Global Pound Conference report published

The Global Pound Conference series – a unique and ambitious initiative to inform how civil and commercial disputes are resolved in the 21st century – brought together over 4000 dispute resolution stakeholders, at 28 conferences spanning 24 countries worldwide.

Herbert Smith Freehills, global founding sponsor of the series, has teamed up with PwC and IMI (International Mediation Institute) to identify key insights that emerge from the extensive voting data collected during the series. With a focus on the needs of corporate users of dispute resolution, this ground-breaking report challenges the traditional and fundamental notions of what clients want and how lawyers should represent them in a dispute. We identify four key global themes along with four notable regional differences.

Global themes emerging from the voting data reveal:

  • Efficiency is the key priority of parties when choosing dispute resolution processes.  Most dispute resolution continues to have as its frame of reference an adversarial process (litigation or arbitration) based on asserted legal rights. Yet two thirds of in-house counsel canvassed at GPC events said they require more efficiency in dispute resolution. This questions whether traditional dispute resolution processes still meet the needs of end users.

  • Parties expect greater collaboration from advisors in dispute resolution. Around two thirds of in-house counsel said they need to see more collaboration from their lawyers. This applies when lawyers are interacting with both  clients and opponents. This questions traditional notions of how lawyers should represent clients. Is the zealous advocate, fighting their client’s corner tenaciously at all costs, still appropriate?

  • Global interest in the use of pre-dispute protocols and mixed-mode dispute resolution. With the data pointing towards a more collaborative and efficient approach, unsurprisingly delegates felt that disputing parties should be encouraged to consider processes like mediation before they commence formal proceedings. The data also showed a growing desire by parties to use mediation in parallel with litigation and arbitration.

  • Some uncomfortable home truths for lawyers. In-house counsel were judged to be change enablers. As such, they shoulder a significant responsibility to encourage their organisations (and, if necessary, their external lawyers) to consider dispute resolution options more carefully, including using processes like mediation. In contrast, 70% of global delegates said external lawyers were the primary obstacles to change in commercial dispute resolution.

These insights show the potential of the GPC series to inform further studies and discussions across the world. Download your copy of our report here to learn more.

To discuss the content of this report and its impact on your organisation’s approach to dispute resolution, please contact the authors.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under ADR, Herbert Smith Freehills news, Mediation (General)

CEDR launches its UK and US Mediation Audit 2018

The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) is inviting interested parties in the UK and US to take part in its Mediation Audit 2018.  

The audit, run in conjunction with the Civil Mediation Council and International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), is the eighth audit that CEDR has conducted over the last 16 years.  The surveys are a valuable source of data on various aspects of the mediation landscape, including settlement rates, perceptions of mediation standards and priorities for development. (We reported on the results of the last audit here.)  This year, in partnership with CPR, the Mediation Audit will extend to the United States for the first time, allowing for a comparison to be drawn between mediation practice in the UK and US.

To take part in the 2018 Audit please follow the appropriate survey:

UK and US Mediator Audit

UK and US Lawyer Audit  (for both in-house and private practice lawyers)

Each survey should take no longer than 10 minutes and is on an anonymous basis.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Podcast: How arbitration and ADR can be used together

In this short podcast Professional Support Consultants Hannah Ambrose and Vanessa Naish look at how Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) can work together. The podcast considers how parties can agree to an ADR process in addition to or alongside arbitration (looking at approaches in different jurisdictions and under different arbitral institutional rules), before turning to the complexities of drafting escalation clauses in contracts. Finally it looks at how a successful settlement should be formalised to be most effective and enforceable.

For more on this topic, see our guide ‘Use of mediation in arbitration‘, from our popular series of ADR Practical Guides.  (The full set of ADR Practical Guides can be accessed here – including a business-friendly introduction to mediation and guides to preparing for a mediation).

For further information, please contact Hannah Ambrose, Vanessa Naish or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Hannah Ambrose
Hannah Ambrose
Professional Support Consultant
Email | Profile
+44 20 7466 7585
Vanessa Naish
Vanessa Naish
Professional Support Consultant
Email | Profile
+44 20 7466 2112

Leave a Comment

Filed under ADR, Mediation (General)

Belt and Road: Supporting the resolution of disputes

We have previously commented on how the sheer complexity and scale of China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative is prompting a welcome review of dispute resolution processes including efforts, led and supported by the Chinese government, to encourage mediation clauses in Belt and Road agreements.

In the following article, first published on http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com on 16 April 2018, Mingchao Fan (ICC) and Briana Young and Anita Phillips (Herbert Smith Freehills) review the latest development in the efforts to support the resolution of Belt and Road disputes.


 

On 5 March 2018, the ICC Court announced the establishment of a commission to address dispute resolution in relation to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The commission will drive the development of ICC’s existing dispute resolution procedures and infrastructure to support Belt and Road disputes.

The Belt and Road

The Belt and Road is China’s ambitious infrastructure project spanning more than 70 countries, with an increasing number of non-Chinese investors, contractors and developers – including sovereign states – involved. The project aims to build connectivity and cooperation between China across the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. It spans large parts of Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe.

A construction and infrastructure initiative on this scale will inevitably generate disputes. With an estimated US$900bn in projects planned or already underway, the project gives rise to a multitude of actual and potential commercial disputes to consider. In response to this, Alexis Mourre, President of the ICC Court, announced the establishment of the commission during the ICC Court’s working session last fall.

It is a competitive field, with numerous existing institutions vying for a share of the Belt and Road disputes market, and new courts and institutions being established specifically for the purpose. It seems clear that parties who adopt the right dispute resolution model in their contracts today will be in a better position to resolve disputes as and when they may arise.

Make-up of the Commission

Justin D’Agostino, Global Head of Disputes at Herbert Smith Freehills and Hong Kong’s alternate member of the ICC Court, has been appointed commission chair. Dr Mingchao Fan, ICC Director for North Asia, will act as secretary. Other commission members are drawn from a range of sectors, representing jurisdictions including the PRC, Hong Kong and Singapore. A broader advisory board, representing other countries along the Belt and Road, is being considered.

ICC recognises the importance of engaging key stakeholders within both corporates and governments all along the Belt and Road, to ensure that it is offering the best possible service to parties on all sides.

Although the ICC Belt and Road Commission’s main objective is to raise awareness of the ICC as a “go-to” institution for disputes arising out of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the commission has additional relevant aims:

  leveraging ICC’s unparalleled international coverage with secretariats and/or national committees in over 100 jurisdictions to attract Belt and Road disputes;
•  engaging with corporates, state-owned enterprises and governments across all Belt and Road territories; and
  highlighting Belt and Road dispute resolution at a series of events throughout the region, with the aim of promoting ICC’s capabilities widely. Events are planned in locations as diverse as China, Paris, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Southeast Asia, Japan and Hong Kong, with more to come.

In the Commission’s view, the combination of the ICC’s tried-and-tested, multi-process services, its unrivalled geographical footprint, and its established credibility and independence, place it in a strong position to resolve Belt and Road disputes.

Sector expertise

On average, construction and engineering disputes account for close to a quarter of all ICC arbitration cases, while the finance and insurance sector accounts for approximately 20%. As the world’s leading arbitral institution, ICC is adept at handling complex multiparty cases as well as high-value, complex multi-party and multi-contract disputes (approximately half of all cases filed involve three or more parties). The introduction in 2017 of an expedited procedure also enables lower-value cases to be handled with greater time- and cost-efficiency.

Mediation matters too

There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ method of resolving Belt and Road disputes. But there is a concerted effort, led and supported by the Chinese government, to encourage mediation clauses in Belt and Road agreements, with provision for arbitration if mediation fails. ICC is a world-leading arbitration and mediation provider, with tried and tested mechanisms and a strong pool of arbitrators and mediators. It is therefore well placed to provide appropriate, effective dispute resolution services to parties all along the New Silk Road. ICC’s stated objective is to ensure that where disputes arise, they are resolved efficiently and with minimal damage to the parties’ commercial relationships.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ADR institutions, Asia, Government proposals and consultations

Article published – ADR reform: one size does not fit all

On 6 March, the Civil Justice Council held a workshop to discuss the recommendations made in its interim report on ADR, which was subject to consultation late last year. The interim report addresses concerns regarding a perceived underuse of ADR within some sections of the civil justice system and suggests a variety of possible corrective measures. The proposals include a power for the court to determine whether costs sanctions should be imposed for unreasonable conduct relating to ADR (such as an unreasonable refusal to mediate) not only at the end of a case, as currently, but during the matter when the decisions regarding ADR are taken.

Jan O’Neill has published a post on Practical Law’s Dispute Resolution blog in which she questions how realistic the suggestion of “midstream” assessment of parties’ conduct relating to ADR would be in practice. She suggests that many of the concerns expressed in the report as to the underuse of ADR are not relevant to many larger, complex claims, and urges the working group to tailor any final recommendations to the specific courts or dispute types for which the evidence suggests they are needed and practicable.

