Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)

Preview Page

20th Annual ITA Workshop

Confronting Ethical Issues in International Arbitration
June 18, 2009

ACT I

ACT I – REACTIONS TO ETHICAL ISSUES ARISING DURING THE
SELECTION OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
Audience Voting: Interview Techniques and Strategic Choices

KEN REISENFELD: Thank you very much, gentlemen. (Applause)
And now it is our audience’s turn to provide its input on the
various ethical issues raised in Act I, Scenes I and II. You have the
right to vote and we are about to implement it. Each of you have
one of these clickers, and you will see that we will use the A and B
options. You should press either the A button or the B button
within ten seconds of my finishing the question, and your vote
will be automatically tallied. If the red light is flashing on your
clicker, then you need to reenter your choice. But if the green light
comes on, your vote has been calculated. So let us proceed with
the first question.
Should Professor Hunter have disclosed all potential conflicts
at his wife’s law firm, Led Zeppelin & Wright? Press A for “yes” or
B for “no.” (Pause) I will give you two more seconds. A little over
seventy (70) percent said “yes,” and approximately, thirty (30)
percent said “no.” While this is not exact, I think it is more
accurate than a butterfly ballot anyway. (Laughs)
Now, the next question. Should Professor Hunter have
disclosed his vote in his unpublished award in Stork Industries v.
The Romanian Ministry of Health. A for “yes;” B for “no.” (Pause)
Two more seconds. The “no’s” prevailed by a lopsided vote of
84% to 16%.
Third question. Did Henri Alvarez need to disclose his ten
years’ worth of repeat appointments by Respondent’s law firm? A
for “yes;” B for “no.” (Pause) Two more seconds. The result: 77%
said “yes” and 23% said “no.”
Did Henri Alvarez need to disclose his speeches at CLE events
sponsored by Respondent’s law firm? A for “yes;” B for “no.”