Int'l Arbitration Work Forum

[Anonymous User]

I was wondering if there was anyone on the boards who could talk about their experience working in international arbitration (or former-classmate's / friends experiences.) Specifically either arbitration work done out of NYC/DC (I'm pretty sure these tend to be the arbitration hubs in the US) or larger European/East Asian cities. I'm asking less about what the substance is (I've got a pretty clear picture on that talking to practitioners,) but more of the everyday details that I think are sometimes harder to figure out when talking to someone one-on-one, especially when they're in sell mode. Things like the flow of work, general development of associates, particular reputations that some firms may have, exit options, etc. I feel like there is a lot of this type of information on general corp. / lit, and was hoping for basically the same type of information, just about arbitration. Specifically interested as someone summering at a firm that does a lot of arbitration, which is something that I think I might becoming more interested in, I just have no idea what that career path looks like 10 years down the road (outside of making partner which is obviously a dumb thing to count on.)

-Anonymous cause I know the arb. community is smallish and I'm overly paranoid.

[mimiquestionmark]

also interested in a response to this ^

[Anonymous User]

Seems like my chance of getting any answers might be a bit slim, but wanted to bump one time on the off chance something comes of it, if not - oh well.

[freekick]

Check this out - http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=271153

[Anonymous User]

Asking about international arbitration is like asking about general litigation. There's a lot of subspecialties that differ wildly day-to-day.

I've been doing a fair bit of investor-state work lately, so I could comment on that if you're interested.

[freekick]

Asking about international arbitration is like asking about general litigation. There's a lot of subspecialties that differ wildly day-to-day.

I've been doing a fair bit of investor-state work lately, so I could comment on that if you're interested.

- Do you do other types of lit/arbitration or focus exlcusivley on investor-state arbitration?
- If the former, then which kind and is it your choice or a result of there not being enough investor-state work in general at firms?
- If the latter, is it because there is enough intl arb work and one is allowed to do just that?
- Also, is it advisable to focus exclusivley on international arbitration early in your career?

[Anonymous User]

Asking about international arbitration is like asking about general litigation. There's a lot of subspecialties that differ wildly day-to-day.

I've been doing a fair bit of investor-state work lately, so I could comment on that if you're interested.

- Would you mind going over some of the differences in the day to day work between the subspecialties

- Are there many subspecialties - I was sort of under the impression that there was a divide between investor-state and general commercial arb. (with maybe martime stuff as a distinct niche.) but that there weren't to many subdivisions beyond that. Sounds like that isn't really the case though.

- Assuming this isn't too much info - would you mind just laying out sort of what a regular day in the life looks like for you, also interested in what average hours are like in your group and where people seem to exit when they leave.

Thanks so much!

[Anonymous User]

Asking about international arbitration is like asking about general litigation. There's a lot of subspecialties that differ wildly day-to-day.

I've been doing a fair bit of investor-state work lately, so I could comment on that if you're interested.

- Do you do other types of lit/arbitration or focus exlcusivley on investor-state arbitration?
- If the former, then which kind and is it your choice or a result of there not being enough investor-state work in general at firms?
- If the latter, is it because there is enough intl arb work and one is allowed to do just that?
- Also, is it advisable to focus exclusivley on international arbitration early in your career?

Apologies for the delay. I forgot I replied to this thread.

I have only done investor-state work because that is all the group I work with does. The firm probably does some commercial arbitrations, but not the group I work with.

Whether to focus probably depends on whether you're doing commercial or investor-state. For commercial, the skill set is probably more broad but I don't know that. I wouldn't focus on investor-state unless you know you want to make a career out of it. It's very much unlike domestic litigation in both substance and procedure.

[Anonymous User]

Asking about international arbitration is like asking about general litigation. There's a lot of subspecialties that differ wildly day-to-day.

I've been doing a fair bit of investor-state work lately, so I could comment on that if you're interested.

