The clause read for failure points
Where it would not hold or could be exploited, identified in advance.
Review of an existing or proposed arbitration clause for enforceability and dispute risk. The firm reviews and advises; it does not draft or negotiate the clause.
An arbitration clause written years before a dispute decides the seat, the rules, the language, and whether the eventual award is enforceable. Most arbitration problems are clause problems that surface too late. The firm reviews the clause for those problems and tells the client where it is exposed - without drafting or negotiating the clause itself, which stays outside the firm's scope.
The firm reads the clause the way a tribunal and a court would later read it, looking for the points where it would fail or be exploited. It tells the client where the exposure is and what a dispute under this clause would look like. It stops at review and advice; it does not redraft or negotiate the clause, which would be transactional work the firm does not do.
Where it would not hold or could be exploited, identified in advance.
Whether the clause actually captures the dispute in front of you.
Advice on the exposure; the drafting stays with your transactional lawyer.
A party facing a dispute is unsure whether its contract's arbitration clause is enforceable and whether it covers the issue that has arisen. The firm reviews the clause against how a court and a tribunal would read it, sets out the enforceability and scope risk in writing, and advises on the consequences for the dispute.
Described in abbreviated, anonymised form to preserve client confidentiality.
It depends on how clearly it identifies the seat, the rules, and the scope, and on whether it meets the requirements for a valid arbitration agreement; a review before the dispute escalates is what surfaces the weak points.
Vagueness about essential terms, an unclear or contradictory choice of forum, or a failure to meet the formal requirements can all give a party a route to resist arbitration.
That turns on the wording of the scope, and a narrowly drawn clause can leave part of a dispute outside arbitration, which is exactly the kind of gap a review is built to find.