INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 1/3LY
IN CONVERSATION WITH LOUKAS MISTELIS 03
IN CONVERSATION WITH LOUKAS MISTELIS QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON Ben Knowles, Partner at Clyde & Co LLP, in conversation with Loukas Mistelis, Director of the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARBITRATION - IDEOLOGICAL, ORGANIC OR HAPHAZARD? BEN How did you develop an interest in international arbitration and become Director at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL)? LOUKAS Having studied conflict of laws and international business law, it was clear to me that jurisdictional conflicts were set and inflexible, but that arbitration was developing and offering a much more interesting area for study. About a month after I finished my doctorate, I saw an advertisement for my job at QMUL in the Economist; I applied, and the rest is history. Queen Mary, and London generally, offer a very international environment in which to operate, and I’ve been greatly assisted by colleagues in the School and its founder, Julian Lew. I believe QMUL was the first institution in the world to teach arbitration, and that it has become one of the best, and certainly one of the most prominent, places to study arbitration. BEN It’s true that arbitration is an interesting field, particularly its development as a legal practice because, unlike other areas, it’s been almost entirely driven by modern law firms. Over the years, I’ve seen three distinct approaches contribute to the way the arbitration market looks today. Certain European law firms created international arbitration as a ‘specialist capability’ to attract work: mainly those firms which couldn’t rely on a sizeable corporate client base to generate work of that nature. I’d be fascinated to know whether this was a strategic and deliberate tactic, or whether it was more a happy accident which then mushroomed!
Some international firms drove their arbitration practices off the back of their corporate client base and work. In fact, some of today’s ‘big names’ in arbitration successfully cultivated their reputation on this model. But we’re now seeing a trend toward individuals with established clients and contacts moving out of these powerhouses and into boutiques, taking both their reputations and work with them. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out. The third method is the approach Clyde & Co adopted: a disputes-led offering with the onus on resolving disputes using whichever method is most efficient and effective for the client, rather than driving our own arbitration agenda. That said, it feels as though we’re entering another period of evolution within law firms. What’s your perspective on this? LOUKAS I think arbitration will continue to evolve, as it has over the last few decades. Since the New York Convention in 1958, arbitration has developed organically into a sophisticated, elitist practice of the law - I would call this the first golden period! Looking at the big picture, its growth in New York was driven by Central European migrants who set up law firms practising international arbitration in Manhattan. In fact, most of the first American textbooks on international arbitration were written by Germans. Across Europe, the development of arbitration in France, England and Switzerland was entirely ideological. It gained a reputation as a higher practice of law, and was associated with good lunches, posh dinners and nice venues, as well as having the luxury of spending time over the dispute. The New York Convention then came to reflect this cosmopolitanism, and the conception of arbitration as superior was supported and reinforced by the governing bodies, such as the International Court of Arbitration (ICC).
Made with FlippingBook Annual report