THE AUTHOR:<\/strong> On Monday, 23 March 2026, as part of the 2026 edition of Paris Arbitration Week<\/a>, the International Chamber of Commerce<\/a> (\u201cICC<\/strong>\u201d) hosted the 10th ICC European Conference on International Arbitration in Paris. This year, the conference, titled \u201cWhy we are all a little biased: Cognitive Biases in Arbitration<\/em>\u201d, was a shared topic in all three panels including the opening discussions between Mr Mihael Jeklic<\/strong> (Director of Professional Skills, King\u2019s College London, United Kingdom) and Mr Alexander G. Fessas<\/a><\/strong> (Secretary General; ICC International Court of Arbitration; Director, ICC Dispute Resolution Services, France). This article focuses on the second panel entitled \u201cThe Advocates Dilemma: When the Confidence Becomes Overconfidence<\/em>\u201d, relating to myside bias and overconfidence and how these phenomena affect the counsels, parties, and overall case strategy from different perspectives of panellists based on their experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The session was moderated by Ms Claudia Salomon<\/strong><\/a> (President, ICC International Court of Arbitration, France) and the panel was composed of Mr Todd Wetmore<\/a><\/strong> (Founding Partner, Three Crown<\/a>s, France), Mr Stephen Ruttle<\/a><\/strong> KC (Commercial Mediator, Brick Court Chambers<\/a>, United Kingdom), Ms Norad\u00e8le Radjai <\/a><\/strong>(Partner, Lalive<\/a>, Switzerland) and finally Mr Gauthier Vannieuwenhuyse <\/a><\/strong>(Head of Legal & Compliance, Total Energies, France).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Salomon commenced the session by referencing the opening discussions, highlighting that no matter how experienced we are in making an objective assessment or how much we strive to overcome biases, our brains are wired for it. She emphasised that it is therefore challenging – if not sometimes impossible – to overcome our biases including myside bias, more commonly known as confirmation or advocacy bias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding the vital question of whether we believe that even an experienced advocate falls prey to myside bias and overconfidence, the floor was first given to Mr Wetmore, who delved into the matter by emphasising that this invisible and subtle bias is specific to the advocacy role. Mr Wetmore explained that the task of powerful advocacy is a highly focused one which requires conducting a thorough review of a substantial number of documents to build arguments. When advocates review opposing arguments, it is from a perspective focused on defeating them rather than adopting the mindset of the other side by imagining the strong points against one\u2019s case. Mr Wetmore further stated that culturally, young advocates are not encouraged to be true devil\u2019s advocates and point out the weaknesses in their arguments – in fact, they are mostly encouraged to build their own case without dismantling it or considering other party arguments. He finally emphasised the need to work on the weaknesses of the case, and by doing so, one can strengthen its case and become a better advocate, and a more empathetic one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr Ruttle KC, who acted as a barrister for many years and now serves as a mediator, addressed this question from a mediator\u2019s perspective. He stressed the fact that a mediator facilitates the parties in reaching a settlement which allows the parties to listen to each other and this substantially differs from advocacy where the objective is to dismantle the other side\u2019s arguments. As a mediator, Mr Ruttle explained that he stands as a third party with the aim of shaping the whole evolution of the process in which these early discussions might be crucial to eliminating myside bias without the decision-making position of a third party as an arbitrator or a judge. Mr. Ruttle then explained that mediation helps people \u2018re-humanise\u2019 and engage in two-way listening by interacting with a different reality than their own. He concluded his remarks by describing the mediation process as a dynamic, unique way of resolving disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Salomon then pointed out that given the client\u2019s entire focus tends to be on winning, myside bias affects both client advice and case strategy. She concluded her comments by giving the floor to Ms Radjai to answer the question regarding how an advocates can give accurate advice to a client and develop the case strategy without being affected by their biases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Radjai emphasised that while overconfidence harms persuasion and affects credibility, studies show that a healthy dose of myside bias or confidence might help advocates better articulate the arguments supporting their case. She noted, however, that as necessary as confidence may be, when it becomes overconfidence, a counterproductive outcome emerges. When one becomes too invested in their case, they might overlook the perspective of the ultimate decision maker, which would result in overlooking the weak points in their arguments or discounting the strength of the opposing view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, she highlighted that such a shift is where myside bias affects case strategy and negotiations, given that the chances of reaching a favourable outcome would be significantly diminished, especially if one does not have a realistic assessment of its case. This would lead to giving a great amount of weight to the favourable evidence and not giving enough to unfavourable evidence and hence would stand in the way of building the strongest-case strategy and would create blind spots that the decision maker will see regardless. Ms Radjai then underlined the fact that if advocates are not given the structured support to make cognitive assessments, they too might fall prey to their own biases, and she reiterated the importance of balance in confidence to maintain client trust and ensure effective advocacy. Otherwise, such a shift into overconfidence would affect judgement, prevent settlement, and weaken the case strategy. Ms Radjai concluded by stating that the real challenge for advocates is protecting that confidence externally while maintaining objectivity internally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The floor was finally given to Mr Vannieuwenhuyse, who addressed the effects of myside bias and overconfidence from an in-house perspective, highlighting the immediate and concrete effects of bias on case strategy, organisational choices and ultimately, on how the company values the case. He began by identifying two main problems that may arise from myside bias and overconfidence, the first being strategy blind spots, as early predictions within the company create anchors and company expectations are formed around that early estimate, which are significantly more difficult to correct at a later stage. Mr Vannieuwenhuyse explained that myside bias and overconfidence affect the amount of budget allocated to the case and settlements, as the company would genuinely believe its chance of success exceeds 50%. He later identified the second problem, stating that overconfidence has a negative impact on internal trust and governance, as early assessments influenced by overconfidence might undermine their credibility, which might also have an impact on future evaluations. He concluded by underlining the importance of trust in legal advice for the companies, and that such trust might be substantially undermined in cases of overconfidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, guided by Ms Salomon, the panellists touched upon the practical tools and measures to overcome bias in their approach. While Mr Wetmore mentioned the use of artificial intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d) tools might be helpful in identifying the ambiguities in one\u2019s arguments, Mr Vannieuwenhuyse agreed that AI may serve as a useful tool, under human supervision. The panellists further reached a consensus that external review of the case through mediation, facilitation, or a third-party assessment either within the law firm or external to it, is paramount and, at the same time, viable. The key takeaway from the panel was that although it might be challenging to recognise and overcome myside bias and overconfidence, it is crucial for advocates to engage with them to formulate stronger case strategy and provide better advice to clients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article was originally published in PBA Bulletin on 17 April 2026, as part of a special edition curated by Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a>, in collaboration with Jus Mundi <\/a>and Jus Connect<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ece Buse G\u00fcrp\u0131nar<\/strong>, Turkish qualified lawyer and Intern at the International Chamber of Commerce<\/a> (\u201cICC<\/strong>\u201d)<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
As part of Paris Arbitration Week 2026, Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a><\/strong>, in collaboration with Daily Jus<\/a><\/strong> and Jus Mundi<\/a><\/strong>, brings together contributions in a special edition of PBA Bulletin<\/a>,<\/strong> sharing reflections and perspectives from across this year\u2019s events.<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n