• PRO
  • Events
  • Awards
    • Client Choice
    • Influencers
    • WWL Awards 2023
    Introducing Instruct Counsel
    The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • About
  • Blog Popular
  • Login
  • Register
  • PRO
  • Resources
    • Latest updates
    • Commentary
    • Q&A
    • Analysis
    • Practical resources
    • In-Depth
    • FromCounsel
  • Research tools
    • Global research hub
    • Lexy
    • Primary sources
    • Scanner
    • Research reports
    • Instruct Counsel
  • Resources
  • Research tools
  • Who's Who Legal
    • Find an expert
    • Reports
    • Thought Leaders
    • Performance Index
    • Research methodology
    • Submissions
  • Who's Who Legal
  • Learn
    • All
    • Masterclasses
    • Videos
    • Audio
  • Learn
  • Instruct Counsel
  • My newsfeed
  • Events
  • About
  • Blog
  • Popular
  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides

Analytics

Review your content's performance and reach.

  • Analytics dashboard
  • Top articles
  • Top authors
  • Who's reading?

Content Development

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons
  • Ideation

Client Intelligence

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre

Competitor Intelligence

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates
Lexology

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Find out more about Lexology or get in touch by visiting our About page.

Register

Global Pound Conference report published

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .

Global May 18 2018

GLOBAL POUND

CONFERENCE SERIES 

GLOBAL POUND

CONFERENCE SERIES

Global Data Trends 

and Regional Differences

Contents

01 Chairman's Introduction

02 Executive Summary

05 About the Global Pound Conference (GPC) Series

06 Delegates, the Core Questions and Voting

09 Global Voting Data – The Key Themes and Observations

19 Regional Differences – Preliminary Analysis

26 Word Clouds from around the Globe

28 Appendix 1

29 Contacts

Chairman's Introduction

I am delighted to welcome you to this important report. It analyses,

for the first time, the voting data captured at the Global Pound

Conference (GPC) Series. 

The GPC Series has rebooted the discussion about dispute resolution

and engaged all stakeholders to the debate. It is for this reason that

the Global Pound Conference has evolved through its journey to

become the Global Pound Conversation. A wealth of online resources

continues to evolve to facilitate this ongoing conversation.

The GPC Series has been unique in terms of scale and ambition. 

The idea of surveying thousands of stakeholders engaged in dispute

resolution in a standardised way at interactive conferences was 

I hope you enjoy this report. As an in-house counsel responsible 

conceived in 2014 by the International Mediation Institute (IMI).  

for managing a worldwide docket of disputes, I believe it provides 

This was developed throughout 2015 and came to reality between

March 2016 and July 2017 through 28 conferences at locations across

the globe. The conferences were followed by an international 

online survey. 

new and practical insights. It is a springboard for more research and

conversations over the years to come.

I urge you to visit the website at www.globalpound.org and join the

Global Pound Conversation.

This project focuses on the needs of Users (both corporate and

individual) of civil and commercial dispute resolution services. 

In doing so, it has prompted a much needed global conversation

about how conflict can and should be managed in the 

21st Century. 

Pervasive disruptors like technology and globalisation have changed

the business landscape almost beyond recognition. Yet dispute

resolution processes have simply not caught up. This project has

generated actionable data to question the status quo. It has armed

us with a mandate for change and the outputs are already informing

public policy making and private dispute resolution choices around

the world. 

Michael McIlwrath

GPC Series Chair

Global Chief Litigation Counsel,

Litigation, GE Oil & Gas, Director of IMI

01

Executive Summary

The GPC Series convened more than 4,000 people at 28

conferences in 24 countries across the globe in 2016 and 2017.

Those delegates – and hundreds more who contributed data

online – voted on a series of 20 Core Questions to gather data to

inform the future of dispute resolution. This report summarises

the results of the first analysis of the global data, and identifies

four Key Global Themes and four notable Regional Differences

1

.

The GPC provides an opportunity for extensive research in the

years to come and conversations between stakeholders. 

These early insights show the potential of the GPC data to 

inform those studies and discussions.

02

The four Key Global Themes we identify are:

Efficiency is the key priority of Parties

1

 in choice of dispute resolution processes

1

Efficiency means different things to different stakeholders but this throws down a challenge to the way in which

traditional dispute resolution processes meet the needs of the Parties seeking dispute resolution services. Finding the

most efficient way to resolve a dispute may not always be the fastest or cheapest but it requires thought and

engagement to bring appropriate resolution in acceptable timeframes and at realistic costs.

Parties expect greater collaboration from Advisors in dispute resolution

Parties using dispute resolution services seek greater collaboration from their external lawyers when interacting with

them and their opponents. This represents a potential challenge to traditional notions of how lawyers should represent

clients in disputes.

2

Global interest in the use of pre-dispute protocols and mixed-mode dispute resolution

(combining adjudicative and non-adjudicative processes)

3

As global understanding of and interest in non-adjudicative dispute resolution processes grows, there is near universal

recognition that Parties to disputes should be encouraged to consider processes like mediation before they commence

adjudicative dispute resolution proceedings and that non-adjudicative processes like mediation or conciliation can

work effectively in combination with litigation or arbitration.

In-house counsel are the agents to facilitate organisational change. External lawyers are

the primary obstacles to change

4

The data shows a broad consensus that in-house counsel should encourage their organisations to consider their dispute

resolution options more carefully, including using non-adjudicative processes like mediation and conciliation. External

lawyers are reported to be – and perceive themselves to be – resistant to change, but a new generation of in-house

counsel will challenge this resistance.

1  See page 6 for definitions

2 The raw data for these votes as provided by the technology provider, PowerVote, can be found here:

http://globalpound.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-09-18-Final-GPC-Series-Results-Cumulated-Votes-from-the-GPC-App-Mar.-2016-Sep.-2017.pdf

03

03

The four Regional Differences we identify are:

Desire for increased regulation in Asia

1

Stakeholders in the Asian jurisdictions voted consistently in ways that highlighted the role of legislation or

international conventions to promote the enforcement and recognition of settlements. Since practical

experience rarely reveals difficulties with enforcement, this regional trend may be an indicator that a more

developed regulatory framework would assist acceptance and use of non-adjudicative dispute resolution

processes like mediation and conciliation.

Efficiency the priority – except in Asia

2

When the global data was segmented by regions it was clear that efficiency was the key priority in all 

regions except Asia, where the key priority was the certainty and enforceability of outcomes. This may 

indicate an important underlying difference about how stakeholders in Asia perceive non-adjudicative 

dispute resolution processes.

Continental Europe marches to a different beat

3

Delegates at the Continental European conferences voted differently to all other regions when it came 

to the relationship between in-house counsel and external lawyers in changing dispute resolution habits. 

This revealed a conundrum in Continental Europe where delegates indicated that in-house counsel were

looking to drive change in corporate attitudes to conflict prevention while battling with a lack of knowledge of

dispute resolution options to effect that change. There was less emphasis on collaboration in this region too.

The legacy of the Woolf Reforms – visible in the UK

4

Lord Woolf's ground-breaking reforms to the civil justice system in England and Wales in the late 1990s

embedded the role of ADR in the case management of civil litigation. Nearly 20 years on, the data from the

London GPC Series finale reveals well-informed in-house counsel familiar with dispute resolution processes,

focused on collaboration and efficient dispute resolution using non-adjudicative processes in pre-action

protocols and mixed-mode dispute resolution.

04

About the GPC Series

The GPC Series takes its name from the original Pound Conference in St Paul,

Minnesota, USA in 1976. Named in honour of Roscoe Pound, the reforming Dean

of Harvard Law School in the 1920s and 30s, the theme was "Agenda for 2000 AD

– The Need for Systematic Anticipation". This event led to many changes in the

US justice system, including the creation of the 'multi-door courthouse' and the

advent of alternative dispute resolution processes like mediation.

Forty years on from the original 1976 Pound Conference, dispute

resolution has reached an impasse. The stakeholders in the

dispute resolution field around the world are fragmented and

there is a lack of reliable, comparative and actionable data to

enable the supply side of the dispute resolution market to fully

meet Parties’ needs, both locally and transnationally. The GPC

Series represented a timely opportunity to reassess the dispute

resolution landscape and ask stakeholders all across the world

what they think needs to change.

The GPC Series was conceived and led by the International

Mediation Institute (IMI), a non-profit public interest initiative

which seeks to promote and improve the use of mediation

worldwide. The GPC Series' Founding Diamond Global sponsors

were Herbert Smith Freehills and the Singapore International

Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA). PwC was a Global Platinum

sponsor, with JAMS a Global Gold sponsor, and AkzoNobel, the

American Arbitration Association/ICDR, the Beijing Arbitration

Commission (BAC), the China International Economic and Trade

Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and Shell all Global Silver

sponsors. They were joined by 54 Global Partners and over

100 organisations who supported the GPC Series locally.

The entire dispute resolution industry was represented at the

conferences including commercial parties, lawyers, experts,

chambers of commerce, academics, judges, arbitrators,

mediators, conciliators, policy makers and government officials.

Using a bespoke voting and feedback App, including multiple

choice and open text questions, delegates gave their views on

what Users of dispute resolution need and want locally and

globally. The series generated considerable data and created

an opportunity to identify trends and preferences in a way

that has not been possible previously.

Global Sponsors

Diamond sponsors:

Platinum sponsors:

Gold sponsors:

SINGAPORE

INTERNATIONAL

DISPUTE 

RESOLUTION 

ACADEMY 

Silver sponsors:

Al<zoNobe!}/ 

a INTERNATIONAL CENTRE 

• FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION" Bll�C 

05

Delegates, the Core Questions

and Voting

While the GPC Series was about much more than data gathering, the heart of each

conference was the delegates voting on 20 multiple choice Core Questions. These were

developed with the assistance of the GPC Academic Committee (see Appendix 1 for

its members).

Voting was on a weighted multiple choice basis – most questions

offered delegates five or six options and delegates selected up to

three choices with their first choice scoring 3 points, their second

choice 2 points and their third choice 1 point. As a result, the

voting results were expressed as a percentage of the total number

of points available to a given answer.

The five stakeholder groups were:

1) Parties

 end-users of dispute resolution, generally 

in-house counsel and executives

2) 

 Advisors

A response with a score of 100% equates to every voting delegate

choosing that option as their first choice. In reality, no response

achieved this score; the most important responses achieved 

a score of 60% or more, with a variance of 10% between

responses marking a significant difference in opinion across

stakeholder groups.

 private practice lawyers and other

external consultants

3)  Adjudicative Providers

 judges, arbitrators and their supporting institutions

4)  Non-Adjudicative Providers

 mediators, conciliators and their

supporting institutions

5) 

Before voting, delegates were required to identify themselves as

coming from one of five stakeholder groups so that their primary

professional focus could be captured in the voting preferences. 

 Influencers 

 academics, government officers, policy makers

06

Each conference was organised around four interactive sessions looking at both the demand and supply sides of the dispute

resolution market. The sessions provided the structure for the voting on the Core Questions and discussion of the results. They were:

• Access to Justice & Dispute Resolution Systems: What do Parties want, need and expect?

• How is the market currently addressing parties' wants, needs and expectations?

• How can dispute resolution be improved? Overcoming obstacles and challenges.

• Promoting better access to justice: What action items should be considered and by whom?

The delegates at conferences were self-selecting in that they

chose to participate in person or online. As a consequence, the

data gathering was never intended to replicate the conditions for

the gathering of academic data. Nevertheless, the voting 

•• Delegate registration questionnaires.

•• Responses (via the App) on a series of open text questions in

each session, which were discussed by the panels and 

delegates during the events.

population was truly global, covering all continents, common and 

civil law systems, jurisdictions well known for highly developed

dispute resolution systems, and jurisdictions which are

developing ADR procedures to complement existing mechanisms.

It provides a fascinating and unique global insight into dispute

resolution today.

•• Input into four Word Clouds which sought to capture the key

words reflecting delegates' views. (Selected Word Clouds are

highlighted later in this report to give a sense of the differing

views and priorities around the world).

•• Questions and comments collected in the App as each session

unfolded, which other delegates could “like”, thus ranking by

popularity with other delegates.

The voting took place at each conference live among the

delegates using the App 

3

. The questions were also opened up 

to online voting after the last event in London in July 2017, 

until 31 August 2017. In addition to the voting on the Core

Questions, a wealth of additional data was collected at each

event through:

Consequently, GPC collected a great deal of data on the thoughts,

wishes and perspectives of the delegates. The focus of this report

is to review and interpret the key responses that emerge from the

multiple choice Core Questions only. There remains a huge body

of material still awaiting analysis. It is available for further

investigation and research in discussion with IMI and the

Academic Committee. Please feel free to contact Jeremy Lack or

Barney Jordaan in the first instance to discuss.

