Originally from Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration - Second Edition

Preview Page

One of the main advantages of international arbitration is that practitioners experienced in the field can practice overseas as the laws of the jurisdiction of the seat may not be relevant or applicable or, where relevant, either local counsel may be engaged or the experienced practitioner can be advised by local counsel.

In many jurisdictions this does not create a problem, however, this is not universally the case. This was particularly so in Hong Kong in the late 1980s, prompting a clarification that non-local counsel could appear in local arbitrations.1

In England, there are generally no problems with foreign counsel appearing before Arbitral Tribunals. Sections 20 – 25 of the English Solicitors Act 1974 prohibit non-solicitors from engaging in certain activities. Whilst none are likely to be required in the normal conduct of an arbitral reference, foreign counsel, in general, should not act as a solicitor in relation to any court proceedings.

In the U.S., the issue applies, in principle, to both foreign lawyers (i.e. those not registered in any state in the US) and to out-of-state lawyers. The high water point was Williamson v. John D Quinn Construction Corp.2 In this case, the New York court held that representing a party in arbitration does not amount to the practice of law and, hence, foreign counsel were permitted to represent parties in arbitration proceedings in the U.S.—this was due to the relative informality of the proceedings.

Another group of states permit out-of-state lawyers to represent and appear in arbitrations in another state but usually with the requirement to file for admission pro hac vice, or filing some form of certificate or statement (and sometimes a fee). States adopting this course include Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon and Utah.