- Would you mind going over some of the differences in the day to day work between the subspecialties

- Are there many subspecialties - I was sort of under the impression that there was a divide between investor-state and general commercial arb. (with maybe martime stuff as a distinct niche.) but that there weren't to many subdivisions beyond that. Sounds like that isn't really the case though.

- Assuming this isn't too much info - would you mind just laying out sort of what a regular day in the life looks like for you, also interested in what average hours are like in your group and where people seem to exit when they leave.

Thanks so much!

You generally have the subspecialties right. I can't really comment on the commercial side because I've only done investor-state. But even within investor-state I would almost consider claimant-side and respondent-side to almost be different specialties. Some firms do both, but many if not most firms I've seen primarily do one or the other.

I have only done claimant-side. Day to day is usually pretty predictable because tribunals throw out deadlines a year or more in advance and stick to them, unlike in domestic litigation. Hours depend on whether there is a pleading coming up or perhaps a hearing (which is like a trial). If you have a memorial (aka brief) on jurisdiction or merits coming up in the next four months, you will be working a lot. They usually run 200+ pages and the accompanying witness statements can be 50+ pages apiece. There are usually several expert reports as well. Generally you do the same stuff as in domestic litigation. Some doc review, albeit briefer, help research and draft pleadings and witness statements, etc. Hearings are what you would think trial would be like.

If you don't have pleadings coming up, it can be pretty chill. Maybe case research on potential cases to take on. At the partner level there's a lot of back and forth with funders, who tend to drive these cases.

As far as exit options, I've only seen people go to other firms. I can imagine going somewhere that's looking for someone with oil/gas/mineral experience though because that's what most cases involve. I can't confirm that first hand though.

[freekick]

Asking about international arbitration is like asking about general litigation. There's a lot of subspecialties that differ wildly day-to-day.

I've been doing a fair bit of investor-state work lately, so I could comment on that if you're interested.

- Do you do other types of lit/arbitration or focus exlcusivley on investor-state arbitration?
- If the former, then which kind and is it your choice or a result of there not being enough investor-state work in general at firms?
- If the latter, is it because there is enough intl arb work and one is allowed to do just that?
- Also, is it advisable to focus exclusivley on international arbitration early in your career?

Apologies for the delay. I forgot I replied to this thread.

I have only done investor-state work because that is all the group I work with does. The firm probably does some commercial arbitrations, but not the group I work with.

Whether to focus probably depends on whether you're doing commercial or investor-state. For commercial, the skill set is probably more broad but I don't know that. I wouldn't focus on investor-state unless you know you want to make a career out of it. It's very much unlike domestic litigation in both substance and procedure.

Thanks for addressing the questions. Have a couple of follow ups if you don't mind.
- How does IA recruit? Like any other practice area does by focusing on grades and the standard skill-set? Or do they look for more, such as additional languages and some kind of international experience?
- If you are set on IA, is it advisable to make that clear during your callback so that your SA can be with just that group?
- Is being specific about a practice area/IA during callback viewed negatively by firms? In which case you just get in first and then gradually reveal your preference for IA?
Sorry for the flurry of questions. IA seems to be a bit of a blackbox.

[Anonymous User]

OP Here

You generally have the subspecialties right. I can't really comment on the commercial side because I've only done investor-state. But even within investor-state I would almost consider claimant-side and respondent-side to almost be different specialties. Some firms do both, but many if not most firms I've seen primarily do one or the other.

I have only done claimant-side. Day to day is usually pretty predictable because tribunals throw out deadlines a year or more in advance and stick to them, unlike in domestic litigation. Hours depend on whether there is a pleading coming up or perhaps a hearing (which is like a trial). If you have a memorial (aka brief) on jurisdiction or merits coming up in the next four months, you will be working a lot. They usually run 200+ pages and the accompanying witness statements can be 50+ pages apiece. There are usually several expert reports as well. Generally you do the same stuff as in domestic litigation. Some doc review, albeit briefer, help research and draft pleadings and witness statements, etc. Hearings are what you would think trial would be like.

If you don't have pleadings coming up, it can be pretty chill. Maybe case research on potential cases to take on. At the partner level there's a lot of back and forth with funders, who tend to drive these cases.

As far as exit options, I've only seen people go to other firms. I can imagine going somewhere that's looking for someone with oil/gas/mineral experience though because that's what most cases involve. I can't confirm that first hand though.

Thanks so much, this is incredibly helpful. This might be a bit of a dumb question, but do people seem generally happy in the group - and I just mean happy by biglaw standards (so maybe not miserable is more accurate than happy.) I know this probably would have more to do w/ firm than anything specific about arbitration, but just curious. Also, in terms of lateraling out, are people going to peer firms or going down the firm totem poll (which, from my understanding, is the more common practice in lit.) Also, are people finding it hard to lateral out?

IA seems to be a bit of a blackbox.

I wanted to throw in my two cents on this, as someone who only discovered they were interested in IA after OCS and thus ended up only learning about a bunch of helpful information after the fact. A big thing that I totally missed (and this is going to sound silly) is figuring out which firms even have big IA programs. If your school has access to it, I would check the GAR100 and GAR30, they're sort of like vault for arbitration. I have no idea how much stock practitioners actually put in the list, my guess is like Vault its taken with a large grain of salt, so I wouldn't be too worried about actual numbers. But, it gives a a fairly good description of the arbitration practice groups at the firm, and it may help you avoid firms that don't have arbitration groups or pick some firms that you would not have looked at. For example, there are some very prominent firms that don't really seem to do arbitration work (or at least don't have a big arb. group): Cravath, Davis Polk, Wachtell, S&C. While there are some firms whose arbitration groups are highly regarded that you might not guess, like White & Case or King & Spalding. I'm sure someone will come along and explain all the ways that GAR is a terrible assessment tool, and they'll probably be right (though it uses more objective factors than Vault does in its rankings.) I still think its probably better than having no info at all.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for addressing the questions. Have a couple of follow ups if you don't mind.
- How does IA recruit? Like any other practice area does by focusing on grades and the standard skill-set? Or do they look for more, such as additional languages and some kind of international experience?

Language and international experience is definitely a plus at the associate level. Most associates I encounter have one of the two. Russian is a particularly useful one, because the CIS countries are a hotbed for investor-state work. Spanish would be another one. French would probably be third.

It's not a must, though. I don't speak any other languages, and I don't have any international experience that would apply to investor-state work. I got into it by working with the group somewhat randomly, and eventually being brought on in more cases.

- If you are set on IA, is it advisable to make that clear during your callback so that your SA can be with just that group?

Totally depends on your firm's structure. If the firm hires SAs to go into specific groups, sure. But if you're at a firm that does some sort of rotation or other period before you actually go into a group, I wouldn't be totally gung-ho in your SA interviews. Probably depends on the firm. If you're at a firm with a large arbitration presence, then it's probably fine. My firm has a much smaller group, and doesn't take new associates all the time, so it might make a hiring committee lean against an offer if that's the only thing you're interested in.

- Is being specific about a practice area/IA during callback viewed negatively by firms? In which case you just get in first and then gradually reveal your preference for IA?.

The only negative would be how much work the firm does in that area. If it's a big group, I don't see much harm. But if there's only a few partners and a dozen associates doing that work, then maybe try and reach out to attorneys in the group directly in order to get an idea of whether they're even interested in bringing many more people on.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks so much, this is incredibly helpful. This might be a bit of a dumb question, but do people seem generally happy in the group - and I just mean happy by biglaw standards (so maybe not miserable is more accurate than happy.) I know this probably would have more to do w/ firm than anything specific about arbitration, but just curious. Also, in terms of lateraling out, are people going to peer firms or going down the firm totem poll (which, from my understanding, is the more common practice in lit.) Also, are people finding it hard to lateral out?