3 For France, India, the Netherlands and Spain (Barcelona), there was some variation in the voting procedure.

07

"The scale of the GPC is unique and valuable, and the insights

it offers merit further analysis and discussion. In terms of

geographical reach and scale, there are no comparable 

In addition to the quantitative voting data, the qualitative

discussion data captured at the events is a further rich source

waiting to be mined by academics and others in years to come. 

academic or other studies in the field of dispute resolution.

We have at this stage only scratched the surface of the research 

potential of GPC. It has the ability to help shape the future of

dispute resolution at both local and international levels."

Of course, while all care was taken to ensure the integrity of the

data gathering process and rigour in the formulation of the survey

questions and analysis of data, the project was not intended to be

primarily an academic project, nor does the data gathering process

represent a pure data collection environment. Any use of the GPC

data must therefore be undertaken with this in mind. 

Nevertheless, the preliminary analysis of the Core Questions

provided by this report shows global trends that offer immediate

insights and scope for further detailed local, regional and

international analysis. The complete data set is available online on

the GPC’s website, and all academics and researchers are welcome

to analyse, critique and comment on it.

Prof. Barney Jordaan

GPC Academic Committee Chair

Professor of Management Practice, 

Vlerick Business School, Belgium

08

Global Voting Data – Key Themes 

and Observations

The global voting data provides a wide range of insights into the topics raised in the

Core Questions. Herbert Smith Freehills, PwC and IMI and have analysed the data to

draw out some key themes, which can be split into two groups: Key Global Themes

emerging from the voting data; and observations on Regional Differences.

Key Global Themes

1

Efficiency is the key priority of Parties in choice of dispute resolution processes.

2

Parties expect greater collaboration from Advisors in dispute resolution.

3

Global interest in the use of pre-dispute protocols and mixed-mode dispute

resolution (combining adjudicative and non-adjudicative processes).

4

In-house counsel are the agents to facilitate organisational change.

External lawyers are the primary obstacles to change.

09

09

1. Efficiency is the key priority of Parties in choice of dispute resolution processes

Q1.2 When parties involved in commercial disputes are choosing the type(s) of dispute resolution process(es) to use, which of the following has the

most influence?

4

Top 3 responses

65%

46%

Eciency

Advice

32%

Additional responses

 24% Relationships

  

Predictability

19% Condentiality

  

13% Industry Practices

  

1% Other

Parties

•• This represents a challenge to traditional adversarial dispute

resolution models, whether public (domestic courts) or private

(institutional and ad hoc arbitration). Parties are looking not just

for justice and resolution of their disputes, but an efficient

journey to resolution.

Providers (neutrals) may reflect that arbitration rules and

mediation procedures are not ends in themselves but exist

among a range of tools to assist parties in resolving disputes.

Flexibility, pragmatism and listening to Parties will likely

translate to sustainable success. Providers can take more of a

role in helping Parties and Advisors to consider routes allowing

greater efficiencies.

•• Efficiency in the resolution of commercial disputes will not

always be as simple as the quickest and cheapest route to

resolution (although cost and speed will always be important).

Inherent to efficiency is the avoidance of waste, be that time,

money, effort or other factors – and avoiding waste 

requires thought and flexibility among the dispute 

resolution stakeholders. 

Influencers can acknowledge that the resolution of commercial

disputes is a commercial endeavour in which each stakeholder

seeks to prosper and exercise (where possible) choice about

forum and process to further the ends of Parties. A greater

range of issues can also be considered in each case, beyond 

the merits of the case, the time to outcome or the costs of 

•• Understanding what efficiency really means in terms of changing

the behaviour of stakeholders requires further discussion: 

the process.

Parties may need to communicate their priorities, expectations

and underlying interests to Advisors and other stakeholders

more clearly. 

•• Technology can drive efficiency. This is not limited to electronic

discovery and electronic filing in litigation. Dispute management

tools and online dispute resolution (ODR) have the capacity to

change fundamentally the way disputes are resolved over the

next decade. We are already seeing how artificial intelligence (AI)

can automate the work of lawyers and adjudicators, paving the

way for decision-making robots. 

Advisors can challenge themselves to focus relentlessly on

their clients' interests, being prepared to initiate or facilitate

non-traditional dispute resolution with combinations of

adjudicative and non-adjudicative processes.

4 Based on the votes of Parties only.

10

Q1.5

2. Parties expect greater collaboration from Advisors in dispute resolution

What role do parties involved in commercial disputes typically want lawyers

(i.e. in-house or external counsel) to take in the dispute resolution process?

What role do parties involved in commercial disputes typically want lawyers

(i.e. in-house or external counsel) to take in the dispute resolution process?

Q1.5 What role do parties involved in commercial disputes typically want lawyers (ie in-house or external lawyers) to take in the dispute

resolution process? 

61%

67%

Working collaboratively with parties to

navigate the process. May request action

on behalf of a party

Speaking for parties

and/or advocating on

a party’s behalf

Parties

Advisors

48%

61%

Advocate

Collaborate

•• One of the key discrepancies to emerge in the voting data was

between how Parties said they wanted their lawyers to behave

in dispute resolution processes and how those lawyers, the

Advisors, saw their own role.

•• The key difference in the voting was that Parties indicated that

they wanted to see greater collaboration from their Advisors in

dispute resolution processes, whereas Advisors consistently

reported that they saw their role as advocates for their clients. 

The Advisors who attended GPC events are, similarly, likely to 

be a more sophisticated group in terms of ADR knowledge and

usage than their peers. But even taking this into account, 

why were the GPC Advisors’ votes so clearly out of step with the

GPC Parties’ votes? The answer may lie in the fact that most

Advisors will have clients reflecting a spectrum of experience,

from the most sophisticated to relatively unsophisticated clients

who are only rarely involved in disputes and therefore rely

heavily on advice from their lawyers as to process choice, 

behaviour towards counterparties and strategy. 

•• Are these positions inconsistent? Are lawyers out of step with their

clients' needs? These are complex issues but some initial

perspectives on these data are:

Whether or not these differences reflect different experiences

between Parties and Advisors, there is a clear challenge to

the legal community to listen to clients and discuss whether 

The GPC Parties were a sophisticated group of delegates.  

GPC Parties are more likely than the average disputant to 

collaboration is wanted and what that really means in a given 

know what they want, and be more familiar with and skilled

in the use of ADR processes – all of which informs the

expectations and approach of their legal advisors.

situation (particularly when disputes are acrimonious or thought

to be unmeritorious). This may be a genuine challenge to the

traditional notion of zealous advocacy where every point and

position is argued on behalf of the client.

Parties will need to speak up and reassure lawyers that they

wish them to try a different approach. A rigorous attention to

the law, of course, but also an approach to dispute resolution

that is flexible and open to using different processes. One that

acknowledges risks where they exist and is focused on efficient

outcomes, not unnecessarily expensive or drawn out journeys to

resolution. If Parties wish to promote efficiency in dispute

resolution they may need to encourage their lawyers to focus on

the core issues and discourage fighting points for their own sake. 

11

"Greater emphasis on collaboration between in-house and

external lawyers, and between disputing parties, will lead the way

for more efficient resolution of commercial disputes. Most dispute 

amounts of data quickly and assess risk in more sophisticated

ways. Conventional views on the role of confidentiality are being

challenged. This should facilitate the earlier use of consensual 

resolution still has as its frame of reference an adversarial process 

processes like mediation, in advance of, or in parallel with, or even 

based on asserted legal rights. But this can be inconsistent with

the aspirations of the parties for quick, consensual resolution. 

integrated into litigation or arbitration. The global data indicates a

mandate for change in attitudes and approach."

An early case assessment is a good example of how closer

collaboration can increase efficiency, with in-house counsel and

external lawyers working together to review the wider interests

and risks. The results can in turn help inform a more resolutionfocused

approach

with counterparties.

Technology also has a role to play. Social tools and online platforms

are making it easier than ever for lawyers to work more closely with

each other and with their clients. Advancement in data analysis

enables advisors and legal teams to review and investigate large 

Alexander Oddy

GPC Executive Board Member

Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills

T +44 20 7466 2407

E [email protected]

12

3. Global interest in the use of pre-dispute protocols and mixed-mode dispute

resolution (combining adjudicative and non-adjudicative processes)

Q3.2 To improve the future of commercial dispute resolution, which of the following processes and tools should be prioritised? 

Top 3 responses

51%

45%

43%

Additional responses

 32% Reduction of   

Combining

Non-adjudicative

processes

resolution

Preventative

pre-dispute or

pre-escalation

processes

 

 time and/or costs

methods

  

18% Technology for  

 

 faster/cheaper  

 

 procedures

  

10% Adjudicative   

 

 resolution  

 

 

 methods

  

1% Other

*Adjudicative and non-adjudicative

0 

•• One of the striking areas of congruence across the GPC events

and all stakeholder groups was the interest in two closely

linked phenomena. First, the use of protocols to encourage the

use of non-adjudicative dispute resolution processes like

mediation or conciliation before adjudicative processes such as

litigation or arbitration. Second, the use of non-adjudicative 

processes in combination with adjudicative processes, whether

this is at the encouragement of a court or arbitration body/

tribunal or by agreement of the parties. Such "mixed-modes"

of dispute resolution can be done sequentially, in parallel, or

integrated with one another.

13

Q3.3 Which of the following areas would most improve commercial dispute resolution?

51%

Legislation

or conventions

inc. mediation

Top 3 responses

Additional responses

 

29% Accreditation or 

 

 certication systems

  

28%  Quality control and 

36%

47%

Cost

 

 complaint mechanisms

sanctions

  

5%  Third party funding rules

Protocols promoting

non-adjuticative

processes 

  

3%  Other

•• There seems to be near universal recognition that before

parties embark on adjudicative processes – which are typically

expensive undertakings of significant duration – they should

be at least encouraged (and potentially compelled) to explore

less costly non-adjudicative options. This could be achieved

through the development of pre-action protocols to be

followed before court proceedings can be commenced (save

where limitation or tolling periods are required or a particular

remedy like an injunction is needed), or through arbitration

clauses and rules encouraging parties to consider alternatives

before a tribunal is constituted. 

•• There seems to be a clear consensus that combining processes,

or mixed-mode dispute resolution, is the way forward. The

challenge is to find ways to achieve this efficiently and quickly,

recognising that there will inevitably be resistance to change in

many quarters. It is critical in this development that Parties are

vocal in their demands and that Advisors, Providers of all types

and Influencers are open-minded. Self-interest, familiarity and

the comfort zone need to give way to a relentless focus on

efficiency, supported by collaboration

5

.

•• Adjudicative processes also need to provide occasions and

opportunities for the disputing parties to step away from the

heat of the battle and engage with each other 

in a different manner (through mediation or another

non-adjudicative process). This can be achieved through judicial

case management or through changes to domestic rules of 

civil procedure or to arbitration rules where referrals to

non-adjudicative processes exist on an opt-out basis. 

5 IMI, the College of Commercial Arbitrators (CCA) and the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine School of Law have responded to this data by initiating a

tri-partite Mixed-Mode ADR taskforce, involving six different working groups. For more information about this taskforce or to join one of its working groups, see: http://

www.imimediation.org/about-imi/who-are-imi/mixed-mode-task-force/.

14

4. In-house counsel are recognised as the agents to facilitate organisational

change. External lawyers are the primary obstacles to change

Q3.4 Which stakeholders are likely to be the most resistant to change in commercial dispute resolution practice?

70%

Top 3 responses

 External

lawyers

40%

28%

Adjudicative

Providers

Additional responses

 27% 

In-house lawyers

Governments/

ministries of

justice

  25% Parties

  

8% Non-adjudicative Providers

  1% 

Other

•• Recognising that the GPC data and experience throws down 

a challenge to all stakeholder groups to listen and respond, 

the voting data reveals some stark messages about the

obstacles to and agents of change. 

•• But why should that be the case? The Core Questions explored

whether Advisors might be making recommendations for

dispute resolution process choice based on the potential to earn

(or not to earn) fees. But the voting data [Session 1, Q3 – see

over] suggested that this was not a major factor – or at least it

was far less significant than factors like the type of outcome

required or familiarity with a dispute resolution process.

•• All stakeholder groups identify Advisors (predominately private

practice lawyers) as the primary obstacle to change in

commercial dispute resolution practice. The lawyers showed

the self-awareness to also identify themselves as the group

most resistant to change.

15

Q1.3 When lawyers (whether in-house or external) make recommendations to parties about procedural options for resolving commercial

disputes, which of the following has the most influence?

59%

Top 3 responses

Familiarity with

process

52%

40%

Type of

outcome

Cost

Additional responses

 25% 

Relationships

Additional responses

 25% 

Relationships

  

  

25%  Industry Practice

25%  Industry Practice

  

  

2%  Other

2%  Other

Lawyers

0 

0 

•• Rather than rehearsing tired arguments about lawyers not

promoting ADR for fear of its impact on their revenues, the data

suggests that the underlying issue is more closely linked to

something beyond training and education – familiarity. Have

law schools and professional training regimes prepared today's

dispute resolution lawyers adequately for the role that Parties

wish them to perform? Are Providers and Influencers creating 

•• This circles back to the discussion about the challenge to

traditional notions of the zealous advocate, fighting her client's

corner tenaciously. The 21st Century dispute resolution lawyer

needs to deliver (or to work with others to deliver) what Parties

want: dispute resolution process design, collaboration to

pursue efficient outcomes, as well as traditional tough

representation when called for.

sufficient incentives for lawyers to gain real mediation or 

conciliation experience post qualifying? More fundamentally,

what are the cultural expectations around what it is to be a

lawyer, advocating for a client? 

16

Q3.5 Which stakeholders have the potential to be most influential in bringing about change in commercial dispute resolution practice?

6

42%42%

Top 3 responses

In-house

lawyers

41%

37%

Adjudicative

Providers

Governments/

ministries of

justice

Additional responses

 33% 

External lawyers

  

27%  Parties

  20% Non-adjudicative Providers

  1% Other

•• Who can facilitate and drive change? Parties are clear that they

have a key role to play, identifying in-house lawyers as the

group with the potential to be most influential in bringing

about change in commercial dispute resolution practice. The

stakeholder groups overall are less clear in identifying this

opportunity, yet when asked what innovations and trends are

going to have the most significant influence on the future of

commercial dispute resolution, they are quick to recognise 

•• Of course many parties to commercial disputes will not have

the benefit of in-house legal resources, so they will need to rely

on a new generation of lawyers to assist them, trained in the

right skills as law school syllabuses evolve. With the lawyers of

generation Y, millennials and generation Z growing into

positions of influence within corporates and throughout the

dispute resolution community, the concept of collaboration in a

way that would have been unthinkable to litigators of a 

changes in corporate attitudes to conflict prevention. 

generation ago may already be an accessible reality to a 

community grown up on crowd-funded solutions and sharing

through social media.

•• How might such changes be effected? An emphasis on the

critical role of in-house counsel seems like a sound place to

start and research from long before the GPC provides insights

into how organisations can change, and the critical role

in-house counsel have in driving that change

7

. 

•• For example, traditional notions of confidentiality that

underpinned arbitration and ADR processes may have far less

significance for generations that have grown up professionally

and personally with a technology-driven information-sharing

culture. The willingness to engage in formal dispute resolution

processes over periods of years (particularly in jurisdictions

based on extensive discovery/disclosure) may be challenged

by decision-makers who are used to proceeding with business

and life at an ever faster pace. 

6 Based on the votes of Parties only. 

7 "The Inside Track – How blue chips are using ADR", Herbert Smith (legacy), 2007, available at http://hsfnotes.com/adr/key-adr-publications.

17

"The GPC Series was a fantastic opportunity for us to gather truly

global perspectives on what changes need to be made to improve

dispute resolution. One of conclusions is that while the need for

change is recognised, most people think someone else has to make

the change happen. So who is going to make the change happen?

As in-house counsel rethink how they resolve disputes, there is

an opportunity to embrace the acceptance that collaboration

brings results. That means drawing on the skills, experience and

perspectives of different people to design optimal solutions. It also

means considering alternative resolution approaches rather than

the traditional adversarial one. 

In my view, In-house counsel is best placed to facilitate this

change, as they own the problem. Disputes are generally not

an academic exercise but are about protecting corporate value.

In-house counsel has the right to demand change as custodian of

this value and they also have the ability to drive change as they

hold the purse strings. They represent a key link between the legal

world and the commercial one, balancing the need for effective

dispute resolution with the hard-earned experience of how best to

get results. 

Our expectation is that a new generation of lawyers who have

grown up in an information sharing culture will embrace such

an approach and that dispute resolution will become more cost

effective, flexible, faster and fairer."

John Fisher

Partner and Global & UK Disputes Leader, PwC

T +44 (0)20 7212 6284

E [email protected]

18

Regional Differences 

The cumulative global voting data on the Core Questions has already revealed

some surprising insights and perspectives. However, the great potential of the GPC

has always been to dig deeper into the data and seek to understand whether views

are genuinely homogeneous on a global basis or, as intuition might suggest, subject

to regional variations.

We identified some regional groupings to see if any trends emerged. 

Our initial data analysis shows some fascinating differences which provides 

the platform for more detailed investigations.

The regional groupings analysed were:

Oceania

North 

America

Asia

UK

USA (Baltimore,

Austin, Los Angeles,

Miami, New York,

San Francisco) and 

Canada (Toronto)

Singapore, 

Hong Kong,  

London

7

Australia (Sydney) 

and New Zealand

(Auckland)

Thailand (Bangkok) 

and India (Chandigarh)

Continental 

Europe

Africa/

Middle East

Latin

America

France (Paris), 

Germany (Berlin),  

Nigeria (Lagos), 

South Africa (Johannesburg),

UAE (Dubai)

Brazil (Sao Paulo), 

Guatemala (Guatemala City), 

Mexico (Mexico City)

Italy (Florence), Netherlands

(Amsterdam), Poland (Warsaw), 

Spain (Barcelona and Madrid) 

and Switzerland (Geneva) 

7 The UK sits in a unique position as a pro-ADR common law jurisdiction yet (currently) part of the EU and exposed to civil law influences.

19

19

1. Desire for increased regulation in Asia

Delegates were asked about the areas which would most improve commercial

dispute resolution. Globally, the two top choices (with virtually identically weighted

votes) were (i) the use of legislation or conventions that promote recognition

and enforcement of settlements, including those reached in mediation and (ii) the use

of protocols promoting non-adjudicative processes before adjudicative processes.

Q4.1

Who has the greatest responsibility for taking action to promote better access to

justice in commercial dispute resolution?

Q3.3 Which of the following areas would most improve commercial dispute resolution?

Use of protocols promoting 

55%

non-adjudicative processes before

adjudicative processes

59%

38%

49%

52%

36%

55%

Legislation or conventions that

promote recognition and enforcement

of settlements, including those

reached in mediation

37%

42%

48%

41%

64%

61%

51%

Oceania

North

America

Asia

Continental

Europe

UK

Africa/

Latin

Middle East

America

•• However, when the voting data was segmented along regional

lines, some significant differences emerged. The votes in Asia

were massively concentrated in favour of legislation or

conventions, scoring far higher than the use of protocols

promoting non-adjudicative processes. Africa/Middle East and

Latin America seemed to also prefer legislation to promote 

processes, in Asia, than it does about issues of enforcement.

While there have been significant initiatives to promote ADR

usage in the region with Hong Kong's Practice Direction 31 of

2010, and major investments in Singapore to develop domestic

and international mediation bodies, there may be an

underlying question about whether non-adjudicative ADR like 

enforcement, but less strikingly. The remaining regions show a 

mediation has yet become a sufficiently robust way of resolving 

starkly different picture, with the use of protocols strongly

preferred to legislation (save in Continental Europe, 

where the votes were about equal).

disputes. That enforcement of mediated settlement

agreements could help optically to evidence the status and

value of mediation, is perhaps the key point.

•• This triggers some interesting questions, not least because the

near universal experience in practice is that agreements

reached at mediation are only exceptionally not performed.

If that is the case, why would Asian delegates be in favour of

legislation and the need for enforcement of mediated

settlements? A possible answer is that the data reveals more

about attitudes to ADR, particularly non-adjudicative 

8 ADR in Asia Pacific series (Herbert Smith Freehills 2015-2017) https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/latest-thinking/adr-in-asia-pacific-spotlight-series. These explore, through interviews and

market surveys, the developing trends in Hong Kong, Singapore and Indonesia.

20

2. Is efficiency the priority everywhere?

Delegates were asked which of a range of underlying demands will have the most

significant impact on future policy-making in commercial dispute resolution.

•• On the cumulative global results, there was a clear winner –

the demand for increased efficiency of dispute resolution

processes including through technology. Yet when the results

were sorted regionally, a major difference of priorities

emerged. All regions except Asia chose efficiency as their top

demand and by a significant margin. This included the common

law regions (UK, North America, Oceania) and the civil law 

•• In reality, consensual processes like mediation and conciliation

are commonplace in civil law Asian countries, and they are

supported in Asia's key common law jurisdictions too.

The premium on enforceability may go more to the credibility

and robustness of the process. UNCITRAL's proposed convention

on the enforceability of mediated settlement agreements will,

it seems, be welcomed in Asia. Systems that recognise 

region of Continental Europe.

outcomes internationally reassure parties embroiled in 

cross-border disputes that the outcome will be simple to

enforce. This is being put in ever sharper focus as China's Belt

and Road Initiative gathers pace, where one proposal on the

table is for disputes arising under the initiative to be mediated

first, before proceeding to arbitration.

Q4.4

•• In Asia, the leading choice was again the demand for certainty

and enforceability of outcomes. Is this a reflection of the

regional desire for legislation and a convention on enforcement

of settlements, identified above? Or is the demand for

legislation and a convention a reflection of a deeper regional

(and perhaps cultural) preference for a dispute resolution

process that gives a clear answer? Do negotiation-based

processes like mediation pose particular challenges in Asia

where decision-making hierarchies and the desire not to lose

'face' make it culturally and practically more difficult to engage

with the flexibility of mediation?

Which of the following will have the most signicant impact on future policy-making

in commercial dispute resolution?

Q4.4 Which of the following will have the most significant impact on future policy-making in commercial dispute resolution?

Demand for increased eciency of 

78%

dispute resolution processes

including through technology

62%

80%

71%

61%

69%

64%

Demand for certainty

and enforceability

of outcomes

41%

50%

55%

43%

65%

48%

56%

Asia

Oceania

Continental

Europe

North

UK

Africa/

Latin

Middle East

America

America

21

3. Awareness and Attitudes in Continental Europe 

A regional analysis of a series of related questions indicate an interesting potential

divergence in attitudes to conflict resolution in Continental Europe as compared with

other regions.

0 

Q2.4

•• Delegates in Continental Europe identified that the

stakeholders primarily responsible for ensuring parties

involved in commercial disputes understand their dispute

resolution process options are in-house lawyers. 

In all other regions, save for Latin America which is also a civil law

region, delegates identified external lawyers as equally or more

responsible for this critical role.

Who is primarily responsible for ensuring parties involved in commercial disputes understand their

process options, and the possible consequences of each process before deciding which one to use?

Who is primarily responsible for ensuring parties involved in commercial disputes understand their

process options, and the possible consequences of each process before deciding which one to use?

Q2.4 Who is primarily responsible for ensuring parties involved in commercial disputes understand their process options, and the possible

consequences of each process before deciding which one to use?

>

> 

65%

60%

54%

48%

In-house Lawyers

69%

53%

60%

60%

70%

68%

56%

External Lawyers

59%

69%

58%

Asia

Oceania

Continental

Europe

North

America

UK

Africa/

Middle East

Latin

America

0 

•• Building on this, when in Session 3, Q1 delegates were asked

about the main challenges or obstacles parties face when

seeking to resolve commercial disputes, the delegates in

Continental Europe and Latin America again stood out. 

They identified insufficient knowledge of options available to 

delegates in all other regions were clear that financial or time

constraints were the main obstacles. This may reflect the fact

that adjudicative dispute resolution in the public courts of civil

law jurisdictions is relatively less expensive than in many other

jurisdictions (certainly common law jurisdictions).

Q3.1

What are the main obstacles or challenges parties face when seeking to resolve commercial disputes?

resolve disputes as the most significant challenge, where 

Q3.1 What are the main obstacles or challenges parties face when seeking to resolve commercial disputes?

Insucient knowledge of options

available to resolve disputes

57%

35%

45%

50%

51%

55%

64%

> 

56%

66%

73%

66%

Financial or

time constraints

63%

49%

68%

I 

I 

Asia

Oceania

Continental

Europe

Africa/

North

UK

Latin

Middle East

America

America

22

•• When the delegate responses to Session 4, Q5 are analysed,

(what innovation/trends are going to have the most significant

influence on the future of commercial dispute resolution?) the

Continental European delegates again stand out. In all regions

other than Continental Europe the message is clear: a greater

emphasis on collaboration rather than adversarial processes is 

required. In Continental Europe, however, by far the most

significant innovation is identified as changes in corporate

attitudes to conflict prevention. The fact that Latin America

voted differently to Continental Europe suggests that this is not

a civil law versus common law issue.

Q4.5

What innovations/trends are going to have the most signicant inuence on the future

of commercial dispute resolution?

Q4.5 What innovations/trends are going to have the most significant influence on the future of commercial dispute resolution?

Greater emphasis on collaborative

instead of adversarial processes for

resolving disputes

52%

60%

59% 64%

64%

62%

62%

63%

42%

42%

43%

Changes in

corporate attitudes to conict

prevention

49%

56%

56%

Continental

Europe

UK

Asia

Oceania

Africa/

North

Latin

Middle East

America

America

•• Pulling these points together, a picture emerges of Continental

Europe marching to a different beat to other regions. It seems

to be looking for in-house lawyers to drive change in corporate

attitudes to conflict prevention. Yet these lawyers are

simultaneously battling with a lack of knowledge of dispute

resolution process options to effect that change. All the while

the global drive for more collaboration seems to be at its

weakest in Continental Europe. The experience of relatively 

cheap (but often slow) litigation in the public courts of civil law

jurisdictions in Continental Europe may have driven delegates

away from voting for efficiency and collaboration. It may also

be a reflection on the different weight given to legal

departments in some civil law jurisdictions, where greater

emphasis is placed on the difference between jurists

and external lawyers.

23

Perspectives in the UK – the legacy of the Woolf Reforms?

A series of questions showed that the delegates at the GPC series finale in London

in July 2017 held some significantly progressive views. It may be that as the 20th

anniversary of Lord Woolf's sweeping reforms to the English civil justice system

arrives, the effects of a generation of Parties brought up with ADR embedded in the

fabric of commercial dispute resolution are in evidence.

•• When lawyers recommend dispute resolution procedural

options to parties [Session 1, Q3], London delegates found the

type of outcome requested by the party most influential,  

unlike all other regions which reported familiarity with a

particular type of process as the most influential factor.

Q1.3 When lawyers (whether in-house or external) make recommendations to parties about procedural options for resolving commercial

disputes, which of the following has the most influence?

The type of outcome requested

by the party

55%

52%

61%

55%

53%

53%

53%

Familiarity with a particular type

of dispute resolution process

60%

58%

58%

64%

61%

54%

55%

Asia

Oceania

Continental

Europe

North

UK

Africa/

Latin

Middle East

America

America

•• Delegates in London were by far the clearest in identifying that 

equivalent significance, except for North America where the 

the parties to commercial disputes typically want lawyers to 

tradition of zealous advocacy on behalf of clients was readily 

work collaboratively with parties to navigate the dispute

resolution process [Session 1, Q5]. In other regions delegates

viewed the role of lawyers as advocates as being of broadly 

apparent in the preference for lawyers advocating on behalf

of clients.

24

Q1.5

What role do parties involved in commercial disputes typically want lawyers

(i.e. in-house or external counsel) to take in the dispute resolution process?

What role do parties involved in commercial disputes typically want lawyers

(i.e. in-house or external counsel) to take in the dispute resolution process?

Q1.5 What role do parties involved in commercial disputes typically want lawyers (i.e., in-house or external lawyers) to take in the dispute

resolution process?

Speaking for parties and/or

advocating on a party's behalf

55%

60%

64%

72%

60%

49%

57%

Working collaboratively with parties to

navigate the process. May request

actions on behalf of a party

61%

78%

63%

62%

67%

58%

64%

Asia

Oceania

Continental

Europe

North

UK

Africa/

Latin

Middle East

America

America

0 

•• When delegates were asked about the main obstacles or

challenges parties face when seeking to resolve commercial

disputes, insufficient knowledge of the options available was

far lower in the UK than in other regions

Q3.1

What are the main obstacles or challenges parties face when seeking to resolve commercial disputes?

Q3.1 What are the main obstacles or challenges parties face when seeking to resolve commercial disputes?

Insucient knowledge of options

available to resolve disputes

57%

35%

45%

50%

55% 64%

51%

Asia

Oceania

Continental

Europe

North

UK

Africa/

Latin

Middle East

America

America

0 

•• While the Woolf Reforms have been widely celebrated as an

enlightened step forward in the administration of civil justice,

it seems the GPC data may be providing some real evidence of

how changes in civil procedure to promote ADR can bring about

progressive attitudes among a generation of Parties.

25

Word Clouds from around the Globe

An analysis of the word clouds generated at selected GPC events gives a sense of the different priorities and moods of the delegates.

Session 1: What words would you use to describe a sophisticated commercial party?

LONDON

[� 

STRATEGIC

NEW YORK

00 

j 

� 

EXPERIENCED

EFFICIENCY

DEMANDING

PARIS

CHANDIGARH

UNDERSTANDING

STRATEGIC

PREPARED

FLEXIBLE

EXPERIENCED

EXPERIENCED

REALISTIC

TIME

COST

EFFICIENT

INFORMED

COLLABORATIVE

/ 

J 

-: � 

SAN FRANCISCO

HONG KONG 

00 

r 

STRATEGIC

MADRID

EFFICIENT

� 

PREPARED

KNOWLEDGEABLE

DEMANDING

LAGOS

KNOWLEDGE

KNOWLEDGEABLE

DEMANDING

EXPERIENCED

COMMERCIAL

EFFICIENT

EXPERTISE

JUDGMENT

EXPERIENCED

ADVANTAGED

COMPLEX

/ 

SINGAPORE

SAO PAULO

� 

OUTCOME

COLLABORATIVE

_J 

___/ 

� 

NEGOTIATOR

FLEXIBLE

EFFICIENT

JOHANNESBURG

SYDNEY

CONTROL

FLEXIBLE

PROCESS

INFORMED

PREPARED

EXPERIENCED

EFFICIENT

DECISIVE

EFFICIENT

PRAGMATIC

EXPERIENCED

Session 2: What words would you use to describe  what can be done to exceed parties' expectations?

LONDON

[� 

EFFICIENCY

SPEED

PARIS

NEW YORK

CHANDIGARH

LISTENING

FLEXIBILITY

� 

EFFICIENCY

� 

j 

EFFICIENCY

MEDIATION

CREATIVITY

RECOGNITION

TRAINING

COMMUNICATION

CONTROL

FAIR

RESOLUTION

DISPUTE

COST

/ 

J 

-: 

SAN FRANCISCO

HONG KONG 

�

� 

� 

r � 

FLEXIBILITY

MADRID

EFFICIENCY

CREATIVITY

LISTENING

EFFICIENCY

LAGOS

PROFESSIONALISM

EFFICIENCY

COMMUNICATION

SPEED

FLEXIBILITY

EFFICIENCY

QUALITY

SPEED

_J 

CERTAINTY

CLARITY

SPEED

SINGAPORE

� 

EFFICIENCY

SAO PAULO

KNOWLEDGE

UNDERSTANDING

PATIENCE

PROCESS

_J 

___/ 

� 

RESULT

EFFICIENT

QUALITY

JOHANNESBURG

SYDNEY

EFFICIENCY

COMMUNICATION

PROCESS

LISTENING

COLLABORATION

SPEED 

EFFICIENCY

RESPONSIVENESS

26

Session 3: What words would you use to describe  the most common impediments that keep parties  from resolving their disputes?

LONDON

� 

[� 

LAWYERS

I 

NEW YORK

EGO

EMOTION

IGNORANCE

PARIS

CHANDIGARH

IGNORANCE

MONEY

EGO

ABSENCE

MONEY

PRIDE

MISINFORMATION

IGNORANCE

DELAY

KNOWLEDGE 

.: 

LAWYERS

TIME

J 

-: � 

SAN FRANCISCO

x 

HONG KONG 

MADRID

EGO

MONEY

1 x 

EMOTIONS

IGNORANCE

MONEY

LAGOS

CONFIDENCE

EGO

STUBBORNNESS

COSTS

INTRANSIGENCE 

IGNORANCE

FEAR

PRIDE

LAWYERS

COST

CULTURE

/ 

SINGAPORE

x 

SAO PAULO

EGO

� 

UNFAMILIARITY

CULTURE

_J 

___/ 

� 

MISTRUST

KNOWLEDGE

JOHANNESBURG

SYDNEY

PRIDE

EMOTIONS

MINDSET

IGNORANCE

UNREASONABLE

EGO

MINDSET

COSTS 

ADVERSARIAL

UNREALISTIC

REPUTATION

Session 4: What words would you use to describe  the changes to focus on in the future?

LONDON

[� 

TECHNOLOGY

I 

EDUCATION

PARIS

NEW YORK

CHANDIGARH

FLEXIBILITY

EFFICIENCY

COLLABORATION

EDUCATION

MEDIATION

TRAINING

TRANSPARENCY

MEDIATION

TECHNOLOGY

COLLABORATION

ACCOUNTABILITY

AWARENESS

EDUCATION

LEGISLATION

/ 

J 

-: 

SAN FRANCISCO

HONG KONG 

r 

EFFICIENCY

MADRID

EDUCATION

FLEXIBILITY

EDUCATION

ACCESS

LAGOS

EFFECTIVENESS

LEGISLATION

TECHNOLOGY

EFFICIENCY

INNOVATION 

LEGISLATION

OBLIGATION

PUBLICITY

EDUCATION

AWARENESS

TECHNOLOGY

/ 

SINGAPORE

SAO PAULO

EDUCATION

EDUCATION

TECHNOLOGY

MINDSET

_J 

CULTURE

KNOWLEDGE

___/ 

JOHANNESBURG

SYDNEY

LEGISLATION

INFORMATION

EDUCATION

TECHNOLOGY

EFFICIENCY

EDUCATION

DETERMINATION

ACCREDITATION

LEGISLATION

TRAINING

27

27

Appendix 1

Members of the GPC Academic Committee

Prof. Barney Jordaan (Belgium)

Ms. Emma-May Litchfield (Australia)

Dr. Amel Abdallah (Oman)

Prof. Amel Kamel (Oman)

Dr. Dalma R. Demeter (Australia)

Prof. Lela Love (USA)

Prof. Ann-Sophie De Pauw (Belgium & France) 

Prof. Ian MacDuff (New Zealand)

Dr. Remy Gerbay (UK & USA)

Prof. Peter Phillips (USA)

Dr. Geneviève Helleringer (France & UK)

Prof. Alan Rycroft (South Africa)

Ms. Danielle Hutchinson (Australia)

Prof. Donna Shestowsky (USA)

Prof. Joel Lee/Lee Tye Beng (Singapore)

Prof. Alain Laurent Verbeke (Belgium)

28

Contacts

Alexander Oddy

GPC Executive Board Member 

Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills

T +44 20 7466 2407

E [email protected]

Jeremy Lack

GPC Series Co-ordinator

Attorney-at-Law & ADR Neutral

T +41 79 247 1519

E [email protected] 

John Fisher

Partner and Global & UK Disputes Leader, PwC

T +44 20 7212 6284

E [email protected]

Michael McIlwrath

GPC Series Chair

Global Chief Litigation Counsel, Litigation, GE Oil & Gas

Director of IMI

T +39 34 8287 3019

E [email protected]

Deborah Masucci

GPC Advisory Board

IMI Chair

T +1 646 670 7224

E [email protected]

Anita Phillips

GPC Advisory Board

Professional Support Consultant 

Herbert Smith Freehills

T +852 2101 4184

E [email protected] 

29

Notes

30

31

32

Herbert Smith Freehills

No part of this publication may be used for any purpose, in any format, without the specific permission of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

The contents of this publication, current at the date of publication set out in this document, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute

legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately

before taking any action based on this publication.

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP and its affiliated and subsidiary businesses and firms and Herbert Smith Freehills, an Australian Partnership, 

are separate member firms of the international legal practice known as Herbert Smith Freehills.

© Herbert Smith Freehills LLP 2018

PwC

At PwC, our purpose is to build trust in society and solve important problems. PwC is a network of firms in 158 countries with more than 236,000

people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, advisory and tax services. Find out more and tell us what matters to you by visiting

us at www.pwc.com/uk.

In this document, PwC refers to the UK member firm, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity.

Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.

This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice. You should

not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express

or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law,

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, its members, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any

consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision

based on it.

© 2018 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the UK member firm, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. 

Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.

www.hsf.com

www.globalpound.org

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP - Alexander Oddy, Jeremy Lack, John Fisher, Michael Mcilwrath, Deborah Masucci and Anita Phillips

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • Global
  • Arbitration & ADR
  • Litigation
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP

Popular articles from this firm

  1. Future of Work: Key insights, risks and recommendations for 2024 *
  2. A just transition - Can COP28 make a fair and sustainable future a reality? *
  3. FinTech Global FS Regulatory Round-up - w/e 17 November 2023 *
  4. "Governing law" and "jurisdiction" clauses *
  5. FinTech Global FS Regulatory Round-up - w/e 24 November 2023 *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology

Related practical resources PRO

  • How-to guide How-to guide: The legal framework for resolving disputes in England and Wales (UK) Recently updated
  • Checklist Checklist: Considerations prior to issuing court proceedings (UK) Recently updated
  • Checklist Checklist: Antitrust compliance (USA)
View all

Related research hubs

  • Global
  • Litigation
  • Arbitration & ADR
Back to Top
Resources
  • Daily newsfeed
  • Commentary
  • Q&A
  • Research hubs
  • Learn
  • In-Depth
  • Lexy: AI search
  • Scanner
Who's Who Legal
  • Find an expert
  • Reports
  • Thought Leaders
  • Performance Index
  • Research methodology
  • Submissions
  • Instruct Counsel
More
  • About us
  • Legal Influencers
  • Firms
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
Legal
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
Contact
  • Contact
  • RSS feeds
  • Submissions
 
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn

© Copyright 2006 - 2023 Law Business Research

Law Business Research