THE AUTHOR:
Elene Kalandiia, LL.M. Graduate from the University of Bristol
Overview
London Arbitration Week 2025 closed with an engaging session focused on a skill fundamental to every lawyer’s career: how to participate confidently and meaningfully in professional spaces.
Co-hosted by Queen Mary University of London (“QMUL“) and the Young International Arbitration Group (“YIAG“), the event blended a traditional panel with an interactive Tylney-style discussion. Attendees were encouraged not only to listen, but to step into the conversation. They were invited to pose thoughtful questions, share insights from their own experiences, and actively shape the discussion.
Panel One: Building a Lasting Network
The first panel explored what it means to enter a room full of unfamiliar faces and find one’s place within it.
Moderated by Dr Maria Fanou (Associate Professor, QMUL), the panel featured Wendy Miles KC (Barrister and Arbitrator, Twenty Essex), Paul Bonner Hughes (Barrister, 3 Verulam Buildings ), and Dr Crina Baltag FCIArb (Arbitrator, QMUL).
A central insight, echoed in the opening remarks by Professor Dr Maxi Scherer (President of the LCIA London Court of International Arbitration; Arbitrator and Founder, ArbBoutique), was that conferences are not about approaching the most senior person in the room. Rather, they are about building relationships with peers who may become co-counsel, collaborators, and future colleagues.
The panellists illustrated this by reflecting on their earlier years. For example, Wendy Miles KC described smaller events as valuable practice grounds where confidence can be built by asking questions and speaking publicly. Paul Bonner Hughes also encouraged young practitioners to choose events strategically, advising them to attend those aligned with their professional goals. Dr Crina Baltag (FCIArb) then shared how she overcame the challenge of presenting in a foreign language, emphasising that the quality of one’s message outweighs the pursuit of flawless delivery.
The panel closed with actionable advice for making meaningful contributions. A strong question should be concise, relevant, and tied directly to the discussion. For networking, the panellists recommended joining small groups, making introductions generously, and remembering that perceived missteps are rarely noticed by others.
Ultimately, the session reframed conferences as learning environments: spaces to practice public speaking, engage in substantive dialogue, and forge relationships that develop and endure over time. Professional rooms are not just about visibility, they are about presence, preparation, and the courage to participate.
Panel Two: A Tylney-Style Conversation
The second half of the session shifted from reflection to active engagement. Participants introduced topics they had submitted in advance, turning the room into an open forum on issues that shape contemporary arbitration.
Moderated by Shreya Aren (Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton), Rémy Gerbay (QMUL & Hughes Hubbard) and Karolina Latasz (Senior Associate, Squire Patton Boggs), the panel encouraged practitioners to test ideas, share practical concerns and observe how experienced counsel and arbitrators approach complex questions.
Disclosure in the Age of Social Media
The discussion began with the Arbitration Act 2025, which requires arbitrators to disclose circumstances that may raise doubts about their impartiality. Participants considered whether digital activity, such as likes, follows or online comments, could influence perceptions of independence.
Although there is no universal social media code of conduct for arbitrators, digital behaviour has become an integral part of due diligence. Some parties may even review an arbitrator’s social media footprint with the same care as a CV. Nevertheless, the panel emphasised that not every online interaction implies bias; its relevance depends on context and the perspective of a reasonable observer.
The broader challenge lies in balance. Arbitration depends on trust, yet expecting arbitrators to erase their digital footprints is neither realistic nor desirable. The international arbitration community must determine which forms of online activity are relevant to impartiality and which fall within the ordinary range of human expression. As digital habits evolve, defining this boundary will be central to maintaining confidence in the process.
Common Law vs Civil Law: The Value of Divergence
The next topic considered whether harmonisation is necessary to bridge differences in common and civil law approaches. Practitioners with cross-jurisdictional experience questioned whether the divide remains as pronounced as often portrayed. Many noted that international arbitration has already moved toward a shared procedural culture shaped by institutional rules and soft law instruments. Remaining differences often reflect the individual style of arbitrators rather than rigid national traditions.
This raised a more substantive question: should arbitration aspire to full harmonisation at all ? Much of its value lies in flexibility and the ability to incorporate diverse legal approaches. The discussion encouraged practitioners to view diversity of systems as an asset that enables tribunals to tailor processes to the commercial expectations of the parties.
Taking a Seat at the Table: Seniority and Arbitrator Appointments
Securing a first appointment remains challenging for many younger practitioners. Arbitration is a service industry: clients seek predictability, and counsel hesitate to recommend arbitrators whose judgment they have not observed. This creates the familiar cycle, without appointments, experience cannot be gained, yet without experience, appointments are unlikely.
Speakers underscored that the issue is not only access but confidence. One expert witness recalled being rejected because he was considered too young, despite being the most technically qualified candidate. However, the appointing party prioritised certainty over raw ability.
Institutions are working to expand opportunities through co-arbitrator appointments and by reducing reliance on repeat names. Lasting change, however, will depend on how the arbitration community balances merit, experience and the need to broaden the talent pool to reflect modern practice.
AI in Arbitration
Artificial intelligence (AI) prompted another key discussion. Participants debated whether tribunals should disclose when using AI tools for tasks such as summarising documents or reviewing large datasets, and whether such tools introduce any risks under new regulatory frameworks.
The panel drew a clear distinction between AI assistance and decision-making. Many practitioners acknowledged the value of AI for managing information efficiently, provided human judgment remains central. However, allowing AI to influence the reasoning of an award raised concerns about accuracy and accountability. The emerging consensus was that AI can support, not replace, the tribunal. Its use must remain transparent, limited and subject to human oversight.
The Future of Practice
The final conversation broadened the discussion beyond procedural and technical issues to consider wider trends shaping arbitration practice. Some participants noted that companies are reconsidering arbitration due to concerns about delay and costs, while others are incorporating escalation clauses or returning to trusted courts. These trends highlight that efficiency will increasingly influence how businesses select dispute resolution mechanisms.
The session concluded with a forward-looking reflection: to remain a preferred forum for cross-border disputes, arbitration must continue adapting to commercial expectations of speed, clarity and cost-effectiveness.
Overall, the event underscored that success in arbitration relies not only on legal expertise but also on the confidence to engage, the agility to navigate evolving challenges, and the foresight to shape a practice that meets the demands of a dynamic global legal landscape.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Elene Kalandiia is an LLM graduate in International Commercial Law from the University of Bristol, with a strong focus on international arbitration. She has experience in legal research, dispute resolution, and legal writing across legal and business contexts.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
