat of arbitration and over half of the respondents thought that Brexit will have no impact on the use of London as a seat, it is clear, Brexit has created doubts and given rise to many questions that only time will answer.

This led panelists to move naturally to another new development in ADR, namely the introduction in various jurisdictions of “international” courts.  The Netherlands, Germany and Singapore to name just a few have created or contemplated the opportunity of creating “international” commercial courts.  Typically, these courts – which are established under national law rather than by international treaty – operate in English and adopt arbitration type rules.  Do these represent a threat or a challenge to arbitration?  In general, the panel did not see a significant threat.  There are, of course, pros and cons with national courts and arbitration tribunals.  A key benefit of arbitral proceedings is confidentiality, which is not necessarily guaranteed in court proceedings.  With respect to enforcement, currently, there is no global convention for the enforcement of court judgments in the same way that the New York Convention facilitates enforcement of arbitral awards.  On the other hand, summary disposition of issues is available in some court systems but historically arbitrators have been cautious about their use – even though recent revisions to most leading arbitral rules (including the CPR Rules) permit such procedures.  In summary, there is space for both fora and the panel noted that certainly from a user perspective, competition and choice could only be positive.

The last aspect concerning the future of ADR which the panel considered was: the Prague Rules and whether they will lead to increased efficiencies in arbitration.

The Rules are intended to be an alternative to the well-known IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (IBA Rules) and to bridge the gap between common and civil law approaches.  The panel’s position was not too optimistic.  Neither document production nor the taking of witness evidence are likely to be more efficient under the Prague Rules and the costs of arbitration proceedings are unlikely to reduce.  This is so because the Prague Rules provide a framework and do not exist in a vacuum; in many respects the level of efficiency and the nature of document production is driven more by the arbitrator.  In the panel’s view, rather than a new set of rules, it would be more useful to increase the pool of arbitrators  and even better, arbitrators that are more active!  The panel shared four examples as to why in its view the Prague Rules would not deliver efficiencies.  I) there is a conflict between article 2.1 which requires that the arbitral tribunal “shall” convene a case management conference “without any unjustified delay,” and the requirement in article 2.2 that the arbitral tribunal “shall” clarify at that same case management conference, undisputed / disputed facts and the legal grounds of the parties’ respective cases (among others). Indeed, experience shows that it would be inefficient (perhaps impossible) to clarify disputed and undisputed facts or legal positions on the basis of a Request for Arbitration and Answer to the Request since these typically do not contain sufficient detail.  II) article 4.2 on documentary evidence discourages document production but the rest of the provisions in the same section retreat from this position.  III) with respect to fact witnesses, articles 5.2 and 5.3 empower arbitrators to make determinations about calling witnesses but article 5.7 then rather diminishes that power by providing that if a party insists on calling a witness whose statement has been submitted by the other party, the arbitral tribunal should call the witness to testify at the hearing.  Finally, iv) in respect of experts, article 6.1 appears to make tribunal-appointed experts the default rule.  However article 6.5 states that a party may nonetheless submit a report from an expert appointed by that party.  Given that in practice many tribunals hear only party-appointed experts, the Prague Rules’ regime is likely to lead to arbitrations with both tribunal-appointed and party-appointed experts which will increase the volume of the parties’ submission, hearing time, and inevitably costs.

The future of ADR is in some respects uncertain (Brexit being an example) but at the same time full of interesting challenges and novelties.

“Preparing for the Robo-Revolution”

The second panel of the morning was similarly looking to the future but this time with a legal-tech focus.  The panel was moderated by Javier Fernández-Samaniego (Samaniego Law) and the panelists were: Ulyana Bardyn (Dentons US LLP), Diana Bowman (VINCI Energies), Sarah Ellington (DLA Piper) and Ralph Lindbäck (Wärtsila Corporation).

Should ADR practitioners be concerned about robots? Or do we consider that robots and computer arbitrators are still in the realm of science fiction?

