Should we be concerned if arbitrator & counsel are from the same chambers? Khawar Qureshi QC reports
For many years, London has been seen as the seat of choice for international arbitration. One of the central features of arbitration has been the involvement of English barristers as counsel and arbitrators, due in large part to the specialist skills and high reputation of the English Bar. In addition, the pool of potential arbitrators has been enhanced by retired English judges, as well as internationally qualified lawyers joining barristers' chambers as door tenants.
It has been commonplace for international arbitration proceedings in London (and indeed elsewhere) to feature at least one barrister and one arbitrator from the same set of chambers. Sometimes, the barrister and arbitrator have been appointed by the same party. In other cases, the barrister and arbitrator may be from the same chambers but appointed by different parties.
A question which is acquiring increasing focus is as follows—is it no longer tenable for counsel and arbitrator to be from the same chambers—whether or not appointed by the same party? To understand this
