Steven A. Certilman
401 East 65th Street
New York, NY 10065
Principal and associate in various law firms (1982 to 1992). Thirty years of experience in commercial litigation, corporate and transactional law, information technology and intellectual property law and real estate law. Trustee, The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London, England (2005 to 2011) and Chairman, Board of Trustees (2009–2010). CEDR Accredited Mediator. Adjunct Professor of Law in International Arbitration, Fordham University School of Law, New York, NY (2011-2017).
What are the best ways to achieve efficiency in arbitration consistent with fairness to all parties?
It is important to spend a bit of time during the preliminary conference understanding the key factual issues and the nature of the evidence which the parties must uncover through disclosure in order to prove their positions. Once this is understood, an appropriate balance can be achieved between necessary discovery and cost effectiveness.
What is the importance in arbitration of cross-examination?
One must consider the legal system composition of the parties. If there is a civil law system party involved, counsel may not be accustomed to cross-examination. Nevertheless, cross-examination has become commonplace in international arbitration and is generally permitted.
Do you believe that Arbitrators have the right or an obligation to conduct their own legal research?
Arbitrators should generally not conduct their own research. In the unusual event that the arbitrators believe it is appropriate to do so, the issue and results of the research should be disclosed to the parties and they should be given the opportunity to respond to the results of the research.
AAA, ICDR, HKIAC, VIAC, KLRCA, CPR Institute, The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and others.
Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators. Chartered Arbitrator and Fellow, The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. More than 250 cases as sole arbitrator or tribunal chairman from 1988 to date under UNCITRAL and other major rules. Disputes have included claims in excess of $55 million arising in diverse subject areas including corporate transactional and shareholder, IT, business process outsourcing, IP, software and technology licensing, telecommunications, services agreements, transactional, investment, franchising, publishing, real estate, insurance coverage and liability.
Comparison of Selected International Arbitration Rules, 2018 Edition, Alternatives (International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution) Vol. 36 No. 5 (May 2018); Arbitration of International Intellectual Property Disputes (Chapter on Arbitrability of IP Disputes), (Juris Publishing, 2012); Comparison of Selected International Arbitration Rules, 2011 Edition, Alternatives (International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution) Vol. 29 No. 9 (October 2011); Judge as Mediators: Retaining Neutrality and Avoiding the Trap of Social Engineering; 73 Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management 24-30 (Sweet & Maxwell, 2007); A Comparison of Selected International Arbitration Rules, Alternatives, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, Volume 26 No. 5 (May, 2008); Speaker, trainer and assessor in arbitration (CIArb and CPR); Book Review: Comparative Law of International Arbitration by Jean François Poudret and Sébastien Besson, 73 Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management 452-454 (Sweet Maxwell, 2007).