header-logo header-logo

07 May 2021
Issue: 7932 / Categories: Legal News , ADR , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Virtual arbitration was a success during pandemic

Arbitration retained its popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic and adapted well to the change in circumstances, according to the 2021 international arbitration survey by Queen Mary University’s School of International Arbitration, conducted in partnership with global law firm White & Case

The survey, ‘Adapting Arbitration to a Changing World’, explored how the sector adapted to the unprecedented demands of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 1,200 private practice lawyers, in-house counsel and arbitrators took part between October 2020 and March 2021.

Some 79% of respondents said they would choose a virtual hearing over postponement if an in-person hearing were not possible, while 16% would postpone and four per cent would opt for a documents-only award.

Nine out of ten of the respondents said international arbitration was their favoured option, either on a standalone basis (31%) or in conjunction with alternative dispute resolution (59%). The top five preferred seats for arbitration were London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Paris and Geneva.

The use of technology, already widely used in international arbitration, increased during the pandemic, particularly in regard to videoconferencing and digital hearing room technologies.

Respondents liked the greater availability of potential dates for hearings, when held virtually, as well as the greater efficiency through the use of technology and greater procedural and logistical flexibility. However, they expressed concerns about the difficulty of accommodating multiple time zones and the impression that it is ‘harder for counsel teams and clients to confer’ and to control witnesses and assess their credibility. They also cited screen fatigue and the fallibility of technology as concerns.

Post-pandemic, the respondents said they would prefer a mix of in-person and virtual for almost all interactions, including meetings and conferences. Wholly virtual formats were narrowly preferred for procedural hearings, but respondents wanted to keep the option of in-person hearings open for substantive matters.

Abby Cohen Smutny, global head of the international arbitration practice group, White & Case, said: ‘The field of international arbitration is dynamic by nature.

‘Its hallmarks of flexibility and party autonomy allow it to develop and adapt in response to the needs of its users. Recent times have seen an increased focus on drivers of change such as diversity, technology, environmental considerations and information security.

‘The COVID-19 pandemic has also presented challenges to the way in which the international arbitration community interacts, with virtual hearings, conferences and meetings with counsel, clients and teams becoming the norm almost overnight.’

View the full survey report at bit.ly/3b9fahH.   

Issue: 7932 / Categories: Legal News , ADR , Arbitration
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll