Advice on International Arbitration? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Junior associate here in a corporate practice (horrendous life choice) looking to break into international arbitration. I have a couple questions for any IA lawyers here. Don't know too many in real life but would love some info.

1. Does the field break down basically into commercial arbitration and investor-treaty arbitration?
2. I've heard that NY is mostly commercial arbitration and DC investor-treaty. Is this true?
3. Can you do IA in California, particularly SF?

Thank you!!

[Anonymous User]

Junior associate here in a corporate practice (horrendous life choice) looking to break into international arbitration. I have a couple questions for any IA lawyers here. Don't know too many in real life but would love some info.

1. Does the field break down basically into commercial arbitration and investor-treaty arbitration?
2. I've heard that NY is mostly commercial arbitration and DC investor-treaty. Is this true?
3. Can you do IA in California, particularly SF?

Thank you!!

Unsure about the first two, but yes, SF has firms that do IA. There is a partner at Sheppard Mullin, as one example, who is prominent in the field and teaches on the subject.

[Anonymous User]

Junior associate here in a corporate practice (horrendous life choice) looking to break into international arbitration. I have a couple questions for any IA lawyers here. Don't know too many in real life but would love some info.

1. Does the field break down basically into commercial arbitration and investor-treaty arbitration?
2. I've heard that NY is mostly commercial arbitration and DC investor-treaty. Is this true?
3. Can you do IA in California, particularly SF?

Thank you!!

1. Yes, this is how it's often broken down. There is a third category, inter-State arbitrations. (I would include in this category ICJ work and cases before other international tribunals that are not, really, arbitrations.) If you're an international arbitration/disputes lawyer, you will probably do one, sometimes two, and rarely all three.

One way to think about the divide is the number of States involved: 0, 1, or 2(+). Another common-sense and perhaps more useful way to think about the distinction between the three is applicable law. Commercial arbitration -- importantly, international commercial arbitration -- involves the application of domestic law (often) foreign to both parties, think a Russian and a Spaniard with a dispute under New York law. Investment-treaty arbitration -- a bit of misnomer as well, because not all cases arise under treaties -- involves public international law (e.g., the BIT, ICSID Convention, law of state responsibility, etc.), a well-developed body of investor-State jurisprudence, and (this is often forgotten) generally some amount of public law within the host-State. Inter-State arbitration involves much broader principles of public international law than the other two, and draws more heavily from the ICJ and other international tribunals.

You can imagine that different lawyers and firms develop different specialties. But as I mentioned, most arbitration lawyers, especially associates, will do a mix, with the international-commercial being the most prevalent and inter-State being the least common. (In private practice, only a handful of firms worldwide have serious public international law practices.) As you get more senior, you get more specialized. Senior partners may be known for their ISDS work, or may have a frequent-flyer client with lots of international commercial disputes, etc.

What really matters, as a junior, is the firm/office. Some very strong international arbitration practices do far more commercial work than investor-State. Some do investor-State work, but predominantly (or exclusively) on the Claimant or Respondent side. Some offices do a mix of all kinds of work. It's not always obvious to those outside the field, and you need to do some homework to get a sense of how the market breaks down.

2. The NY/DC divide is probably true as a rule of thumb. There are practice groups in DC that focus exclusively on investor-State and practice groups in New York that are almost exclusively international commercial. But there are also several places in NY that do a lot of investor-State/public international law work; the inverse is true in DC. The NY/DC divide is, at best, a rough heuristic.

3. Can't speak to SF. I imagine it's even more international-commercial-arbitration oriented than New York. With respect to Sheppard Mullin -- not picking on them, just riffing off the previous post -- they have only acted in one ICSID case (as co-counsel with Hogan Lovells, Paris, a very serious arbitration group). This suggests to me that they are likely near exclusively focused on international-commercial disputes. In this regard, I note that a lot of firms list 'international arbitration' as a practice area on their website for marketing purposes, without actually being players in the space. Likewise there are some firms that 'do' international arbitration in the sense of, "We can enforce an arbitration award in the Northwestern District of Wyoming," or whatever, but do not actually act as arbitration counsel.

[Anonymous User]

Junior associate here in a corporate practice (horrendous life choice) looking to break into international arbitration. I have a couple questions for any IA lawyers here. Don't know too many in real life but would love some info.

1. Does the field break down basically into commercial arbitration and investor-treaty arbitration?
2. I've heard that NY is mostly commercial arbitration and DC investor-treaty. Is this true?
3. Can you do IA in California, particularly SF?

Thank you!!

1. Yes, this is how it's often broken down. There is a third category, inter-State arbitrations. (I would include in this category ICJ work and cases before other international tribunals that are not, really, arbitrations.) If you're an international arbitration/disputes lawyer, you will probably do one, sometimes two, and rarely all three.

