Leading international arbitrators and practitioners will discuss, in Socratic form, four topics of importance to counsel, arbitrators and business people who are involved in the resolution of international commercial disputes through arbitration:

Effective Presentation of Evidence – Including Witness Statements and Cross-Examination

• Different presentation styles in various legal systems: emphasis on oral or written evidence; is there a predominating style of taking evidence in international arbitration, i.e., have we arrived at a Lex naturalis arbitri void of cultural differences?
• Are PowerPoint’s good advocacy?
• Presentation of evidence by videoconference. Is this the future?
• Is it always necessary to have an oral hearing? When is summary disposition permissible (or necessary)?
• Who controls the length of a hearing? Should arbitrators impose their views or defer to the parties?
• Are there too many witnesses, too many documents – is advocacy lost among the detail?
• Is witness conferencing effective? Are there particular circumstances when it is most appropriate? Inappropriate?
• Should the tribunal-appointed expert always appear at a hearing and be subjected to questions about his or her conclusions

Ethics and Behavior

• Applicable ethical codes, for arbitrator and attorneys
• Independence and impartiality of arbitrators; standards of impartiality
• Arbitrators’ duty to disclose
• Arbitrators’ duty to investigate whether there are conflicts
• Preparation of witnesses; where goes the borderline to abuse?
• Do attorneys’ request for discovery have ulterior motives, e.g. to get access to business secrets, marketing methods, know-how or other information useful to his client but not necessary for the case?
• Remedies
• Ethical issues versus cultural differences, have we arrived at a global standard

Post-Hearing Activities

• Post-hearing briefs and/or separate oral argument? Are post-hearing briefs disappearing from the scene? Their strengths and weaknesses? Should they be limited in scope /by topics (factual/technical/legal)?
• Should closing submissions generally be limited to core issues? If so, how and when to identify them? “Positive” and “negative” list of issues? How much time after the evidentiary hearing? Page limits?
• When is it justified to reopen the proceedings after they have been “closed?” How to best limit the risk of having to re-open the proceedings?
• Should arbitrators start deliberating right after the evidentiary hearing? Dynamics of deliberation meetings and dissenting opinions
• When should arbitrators start with the drafting of the award? Is there a way to allocate the drafting work within the tribunal?
• Decisions on costs: to what extent counsel’s attitudes during the proceedings should be considered? To what extent in-house counsel costs should be considered?

Effective and Efficient Management of Proceedings

• Whose arbitration is it anyway: the extent of control the parties can expect to have over the way in which arbitrations are conducted; is it appropriate for arbitrators to impose their views regarding extent of discovery and time allowed for cross-examination?
• Disconnects between the approaches parties and their lawyers may assume will be taken to the management of proceedings, whether arising from cultural differences or from idiosyncratic approaches taken by some arbitrators?
• Expectations and realities as to time and cost; best practices for reducing time and costs?
• How do arbitrators encourage parties to comply with the procedural directions? Using costs as a weapon? What else?
• Is it efficient for a tribunal to appoint experts? When should the tribunal appoint an expert?
• When a witness testifies in his own language but clearly is comfortable in the language of the arbitration – should the tribunal direct the witness to use that language in order to speed up the proceedings and avoid unfair advantages?
• When the arbitrators are too busy; has the order introduced by the ICC, that arbitrators must indicate availability before accepting an appointment, achieved its purpose of speeding up the arbitrations?
• What about the ICC’s requirement that the arbitrators must inform the Parties of the date by which they expect to submit their draft award? Has this reduced the delay in getting awards to the Parties? What other ways exist to achieve that goal?

Moderators and speakers include Grant Hanessian, Sophie Nappert, Andrew Aglionby, Jalal El Ahdab (Jil Ahdab), Omar M. H. Aljazy, Mark Baker, Brian Casey, Robert B. Davidson, Ugo Draetta, Diana Droulers, Thomas D. Halket, Wulf Gordian Hauser, Kaj Hobér, Martin Hunter, Doug Jones, Vladimir Khvalei, Stefan Kröll, Loukas Mistelis, Lawrence Newman, Christopher Newmark, Stefan Riegler, Catherine A. Rogers, Carita Wallgren-Lindholm, Janet Walker.

For more information on the program, please click here or register by using the conference registration form.

Date: 10 April 2017
Venue: Grand Hotel Wien, Kärntner Ring 9, 1010 Vienna