When I do my work well, it becomes invisible — and so do I.
Arbitration looks smooth from the outside when there is precision behind the scenes. Hearings, awards, and case organisation demand careful planning. Here’s a glimpse into some of the methods I use to keep things clean, clear, and fair.
Mapping Arguments
I map every single argument submitted by the parties using a system I developed—one that cross-references facts, claims, and evidence through unique identifiers. Each element is logged and tracked, making it easier to see which facts are undisputed, which arguments rely on which documents, and what the tribunal must respond to.
This method isn’t just for the tribunal—it’s for the parties' benefit. It ensures that every argument is taken seriously.
Hearing Preparation
In complex disputes, the people involved—and their roles—aren’t always obvious. Before a hearing, I prepare detailed maps of fact witnesses and their links to documents, arguments, and key events. I highlight potential points of tension and flag moments that might require extra care in the award.
I do the same with expert witnesses, reviewing their opinions and sorting the signal from the noise. I’m careful not to pre-judge but ensure the tribunal is prepared to ask the right questions.
Disput Design
Some disputes go badly because they weren’t designed thoughtfully. I’ve learned how much a case’s architecture matters—how things like the Terms of Reference, the Evidence Production phase, and the Award can shape what follows.
My approach draws on research, statistical case patterns, and much trial and error. I look at legal risks (like annulment), yes—but also at structure, layout, and even typography. I want these documents to be legible, fair and built for clarity. Whether it is a party, a student, or a judge reading the award, they should understand what’s at stake—and why it was decided the way it was.