The people in the group I work with seem pretty happy. Hours-wise, it's not much different from other litigation practices. The only difference is that you start on a brief 4-6 months in advance of the due date. The month before, and especially the two weeks before the memorial is due, you will be working your ass off. This will be true for claimant-side anyway, as the teams are usually smaller than respondent-side. But when there isn't a filing coming up, things are pretty slow.

As far as exist options, I have only seen to other firms thus far. Seems to be a good bit of peer-to-peer movement, as well as some botique-ish firms popping up. But no one has left this group since I've been here, so I can't say for sure.

I wanted to throw in my two cents on this, as someone who only discovered they were interested in IA after OCS and thus ended up only learning about a bunch of helpful information after the fact. A big thing that I totally missed (and this is going to sound silly) is figuring out which firms even have big IA programs. If your school has access to it, I would check the GAR100 and GAR30, they're sort of like vault for arbitration. I have no idea how much stock practitioners actually put in the list, my guess is like Vault its taken with a large grain of salt, so I wouldn't be too worried about actual numbers. But, it gives a a fairly good description of the arbitration practice groups at the firm, and it may help you avoid firms that don't have arbitration groups or pick some firms that you would not have looked at. For example, there are some very prominent firms that don't really seem to do arbitration work (or at least don't have a big arb. group): Cravath, Davis Polk, Wachtell, S&C. While there are some firms whose arbitration groups are highly regarded that you might not guess, like White & Case or King & Spalding. I'm sure someone will come along and explain all the ways that GAR is a terrible assessment tool, and they'll probably be right (though it uses more objective factors than Vault does in its rankings.) I still think its probably better than having no info at all.

I've never seen GAR, but most of the names seem right I guess. As far as investor-state, the only ones that pop out to me from the list would be S&C and White & Case. Others would be Allen & Overy, Skadden, Shearman, Jones Day, Freshfields, Reed Smith, Crowell, to name a few.

[freekick]

Not quoting above replies to avoid clutter. A few more questions:
1. Since every case entails a standard set of issues (jursidiction, breach of contract, consequences etc), does it get monotonous beyond a point? Or do the unique facts and complexity of each case keep it engaing?
2. Do firms have someone in-house for the oral argument part, including witness examination and cross, and interim motions, do they engage external counsel?
3. Relatedly, how long do associates wait to get a piece of oral advocacy? I understand that this depends on individual skills etc, still, may be there is a gestation process/period.
3. B/w investor-state and commercial arb., which one tends to be more discovery and factually heavy, if at all this could be a point of distinction?
4. Is most of the int. arb. work with NY and DC firms? Does NY have more of it than DC?

Thanks again.

[Anonymous User]

Not quoting above replies to avoid clutter. A few more questions:
1. Since every case entails a standard set of issues (jursidiction, breach of contract, consequences etc), does it get monotonous beyond a point? Or do the unique facts and complexity of each case keep it engaing?
2. Do firms have someone in-house for the oral argument part, including witness examination and cross, and interim motions, do they engage external counsel?
3. Relatedly, how long do associates wait to get a piece of oral advocacy? I understand that this depends on individual skills etc, still, may be there is a gestation process/period.
3. B/w investor-state and commercial arb., which one tends to be more discovery and factually heavy, if at all this could be a point of distinction?
4. Is most of the int. arb. work with NY and DC firms? Does NY have more of it than DC?

Thanks again.

1. Law/procedure is probably not as as monotonous as domestic litigation. Notice of arbitration, you fight about bifurcation, bit of discovery, first round of memorials, more discovery, last round of memorials, hearing, post hearing, repeat depending on bifurcation. Facts can be extremely interesting though, bordering on juicy.

There's a lot more steps to the analysis as well. There's the provisions of the specific treaty, whether there was an investment under that treaty and the ICSID convention, if applicable, whether there was a treaty violation, whether the conduct at issue is attributable to the state, etc. Lots of different lenses to view the facts through.