Click here to read the post (or here for the Practical Law Dispute Resolution blog homepage).

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under ADR, Confidentiality and privilege, Government proposals and consultations, Mediation (General), Refusal to mediate, UK

An international convention on the enforcement of mediated settlements – UNCITRAL moves one step closer

The UNCITRAL working group that has for several years now been considering the potential for an international enforcement regime for international mediation has now completed its work and produced draft instruments.

At its most recent meeting in New York, the UNCITRAL Working Group II (Dispute Settlement – formerly Arbitration and Conciliation) approved a draft convention and a draft amended Model Law on international settlement agreements resulting from mediation. Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Government proposals and consultations, Mediation (General)

New Japan International Mediation Centre

It has recently been announced that a new “Japan International Mediation Centre” (JIMC) is to open in Kyoto in early 2018.

While details on the new centre are still limited, it is known that it is being established in collaboration and with the assistance of the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC), which may provide an indication of how the new centre is likely to operate.

The establishment of the centre is an interesting development in a jurisdiction which is known for its amenability to privately negotiated settlements of disputes but in which (along with many other Asian jurisdictions) the concept of mediation has failed to thrive and become institutionally embedded.

For more on the JIMC, read our Japan Dispute Avoidance Newsletter.

Herbert Smith Freehills also hosts a dedicated ADR Hub as a resource for our clients.  This includes a spotlight series on ADR in Asia Pacific, Issue 2 of which specifically delves into ADR in Singapore including the features of the SIMC.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ADR institutions, Mediation (General)

Report on the use of ADR in employment disputes

The Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) has issued a report examining the potential for greater use to be made of ADR in employment disputes.

The report was prepared by an ELA working group, co-chaired by Peter Frost, partner in Herbert Smith Freehills’ employment team in London, and Paul Goulding QC.   It considers the current and potential use of various forms of ADR for resolution of different types of employment disputes, including private mediation, judicial mediation and early neutral evaluation.   It also makes recommendations for governmental consultation on potential legislative changes to encourage the greater use of ADR both at the pre-action stage and post issue of proceedings.

A copy of the report can be accessed here.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment, Government proposals and consultations, Herbert Smith Freehills news, Other ADR processes

The role of mediation in the resolution of Belt and Road Initiative disputes

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has gained huge momentum of late, with governments, companies and lawyers keen to maximise the many opportunities it presents. The resolution of disputes arising from the BRI is no exception. The sheer complexity and scale of BRI projects is prompting a welcome review of dispute resolution processes, with a view to resolving BRI disputes more quickly and amicably, ideally in a confidential and enforcement-friendly environment.
Recent developments suggest that the BRI presents an opportunity for less formal procedures, like mediation, to flourish and enter the mainstream. Indeed, three key BRI jurisdictions – China, Singapore and Hong Kong – have recently promoted mediation in the context of BRI disputes.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Asia, Construction, Mediation (General)

EU Parliament Resolution on the implementation of the Mediation Directive

The EU Parliament has adopted a Resolution on the implementation of the EU Mediation Directive (2008/52/EC), containing recommendations aimed at increasing the use of mediation in civil and commercial disputes throughout the EU.

The Resolution follows a 2016 report by the EU Commission which concluded that, overall, the Mediation Directive had added value, particularly by prompting significant legislative changes in several Member States. No revision of the Directive itself was recommended. However, the report noted continuing difficulties with the functioning of many of the national mediation systems in practice. These were attributed principally to the lack of a “mediation culture” in many Member States, insufficient knowledge of how to deal with cross-border cases, the low level of awareness of mediation, the functioning of quality control mechanisms for mediators and a reluctance by courts to propose mediation.

In response, Parliament has made the following recommendations:

  • EU Member States should step up their efforts to encourage the use of mediation in civil and commercial disputes, such as through information campaigns, improved cooperation between legal professionals and an exchange of best practices.
  • The Commission should assess the need to develop EU-wide quality standards for the provision of mediation services.
  • The Commission should assess the need for member states to establish national registers of mediated proceedings. (subject to data protection rules).
  • The Commission should undertake a detailed study on the obstacles to the free circulation of foreign mediation agreements across the EU, and on options to promote the use of mediation.
  • The Commission should find solutions to extend the scope of mediation to other civil or administrative matters.

We will report on any steps to implement these recommendations in due course.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Government proposals and consultations, Mediation (General), Mediation Directive