To answer this question, the panel started by looking at the state and use of legal-tech today.  Certain types of dispute and several aspects of dispute management can be automated and in fact there are already automated tools deployed to handle routine and administrative tasks.  EBay was cited as an example, as it uses algorithms to generate decisions in e-commerce disputes.  Currently, automation is however mostly applied in low value disputes rather than complex cases. Whilst appropriate deployment of automated tools can bring benefits in terms of speed and accuracy, the panel noted that it also carries disadvantages and has its limitations.  For instance, it is not necessarily clear how due process will be respected if a computer arbitrator presides in an arbitration, or how algorithms could be created and comply with the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings, or how the parties would know how to pick the right algorithms for their dispute.  One significant limitation highlighted by the panel was the inescapable fact that disputes involve human beings and one cannot automate the relationship management aspect of dispute resolution!  Even if artificial intelligence were able to accurately predict the verdict in a dispute, some litigants simply want their day in court or their day in arbitration, an experience that no robot can satisfy.

Notwithstanding the challenges, law firms are preparing for the robot revolution and some have already achieved significant milestones in this respect. Law firm practitioners on the panel provided real insights into the approaches taken by their respective organizations.  Ulyana Bardyn shared with the audience some of Dentons’ leading efforts in this space including its collaborative innovation platform “Nextlaw Labs”; various programmes focused on case management enabling clients to see spending in real time, or assisting clients with finding the best pro bono help available; and the “Libryo platform” which aims to simplify legal complexity by providing a curated collection of all laws relevant to specific business sectors enabling lawyers to understand their organisation’s legal obligations in any given situation.

Sarah Ellington reported on DLA Piper’s own investments in technology and elaborated on three of the DLA tools, all of which are aimed at dispute avoidance.  A first tool is a guided pathway app geared to IT outsourcing projects and intended for commercial managers, it contains questions about project progress and status and produces a report with red flags if problems are detected.  The second is a virtual secondment tool which enables businesses to submit questions and have a response within 24 hours.  Finally, the firm has an immersive business simulation, essentially a training tool, geared toward infrastructure projects where users can engage in a facilitated session where they take on a particular role within a simulated project.

These tools are impressive from the lawyers’ perspective.  How is the business community reacting to this technology assisting their counsel?  Corporate counsels on the panel all agreed that dispute resolution should be looked upon as a value stream with a significant focus on dispute avoidance.  To reach this goal and develop successful tools, collaboration between law firms and their clients is key.  That is all the more relevant as the business community is making its own progresses in the digital arena.  Many businesses are entering into collaborations, partnerships and campus initiatives – e.g., sandbox environments where universities, startups and investors can come together to innovate– are growing.  Dispute resolution though is not always part of the picture. Would it ever be possible to predict that a dispute was coming?  In certain sectors, that Holy Grail may not be too far off.  As Diana Bowman described, VINCI Energies already attempts to obtain information about events that occur on site and shares it with the back office in real time.  With good record keeping and quality information there may be opportunities to both predict and resolve issues early before a dispute escalates.

Shifting gears slightly, the panel touched on another technology hot topic: cyber security. Cyber attacks are a significant and rapidly evolving peril for today’s businesses but the levels of security deployed, particularly in the arbitration field, varies significantly between, for example, sole practitioners and top tier international law firms.  Regardless of size, all can fall victim to an attack.  Speaking from experience, Sarah Ellington shared some of the lessons learned after DLA Piper suffered from the NotPetya malware attack in June 2017 resulting in all the firm’s IT systems globally being taken offline. The risks are real and the consequences of an attack can be devastating.  To cope with a potential problem, it is fundamental to have: an up-to-date business continuity plan including practical solutions for work continuation, a clear communication protocol, emergency contact groups, back up email, calendar and document management systems.

The digital revolution has arrived although not necessarily in all legal departments! In some of the most sophisticated companies the legal department does not even have a suite of templates.  Readers of this blog, as the audience at the Congress, are encouraged to think about the digital revolution as a wave: do you want to be bowled over by it or do you choose to ride it on a surf board?

Stay tuned for part II…

 

Vanessa Alarcon Duvanel is an attorney admitted to practice in New York and Switzerland and specializing in international arbitration. She is based in Geneva and serves as the Secretary to the European Advisory Board.

Kathleen Fadden is a legal consultant and member of the CPR’s European Advisory Board.