header-logo header-logo

Tech protocol for international arbitration could ‘change future’

01 July 2020
Issue: 7894 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Arbitration
printer mail-detail
Six law firms have collaborated to launch a draft protocol on the use of tech in international arbitration

The draft protocol, which was released this week for wider consultation, addresses how parties in arbitration can practically and cost-effectively meet their obligations regarding data handling and cybersecurity. It has been drawn up by Hogan Lovells, CMS, Herbert Smith Freehills, Ashurst, DLA Piper and Latham & Watkins. LexisNexis also participated in a private consultation period conducted recently in respect of the protocol. The six firms aim to release a post-consultation draft later this year.

Technology and digitisation in arbitration is changing how dispute resolution practices operate, and arbitral parties are keen to maximise cybersecurity and data protection measures. The protocol will have global application and has therefore been designed to be flexible and take into account all jurisdictions.

Michael Taylor, associate at Hogan Lovells, said: ‘We are delighted to participate in this initiative and to help shape discussions around the role of new technologies in the arbitration process.

‘Dispute resolution is changing at a fast pace, and securing a consistent approach to arbitral procedures and cybersecurity across the industry is vital. This is particularly important now in light of the COVID-19 situation around the world and as flexible working becomes more common.’

Myfanwy Wood, senior international arbitration lawyer at Ashurst, said: ‘This initiative has the ability fundamentally to change the future of arbitration.

‘New technologies have a critical role to play in improving the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, security, transparency and to widen access to the arbitration process. Having an industry-wide protocol to act as a reference point for parties on key issues to consider when adopting new digital case management platforms will accelerate this process significantly.’

The draft ‘Protocol for Online Case Management in International Arbitration’ is available for consultation until 31 August 2020. It can be viewed at: bit.ly/3dMtjQt. Comments should be emailed to platforms.protocol@hsf.com.

Issue: 7894 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Arbitration
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll