The tribunal's eye
Positions tested from the arbitrator's chair before they are advanced.
ICC, LCIA, and UNCITRAL proceedings for companies whose contracts and counterparties cross borders, run by counsel who also sits as an arbitrator.
When parties are in different countries, the real questions arrive before the merits: which rules, which seat, which law, which language, and whether an award will be enforceable where the assets are. The firm acts as counsel in institutional and ad hoc arbitration and brings a second perspective most advocates cannot - the founder is a certified arbitrator, so the case is built the way a tribunal will read it.
The firm decides the architecture before the argument: seat and institution are chosen for enforceability and neutrality, not for familiarity. It drafts the case for the reader it will actually have - a tribunal, not a national judge - which changes how evidence and submissions are built. Because the founder sits as an arbitrator, the firm pressure-tests its own positions from the tribunal's chair before they are filed.
Positions tested from the arbitrator's chair before they are advanced.
Seat and institution selected so the award is collectable.
English, Hebrew, and Arabic without handing the file to a translator.
A company with a cross-border supply contract and an institutional arbitration clause faces a claim in a foreign seat. The firm acts as counsel, contests jurisdiction on the scope of the clause, and coordinates the case with an enforcement plan aimed at the jurisdiction where the counterparty holds assets.
Described in abbreviated, anonymised form to preserve client confidentiality.
The seat is the legal home of the arbitration that fixes which courts supervise it and which law governs the procedure; the venue is merely where hearings physically happen, and the two need not be the same.
It depends on the parties, the value, the likely enforcement country, and cost; ICC, LCIA, and UNCITRAL rules suit different profiles, and the choice is best settled early, ideally before any dispute arises, since changing it later is hard.
Generally yes, through the New York Convention framework, subject to the limited grounds on which enforcement can be resisted; planning for it from the start is what makes it straightforward later.