One way to think about the divide is the number of States involved: 0, 1, or 2(+). Another common-sense and perhaps more useful way to think about the distinction between the three is applicable law. Commercial arbitration -- importantly, international commercial arbitration -- involves the application of domestic law (often) foreign to both parties, think a Russian and a Spaniard with a dispute under New York law. Investment-treaty arbitration -- a bit of misnomer as well, because not all cases arise under treaties -- involves public international law (e.g., the BIT, ICSID Convention, law of state responsibility, etc.), a well-developed body of investor-State jurisprudence, and (this is often forgotten) generally some amount of public law within the host-State. Inter-State arbitration involves much broader principles of public international law than the other two, and draws more heavily from the ICJ and other international tribunals.

You can imagine that different lawyers and firms develop different specialties. But as I mentioned, most arbitration lawyers, especially associates, will do a mix, with the international-commercial being the most prevalent and inter-State being the least common. (In private practice, only a handful of firms worldwide have serious public international law practices.) As you get more senior, you get more specialized. Senior partners may be known for their ISDS work, or may have a frequent-flyer client with lots of international commercial disputes, etc.

What really matters, as a junior, is the firm/office. Some very strong international arbitration practices do far more commercial work than investor-State. Some do investor-State work, but predominantly (or exclusively) on the Claimant or Respondent side. Some offices do a mix of all kinds of work. It's not always obvious to those outside the field, and you need to do some homework to get a sense of how the market breaks down.

2. The NY/DC divide is probably true as a rule of thumb. There are practice groups in DC that focus exclusively on investor-State and practice groups in New York that are almost exclusively international commercial. But there are also several places in NY that do a lot of investor-State/public international law work; the inverse is true in DC. The NY/DC divide is, at best, a rough heuristic.

3. Can't speak to SF. I imagine it's even more international-commercial-arbitration oriented than New York. With respect to Sheppard Mullin -- not picking on them, just riffing off the previous post -- they have only acted in one ICSID case (as co-counsel with Hogan Lovells, Paris, a very serious arbitration group). This suggests to me that they are likely near exclusively focused on international-commercial disputes. In this regard, I note that a lot of firms list 'international arbitration' as a practice area on their website for marketing purposes, without actually being players in the space. Likewise there are some firms that 'do' international arbitration in the sense of, "We can enforce an arbitration award in the Northwestern District of Wyoming," or whatever, but do not actually act as arbitration counsel.

Hey thank you, this is so helpful! I have two follow-ups if you have some more time .
1. If the goal is basically PIL and investor-state, with not much interest in commercial, are Debevoise, W&C, Freshfields, A&P generally best?
2. Would someone with a JD benefit from an LLM in either IDR or PIL? I usually see JD+LLM for tax but I know it's also a thing with IA

Thanks again.

[Anonymous User]

Same poster as above.

1. That’s a good list for PIL/ISDS but you’re missing a big one (Foley Hoag) and a few others I’d look at seriously (Covington, King & Spalding, Three Crowns). All of these are strong in PIL or ISDS or both, although I understand 3C has recently been more commercial oriented. I’m probably missing a few still.

2. I think an LLM will probably be a waste of time/money, if you’re thinking an LLM from a US school. In the US, LLMs are generally for foreign trained attorneys who want to get qualified/a foot in the door — and recruiting out of LLMs is brutal, even for well-qualified lawyers with great experience in their home jurisdiction. I don’t know of any US JDs with US LLMs working in arbitration right now, if that anecdote helps at all.

Arbitration — and PIL — are tough fields to get into. Were I in your shoes, and assuming you don’t have a bunch of experience in international law on your resume already, I would do something a bit more dramatic (but less expensive). Such as a 3-6 month traineeship with a Paris arbitration group, or an internship with an international tribunal, or even an LLM outside the US. Something like that.

Languages help. In the US, Spanish is especially helpful. Plenty of demand for US lawyers with fluent Spanish, from what I can tell.

[Anonymous User]

Same poster as above.

1. That’s a good list for PIL/ISDS but you’re missing a big one (Foley Hoag) and a few others I’d look at seriously (Covington, King & Spalding, Three Crowns). All of these are strong in PIL or ISDS or both, although I understand 3C has recently been more commercial oriented. I’m probably missing a few still.

2. I think an LLM will probably be a waste of time/money, if you’re thinking an LLM from a US school. In the US, LLMs are generally for foreign trained attorneys who want to get qualified/a foot in the door — and recruiting out of LLMs is brutal, even for well-qualified lawyers with great experience in their home jurisdiction. I don’t know of any US JDs with US LLMs working in arbitration right now, if that anecdote helps at all.

Arbitration — and PIL — are tough fields to get into. Were I in your shoes, and assuming you don’t have a bunch of experience in international law on your resume already, I would do something a bit more dramatic (but less expensive). Such as a 3-6 month traineeship with a Paris arbitration group, or an internship with an international tribunal, or even an LLM outside the US. Something like that.

Languages help. In the US, Spanish is especially helpful. Plenty of demand for US lawyers with fluent Spanish, from what I can tell.

Thank you again! I was actually referring to the LLMs in Europe since they're around 50k cheaper than USA and Europe is my favorite continent anyways. I will absolutely look into a traineeship in Paris. That's an interesting idea I hadn't thought of.