header-logo header-logo

16 February 2026
Categories: Movers & Shakers , Profession
printer mail-detail

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Keystone Law has hired Clyde & Co partners Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel and Ian Hopkinson to bolster its international arbitration team, following the recent arrival of former Clyde & Co partner and international arbitration chair Ben Knowles. The duo join a 28-strong international arbitration team handling multi-million-pound disputes across leading global institutions.

Szuniewicz-Wenzel (pictured) advises on large-scale, high-value disputes across multiple jurisdictions, acting for states, national energy companies, insurers and multinationals, and has represented the Government of Yemen. Her practice spans energy, telecommunications, trade and commodities, pharmaceuticals, transportation and infrastructure, with particular expertise in production sharing agreements in the oil and gas sector.

Hopkinson represents and opposes states, state-owned entities and national oil companies, particularly in disputes arising from production sharing agreements, infrastructure projects and regulatory frameworks. He regularly appears as an advocate in international arbitration hearings in London and abroad, and frequently acts in commodities disputes involving oil products, minerals, biofuels and steel.

Founder and CEO James Knight said the pair are ‘exceptional additions to our international arbitration team’ whose experience in ‘high value, politically sensitive and multi jurisdictional matters strengthens our offering to clients across the globe’. Szuniewicz-Wenzel said Keystone’s model ‘provides an excellent base for practice’, while Hopkinson added that the firm’s platform ‘offers the flexibility and international reach that complex arbitration and energy disputes demand’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll