An "offer" for arbitrations in "non-traditional" arbitration jurisdictions.

One of the things about "lockdown" under COVID-19 is that there is more time to think about things, and one thing I have been thinking about a lot is the idea of "putting your money where your mouth is". Specifically relating to the fact that I routinely argue for supporting the development of arbitration in non-traditional jurisdictions, while nonetheless having a billing rate that reflects the fact that I am located in the richest parts of the world. The more I thought about this, the more I felt that it was indeed time to "put my money where my mouth is", and actually do something about it.

So I've decided to put forward this "offer". It may turn out that it isn't of interest to anyone, of course, but I guess at least I can tell myself I acted. Then I can think about what else I might do instead. But as someone with a fair bit of expertise in arbitration, I figure that the best contribution I can offer is to bring that expertise to jurisdictions where the number of individuals with equivalent expertise is limited.

The challenge, of course, is to do it in a way that doesn't undermine the existing or local expertise that a jurisdiction may already have - and, of course, where there are local experts, they should always be the first choice. If you're curious about my own level of understanding of arbitration, and views on it, then feel free to check out my recent co-authored book, Understanding International Arbitration: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-International-Arbitration-Tony-Cole/dp/1138806048), as well as my JAMS (https://www.jamsadr.com/cole/), 33 Bedford Row (https://www.33bedfordrow.co.uk/people/cole-tony#content/introduction) and Leicester (https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/law/people/tony-cole) websites.

I will lay out the details below, but the essential idea is that if you have an arbitration seated in a "developing" country, with two party-appointed arbitrators from "developing" countries, I will agree to act as chair of the tribunal at the same fee level as the other two appointees, i.e. even if this is a "local" fee level that doesn't even approach what gets charged in London/New York/etc. My rationale is that this provides a mechanism through which parties can appoint local arbitrators (helping encourage local appointments), while also receiving assurance that the arbitration will be conducted in accordance with a thorough understanding of arbitration and with international standards. Of course, in some countries there are already excellent local arbitration specialists, and in these cases parties should appoint these local specialists rather than myself. My offer is meant to supplement and support local expertise, not replace it.

The details:

1. This is only for commercial arbitrations, but the arbitration can be either international or domestic.
2. To avoid a situation in which I am invited to take part in smaller arbitrations that ususally serve as a means for new arbitrators to get early appointments, I'll limit it to arbitrations that require a hearing (i.e. no "documents only"). However, online hearings are perfectly fine.
3. Institutional or ad hoc are equally fine.
4. The appointment must be as chair, not as a party appointed arbitrator. In addition, not as a sole arbitrator - the goal is to contribute to arbitrations that use local appointees, not to replace local appointees.
5. At least one party must be from a "developing" country. That isn't a term that has a clear meaning, so I'm going to use it to refer to countries rated as having a low, medium or high (i.e. not "very high") ranking in the U.N.'s Human Development Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index). There are, of course, different standards that could be used, but I think this manages an appropriate balance, and picks out to an acceptable degree those countries in which arbitration expertise is often less common and where hiring foreign arbitrators is often precluded by expense.
6. Both party-appointed arbitrators must be from a "developing" country as defined above (not necessarily the same country). "From" in the sense of working in that country, not born there but now working in London/New York/etc. Born elsewhere but working in a developing country now is obviously fine. As I said above, the goal is to contribute to arbitrations that use local arbitrators, not to replace local arbitrators.
7. I will accept the fees accepted by the party-appointed arbitrators - whatever that may be. To put it simply, I will work at what might be called "local rates". If the two party-appointed arbitrators are receiving different fees, I will accept the lower of the two amounts. There is no "floor" to this offer - I'm lucky to have an academic job that provides a good income and that gives me a freedom that not everyone enjoys in terms of taking on things even if they aren't going to make me money.
8. Expenses, of course, would have to be covered (I'm happy not to make money, but not generous enough to be willing to lose money). However, modest expenses are fine. For example, where travel is needed, economy seating, budget airlines, mid-grade hotel, local food, etc.
9. I would, of course, do standard "chair" work, including taking the lead on drafting. I've written many decisions and as an academic write for a living, so I like to think I write decisions well. However, as one of the goals is to support local arbitrators, "taking the lead" in this context would mean adopting an approach in which the party-appointed arbitrators took on significant portions of the drafting and I worked with them to produce the final drafts. This would ensure that I did not deprive local arbitrators of the ability to gain valuable experience drafting awards, while still providing parties with assurance that the final product would meet international standards.
10. The working language of the arbitration should be English. That is not an absolute rule, as I wouldn't be opposed to the use of translators, but obviously that increases the cost, so would make appointing me a less sensible option.
11. Anyone interested in this offer should nonetheless also obviously do the due diligence to ensure that I am indeed someone you would want on your tribunal. Obviously I wouldn't agree to take on any case that I didn't think I could do well, but parties should make standard efforts to assure themselves that I match what they want.

I may edit the above if something else occurs to me (or if someone contacts me and points out something I need to correct or address), but the above seems to me a good approach to the "money where your mouth is" challenge. If no-one finds the offer appealing, then that is all good, but anyone interested should feel free to contact me and we can see what might be arranged.