International Arbitration Forum

[Anonymous User]

How desirable is international arbitration relative to other practices? I imagine it is necessary to work non-business hours frequently because of time zone differences, but aside from that, what are some good and bad things about it? I get the sense that the IA group at my firm for next summer isn't starved for hours and has plenty of work.

What are exit options like? I'm most intrigued by the possibility of going into academia after a few years (teaching idiot law students who want to do "international law"), but other options seem appealing too, such as in-house and working as an arbitrator. Is it easier to go in-house after doing IA vs general litigation? What is working as an arbitrator even like (whether in the domestic or international context)?

[Anonymous User]

bump

[hangingtree]

Very limited actual experience but my firm is big in IA and have friends who did it, so I'll tell you the little bit I know. Others should chime in because some of this is conjecture. I just hope to get a conversation going.

It's a field that is growing rapidly and is becoming a major source of revenue for firms. The cases are extremely interesting and are in many ways more about politics/diplomacy than law. If a state expropriates property from an investor, that unlawful per any bilateral investment treaty and under, almost all circumstances, international law. But who is going to enforce the law? Recovery will be extremely difficult because there is no enforcement mechanism. IA is sort of true international law. In the disputes you work on you navigate through a world that is only quasi-legal and where the rule of law is respected significantly less and differently than you are used to thinking about it.

In terms of actual work, I hear it can be somewhat mind-numbing, however. Endless and boring doc review and translation work. The cases also last years, usually between 3-7 years or so. But you do get to travel quite a lot and work with very interesting people, such as foreign government officials.

About exit options, my impression is that in-house jobs are relatively hard to find. Your skill/experience is generally going after foreign governments who have wronged an investor. These situations come up rarely and it is probably not cost-effective for a major investor to have you on salary. I think your exit options would be somewhat limited, and you will likely find it a good idea to just stay at your firm for at least 4-5 years or so. But I think the exit options you will have will be quite neat. Academia would be possible, as would international organizations/other cool policy positions and potential opportunities to work as an arbitrator. I can't tell you exactly what that would look like, but I know there is a market for this sort of thing.

[Phil Brooks]

Very limited actual experience but my firm is big in IA and have friends who did it, so I'll tell you the little bit I know. Others should chime in because some of this is conjecture. I just hope to get a conversation going.

It's a field that is growing rapidly and is becoming a major source of revenue for firms. The cases are extremely interesting and are in many ways more about politics/diplomacy than law. If a state expropriates property from an investor, that unlawful per any bilateral investment treaty and under, almost all circumstances, international law. But who is going to enforce the law? Recovery will be extremely difficult because there is no enforcement mechanism. IA is sort of true international law. In the disputes you work on you navigate through a world that is only quasi-legal and where the rule of law is respected significantly less and differently than you are used to thinking about it.

In terms of actual work, I hear it can be somewhat mind-numbing, however. Endless and boring doc review and translation work. The cases also last years, usually between 3-7 years or so. But you do get to travel quite a lot and work with very interesting people, such as foreign government officials.

About exit options, my impression is that in-house jobs are relatively hard to find. Your skill/experience is generally going after foreign governments who have wronged an investor. These situations come up rarely and it is probably not cost-effective for a major investor to have you on salary. I think your exit options would be somewhat limited, and you will likely find it a good idea to just stay at your firm for at least 4-5 years or so. But I think the exit options you will have will be quite neat. Academia would be possible, as would international organizations/other cool policy positions and potential opportunities to work as an arbitrator. I can't tell you exactly what that would look like, but I know there is a market for this sort of thing.

You've described half of international arbitration: international investment arbitration. There is a whole other half to it, called International Commercial Arbitration, which is exactly like normal litigation except the parties (who come from different countries) agree to submit their dispute before a panel of arbitrators rather than the courts of any country. The parties also pick their own procedural law, so that's interesting. The exit options coming out of this field would be the same as the exit options for other litigators, so in-house is a possibility. While it is difficult to make a living as just an arbitrator, you can find a cushy job working for an arbitral institution (ICSID, ICC, LCIA, etc.).

Also the point about enforcement isn't quite true. International arbitration is one of the most enforceable types of international law. There is a treaty--The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards--to which 175 countries are party and rigidly adhere. Whether the defendant is a private party (commercial arbitration) or a state (investment arbitration), they all pay--even Venezuela paid, thanks to the New York Convention.

[Anonymous User]

Bump.

Can anyone describe how it's like to be an IA lawyer in New York? FWIW, I will be a SA at one of firms that has the biggest international arbitration group and would love to do some IA works while I am at it, and hopefully after I go back as a first year.

I know it's a tough field to get into, but would appreciate additional insights.

[Catsinthebag]

Very limited actual experience but my firm is big in IA and have friends who did it, so I'll tell you the little bit I know. Others should chime in because some of this is conjecture. I just hope to get a conversation going.

It's a field that is growing rapidly and is becoming a major source of revenue for firms. The cases are extremely interesting and are in many ways more about politics/diplomacy than law. If a state expropriates property from an investor, that unlawful per any bilateral investment treaty and under, almost all circumstances, international law. But who is going to enforce the law? Recovery will be extremely difficult because there is no enforcement mechanism. IA is sort of true international law. In the disputes you work on you navigate through a world that is only quasi-legal and where the rule of law is respected significantly less and differently than you are used to thinking about it.

In terms of actual work, I hear it can be somewhat mind-numbing, however. Endless and boring doc review and translation work. The cases also last years, usually between 3-7 years or so. But you do get to travel quite a lot and work with very interesting people, such as foreign government officials.

About exit options, my impression is that in-house jobs are relatively hard to find. Your skill/experience is generally going after foreign governments who have wronged an investor. These situations come up rarely and it is probably not cost-effective for a major investor to have you on salary. I think your exit options would be somewhat limited, and you will likely find it a good idea to just stay at your firm for at least 4-5 years or so. But I think the exit options you will have will be quite neat. Academia would be possible, as would international organizations/other cool policy positions and potential opportunities to work as an arbitrator. I can't tell you exactly what that would look like, but I know there is a market for this sort of thing.

You've described half of international arbitration: international investment arbitration. There is a whole other half to it, called International Commercial Arbitration, which is exactly like normal litigation except the parties (who come from different countries) agree to submit their dispute before a panel of arbitrators rather than the courts of any country. The parties also pick their own procedural law, so that's interesting. The exit options coming out of this field would be the same as the exit options for other litigators, so in-house is a possibility. While it is difficult to make a living as just an arbitrator, you can find a cushy job working for an arbitral institution (ICSID, ICC, LCIA, etc.).

Also the point about enforcement isn't quite true. International arbitration is one of the most enforceable types of international law. There is a treaty--The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards--to which 175 countries are party and rigidly adhere. Whether the defendant is a private party (commercial arbitration) or a state (investment arbitration), they all pay--even Venezuela paid, thanks to the New York Convention.

I think the ease of enforcement and the term "exactly" used to compare international commercial arbitration to litigation is a bit of an overstatement. Indeed, because of the NY Convention and the voluntary nature of submitting to an arbitral proceeding, arbitral decisions are widely enforceable in general, but the Convention also contains a list of exceptions and, when enforcing a foreign arbitral decision in U.S. courts, personal jurisdiction can also come into play.

However, international commercial arbitration is far from "exactly" like normal litigation. The similarities end after having two parties, a dispute, and a process by which the dispute will be resolved. These include confidentiality of proceedings, evidentiary process, level of formality, cost, availability of appeal, and other considerations.

[Anonymous User]

I can only add that my International Commercial Arbitration gave me a headache for every second I was in there, and it was due to the material, not the professor (who is authoring the forthcoming Restatement and was actually pretty cool). The bickering over procedural minutiae seemed absolutely endless and far more irritating than traditional litigation, but again, I can't speak from actual practice.

I did go to a talk by the Paul Hastings IA group and while they made it sound much more fascinating than my class, the associates looked like they thoroughly hated life.

[Anonymous User]

I'm international arb counsel in DC, spending some time in the NY office too. I really enjoy it. The cases are interesting and varied, usually very high profile and high value. Anything specifically you want to know?

[hangold]

Bump