2. Some firms will use barristers to help with cross examination and oral argument. Sometimes it's the barrister that was hired in the first instance, and a bigger firm is basically brought on as his support staff. Very common.

3. I've only seen partners do oral arguments, but I'm sure it depends. I've seen associates do direct/redirect examinations, but not cross.

3b. Investor-state is about as fact heavy as it gets. The law is pretty clear most of the time, although it can feel amorphous because of the varying factual situations that come up.

4. I don't really know if one has a lot more. There are large practices in both. Statistically I would expect NYC to have more, though.

[Anonymous User]

Not quoting above replies to avoid clutter. A few more questions:
1. Since every case entails a standard set of issues (jursidiction, breach of contract, consequences etc), does it get monotonous beyond a point? Or do the unique facts and complexity of each case keep it engaing?
2. Do firms have someone in-house for the oral argument part, including witness examination and cross, and interim motions, do they engage external counsel?
3. Relatedly, how long do associates wait to get a piece of oral advocacy? I understand that this depends on individual skills etc, still, may be there is a gestation process/period.
3. B/w investor-state and commercial arb., which one tends to be more discovery and factually heavy, if at all this could be a point of distinction?
4. Is most of the int. arb. work with NY and DC firms? Does NY have more of it than DC?

Thanks again.

1. Law/procedure is probably not as as monotonous as domestic litigation. Notice of arbitration, you fight about bifurcation, bit of discovery, first round of memorials, more discovery, last round of memorials, hearing, post hearing, repeat depending on bifurcation. Facts can be extremely interesting though, bordering on juicy.

There's a lot more steps to the analysis as well. There's the provisions of the specific treaty, whether there was an investment under that treaty and the ICSID convention, if applicable, whether there was a treaty violation, whether the conduct at issue is attributable to the state, etc. Lots of different lenses to view the facts through.

2. Some firms will use barristers to help with cross examination and oral argument. Sometimes it's the barrister that was hired in the first instance, and a bigger firm is basically brought on as his support staff. Very common.

3. I've only seen partners do oral arguments, but I'm sure it depends. I've seen associates do direct/redirect examinations, but not cross.

3b. Investor-state is about as fact heavy as it gets. The law is pretty clear most of the time, although it can feel amorphous because of the varying factual situations that come up.

4. I don't really know if one has a lot more. There are large practices in both. Statistically I would expect NYC to have more, though.

Thanks. These are really helpful answers. I have a few more questions if you haven't run out of patience. But would be better to PM them. Let me know how I can. Maybe you could PM me.

[Anonymous User]

Not quoting above replies to avoid clutter. A few more questions:
1. Since every case entails a standard set of issues (jursidiction, breach of contract, consequences etc), does it get monotonous beyond a point? Or do the unique facts and complexity of each case keep it engaing?
2. Do firms have someone in-house for the oral argument part, including witness examination and cross, and interim motions, do they engage external counsel?
3. Relatedly, how long do associates wait to get a piece of oral advocacy? I understand that this depends on individual skills etc, still, may be there is a gestation process/period.
3. B/w investor-state and commercial arb., which one tends to be more discovery and factually heavy, if at all this could be a point of distinction?
4. Is most of the int. arb. work with NY and DC firms? Does NY have more of it than DC?

Thanks again.

1. Law/procedure is probably not as as monotonous as domestic litigation. Notice of arbitration, you fight about bifurcation, bit of discovery, first round of memorials, more discovery, last round of memorials, hearing, post hearing, repeat depending on bifurcation. Facts can be extremely interesting though, bordering on juicy.

There's a lot more steps to the analysis as well. There's the provisions of the specific treaty, whether there was an investment under that treaty and the ICSID convention, if applicable, whether there was a treaty violation, whether the conduct at issue is attributable to the state, etc. Lots of different lenses to view the facts through.

2. Some firms will use barristers to help with cross examination and oral argument. Sometimes it's the barrister that was hired in the first instance, and a bigger firm is basically brought on as his support staff. Very common.

3. I've only seen partners do oral arguments, but I'm sure it depends. I've seen associates do direct/redirect examinations, but not cross.

3b. Investor-state is about as fact heavy as it gets. The law is pretty clear most of the time, although it can feel amorphous because of the varying factual situations that come up.

4. I don't really know if one has a lot more. There are large practices in both. Statistically I would expect NYC to have more, though.

Thanks. These are really helpful answers. I have a few more questions if you haven't run out of patience. But would be better to PM them. Let me know how I can. Maybe you could PM me.

I can pm you if you post on a non-anon account

[Anonymous User]

.

[freekick]

I can pm you if you post on a non-anon account

Previous anon was totally accidental. Hit me up please.

[ozymandius]

I primarily do ISDS.

A quibble: Investor-State cases do not usually involve "clear" law unless the treaty breach is a direct expropriation (and these days it rarely is). On the contrary, ISDS is characterized by amorphous and abstruse legal rules (as well as the lex specialis of the applicable investment instrument in each case, making each case legally almost unique).

Commercial arbitration is usually more fact intensive than ISDS, not because the law is less complicated, but because it is generally less relevant to the Trubunal's decision.

I would be happy to answer any questions about ISDS that anyone might have. It's a pretty good practice.

[Anonymous User]

I would be happy to answer any questions about ISDS that anyone might have. It's a pretty good practice.

OP Here - have similar questions to what I asked the last practitioner. Very curious about the logistics/life-style of the practice. What your average day looks like, hours, does the group seem busy/ the practice seem busy in peer firms, what are exit-options, do people generally seem happy in the practice group, are you happy you ended up doing ISDS (though sounds like you are.) How hard is it for 1st years to end up in that group, etc.

Thanks for the help, really appreciate all the info people are bringing to this thread.

[Anonymous User]

I primarily do ISDS.

A quibble: Investor-State cases do not usually involve "clear" law unless the treaty breach is a direct expropriation (and these days it rarely is). On the contrary, ISDS is characterized by amorphous and abstruse legal rules (as well as the lex specialis of the applicable investment instrument in each case, making each case legally almost unique).

Commercial arbitration is usually more fact intensive than ISDS, not because the law is less complicated, but because it is generally less relevant to the Trubunal's decision.

I would be happy to answer any questions about ISDS that anyone might have. It's a pretty good practice.

Above anon

Yeah, I was a little too dismissive of how amorphous the legal rules can be. Primarily due to 1) Tribunals writing really unclear awards; and 2) Respondents having the opportunity and incentive to simply argue that the instant Tribunal shouldn't follow the decisions that are clear(er), or to just deny that certain legal rules even exist. There isn't really a Rule 11 equivalent in arbitrations, and even in the short time I've been involved in investor-state work I've seen some pretty outlandish characterizations of the body of international law, which I imagine contributes to the shitty award-writing.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a senior associate in DC and I do a mix of ISDS and international commercial arbitration. I've also worked in London doing the same. Happy to answer any further questions.

[Anonymous User]

OP Here

I'm a senior associate in DC and I do a mix of ISDS and international commercial arbitration. I've also worked in London doing the same. Happy to answer any further questions.

Would really appreciate your perspective as someone who has been working in this practice area for a while. Do you think long term it has been a good choice to focus in arbitration. Do you/ your coworkers generally enjoy (or at least not hate) the work. What are your long term plans and do you feel at all boxed in because you chose arbitration? Also do you have any perspective on DC vs. NYC in terms of US cities that have sizable arbitration practices?

Also, with regard to working in a foreign office, did you enjoy it and would you recommend it - highly considering a period in a foreign office.

Thanks!

[Chrysanthemum]

.