THE AUTHOR:<\/strong> On Tuesday, 24 March 2026,\u00a0Freshfields LLP<\/a>\u00a0hosted its annual panel discussion titled \u201cFast & Furious: Cross-Examination in International Arbitration\u201d. The session was moderated by Mr\u00a0Matei Purice<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>(Counsel at\u00a0Freshfields LLP)<\/strong>and Ms\u00a0Veronika Timofeeva<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(Senior Associate at\u00a0Freshfields LLP<\/strong>) and followed a fast-paced question-and-answer format, with each speaker given sixty seconds to respond, offering concise and practical insights drawn from experience. The speakers included Mr\u00a0Noah Rubins<\/a>\u00a0KC<\/strong> (Partner at\u00a0Freshfields LLP<\/strong>), Ms\u00a0Jane Davies-Evans<\/a>\u00a0KC<\/strong> (Barrister and Arbitrator at\u00a03 Verulam Buildings<\/a>), Ms\u00a0Erica McCormick-Dorst<\/strong>\u00a0(Senior Legal Counsel at\u00a0Shell<\/strong>), Ms\u00a0Selma Baccari<\/strong>(Senior Director at\u00a0Kroll<\/strong>), and Mr\u00a0Ed Williams KC<\/strong>\u00a0(Barrister and Founder of\u00a0Assurety Training<\/strong>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The session opened by highlighting the tensions inherent in cross-examination. While counsel often view it as a key moment of advocacy, for experts and witnesses it requires navigating a highly adversarial environment. From the perspective of in-house counsel, the focus instead lies on efficiency, cost control, and overall case management. These diverging perspectives underscore the need for a delicate balance between performance, credibility, and practical constraints in cross-examinations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion then focused on the qualities that define an effective witness. The most valuable witnesses are those who can tell the truth clearly, possess relevant knowledge of the case, and respond effectively to questioning. The panel stressed that credibility and responsiveness matter more than performance, marking a shift away from overly rehearsed advocacy. Early involvement of counsel was also seen as essential, allowing practitioners to test witnesses and identify weaknesses before the hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From an in-house perspective, there are more practical constraints, noting that a good witness must be available, credible, and able to grasp what is at stake, including the strengths and vulnerabilities that may ultimately determine the outcome of the case. Experience was considered a clear advantage, particularly in complex disputes. Experts should also demonstrate a clear methodology, strong technical expertise, and relevant experience, while engaging closely with counsel from an early stage. Experts are therefore increasingly seen not simply as technical contributors, but as integral to the overall advocacy strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Preparation emerged as a defining aspect of effective cross-examination, as it often involves structured sessions with external counsel, tailored to the needs of each case. The panel then offered a more nuanced perspective, stressing that preparation must not come at the expense of authenticity, as overly rehearsed testimony can appear artificial and ultimately undermine credibility. A common misconception among witnesses is that they must \u201cwin\u201d the exchange, whereas effective testimony instead requires discipline, attentive listening, and concise answers, often reflecting the principle that less is more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion then turned to how tribunals navigate competing expert narratives. Arbitrators, drawing on their experience, are generally well equipped to identify the most persuasive position or, where appropriate, to reach a balanced middle ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Strategic considerations also featured prominently in the discussion. The panel underscored that cross-examination should be used selectively rather than as a matter of course, and only where it meaningfully advances the case. Decisions on whether to proceed were typically made jointly by in-house and external counsel, following a careful assessment of the potential risks and benefits. In this context, preparation was described as both early and continuous, often beginning upon receipt of witness statements, with a focus on isolating the points most likely to reinforce the overall case theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Against this backdrop, the panellists dispelled the notion that legal culture fundamentally alters preparation. While theoretical differences exist, credibility assessments in practice were said to rest largely on human perception, with arbitrators tending to converge in their evaluation of witnesses during deliberations. Witnesses were nevertheless made aware of procedural nuances, though preparation remained centred on equipping them to face difficult questioning with clarity and composure. In parallel, artificial intelligence was recognised as a valuable support tool, particularly in managing complex evidentiary records and testing consistency, but one that must remain subordinate to counsel\u2019s strategic judgement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the discussion turned to the future of cross-examination and how it may be refined in practice. The panel suggested a clear shift towards greater discipline and selectivity, pointing to a move away from exhaustive questioning, particularly in relation to expert evidence. Cross-examination should serve to assist the tribunal, rather than merely discredit the opposing party.<\/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
Redeat M. Zewdie<\/strong>, MACI Master’s Candidate at Universit\u00e9 Paris-Saclay<\/strong><\/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