Arbitral Insights

Reed Smith
  • 5.0 (8)
  • BUSINESS

Arbitral Insights brings you informative and insightful commentary on current issues in international arbitration and the changing world of conflict resolution. The podcast series offers trends, developments, challenges and topics of interest from Reed Smith disputes lawyers who handle arbitrations around the world.

  1. JAN 29

    The Role of the Netherlands in International Arbitration

    Daniel Avila is joined by Gerard Meijer (Arbitration Partner at Linklaters) and Marieke Witkamp (Independent Arbitrator at Arbitra International) to discuss the key attributes that make the Netherlands a leading arbitration hub. The conversation delves into the country's arbitration-friendly judiciary, its role as host to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the English-language Netherlands Commercial Court. Highlighting its practical, business-focused approach to procedure, the discussion also explores the Netherlands' reputation as an "attachment paradise," its efficient enforcement of domestic awards, and its high confirmation rates for both domestic and international awards. Additionally, the speakers examine the Netherlands' early adoption of innovations like emergency arbitration, consolidation, and e-arbitration.

    33 min

  2. 10/23/2025

    Arbitration in Myanmar: Framework, courts, enforcement, and practical strategies

    Nishant Choudhary of DFDL Myanmar joins Joyce Fong to unpack Myanmar’s arbitration regime, from the legal framework to enforcement. The discussion explores how Myanmar’s arbitration laws interface with international norms, then turns to the strategic considerations that drive the choice of seat for Myanmar-related disputes. The conversation also assesses the Myanmar courts’ approach to arbitration and enforcement, as well as observable trends in Myanmar-related arbitrations.

    26 min

  3. 09/23/2025

    Arbitration in Thailand: Costs, courts, institutions, and enforcement

    Host Joyce Fong and Noppadon (Ton) Treephetchara of DFDL Bangkok discuss Thailand’s arbitration framework, highlighting its Model Law basis, cost-effectiveness, and supportive judiciary. They then compare Thailand with regional alternatives, review institutional preferences (THAC and TAI), and examine local court support. The episode outlines enforcement procedures, timelines, and practical tips, and concludes with trends and THAC’s modernization efforts.

    22 min

  4. 09/10/2025

    How Latin American states navigate investment arbitration

    This episode is recorded in Spanish. Francisco Rodriguez and Gilberto Guerrero-Rocca explore how Latin American states have developed sophisticated, long-term strategies to defend against treaty-based claims. The episode examines the unique challenges these sovereign “repeat players” face, such as budget constraints, political pressures, and transparency issues. The discussion highlights the evolving tactics and contradictions in how these states approach international arbitration.

    31 min

  5. 08/27/2025

    Challenges based on the misuse of tribunal secretaries

    International arbitration partner Lucy Winnington-Ingram explores the increasingly significant role of tribunal secretaries in international arbitration. Lucy unpacks the legal and procedural challenges that can arise when tribunal secretaries move beyond their traditional administrative functions and become involved in substantive aspects of decision-making. She then offers practical guidance on how to avoid common pitfalls that could jeopardize the integrity of arbitral proceedings. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration Practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Lucy: Welcome to another episode of Arbitral Insights. I'm Lucy Winnington-Ingram. I'm a partner in Reed Smith's London office in our international arbitration team. I'm going to be running through some very high-level takeaways, discussing challenges based on the misuse of tribunal secretaries in international arbitration. So I think the starting point when thinking about this issue is recognizing that arbitration is a method of dispute resolution, which is premised on the consent of the parties. And the persons determining the dispute, i.e. the tribunal, are typically party appointed. And that's really a central tenet of international arbitration. So it's against that background that challenges to arbitral awards based on the alleged misuse of tribunal secretaries have increased. And this issue really goes to the heart of the legitimacy and enforceability of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. And it's one that's generated significant academic debate, challenges to awards and institutional reform in recent years. So the arbitrator's mandate is strictly personal, and that means that their decision-making function cannot be delegated. However, as arbitrations have become more complex and document-heavy, the increased use of tribunal secretaries, sometimes called administrative secretaries or assistants, has become widespread, and their intended role is to support the tribunal, primarily with administrative and organizational tasks. But increasingly, there's a growing concern that tribunal secretaries may overstep their intended role, moving from administrative support into substantive decision-making. And this has given rise to the so-called fourth arbitrator problem. And that's a term that was coined as early as 2002 to describe the fear that a tribunal secretary might, in effect, become an unappointed and unauthorized decision-maker in the arbitration. And very understandably, there are concerns this will damage the legitimacy of the arbitral process. So the use and potential misuse of tribunal secretaries has therefore come under increasing scrutiny, both in academic commentary and in the challenges to arbitration awards that we're seeing, and also in terms of challenges to arbitrators themselves. So one of the first known challenges to an award, based at least in part on the actions of a tribunal secretary, was a Paris Court of Appeal case from 1990. And in that case, the appellant, Honeywell, sought to set aside an ICC award, alleging that the tribunal secretary had interfered during the hearing. Now, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge, noting that the appointment of a secretary was permitted and that Honeywell had not demonstrated how the secretary would have interfered. So this case sets a sort of early precedent that mere involvement of a secretary without evidence of improper influence would not suffice to overturn an award. The next case we can look at then is Sonatrach and Statoil. And this came over two decades later in 2014. Now, in that case, the parties had expressly agreed that the tribunal secretary's role would be limited to administrative tasks and the Tribunal Secretary would have no right to participate in the decision-making process. Sonatrach later argued that the Secretary had exceeded this remit by preparing substantive notes for the Tribunal and therefore challenged the ICC award under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act. When considering this, the English High Court found no improper delegation emphasizing that the arbitrators had not abdicated their decision-making function as the Secretary's notes had only formed part of the Tribunal's deliberations. In that sense, then, the Tribunal Secretary himself had had no substantive decision-making role. A more fully articulated challenge came not long after this in 2015, and this is perhaps one of the better known challenges, and it arose in the Yukos set-aside proceedings in The Hague. So there, Russia argued that the tribunal's assistant had effectively drafted large portions of the award, and they pointed to the time records in the fee notes that showed that the tribunal secretary's hours were between 40 to 70 percent higher than those of any tribunal member. And Russia actually went so far as to submit a report from a linguistics expert, which concluded that it was extremely likely that the tribunal secretary had written significant sections of the award himself. So when it came to setting aside the awards, these were actually set aside on alternative grounds. And therefore, the relevant district court did not address Russia's complaints relating to the involvement of the tribunal secretary in the proceedings. However, in 2020, the Court of Appeal in The Hague overturned the district court decision and in doing so, it addressed Russia's arguments in relation to the Tribunal Secretary. And there, the Court of Appeal ultimately held that unless the parties had agreed otherwise, a tribunal may use a secretary to assist with drafting parts of an arbitral award as it sees fit, provided that it's the arbitrators themselves who assume responsibility for the final decision. So in effect the finding was that the mere drafting of parts of an award by an Arbitral Secretary did not automatically amount to a violation of the Tribunal's mandate. So whilst the Court of Appeal conceded that the Tribunal had failed to fully inform the parties of the nature and extent of the Tribunal Secretary's work, this did not amount to a major procedural violation. So turning then to the most recent challenge to an arbitral award on the alleged misuse of a tribunal secretary, this was brought before the Belgian Supreme Court in 2023 in Emek and WTE and the European Commission. And there, the applicants alleged that the tribunal secretary had drafted non-factual sections of a partial award. However, the Belgian Supreme Court affirmed that a secretary may draft an award completely or in part as long as the tribunal reviews and validates the work. So the Supreme Court felt that this understanding of the tribunal's mandate aligned with the ICC's guidance, which I'm going to talk about in a little bit more detail later, which explicitly allows for secretaries to prepare notes and memoranda, which could conceivably then form part of any final award. So I think one point to note is that challenges relating to the use of tribunal secretaries are not limited to challenges to arbitral awards. A number of challenges have also been brought in relation to arbitrators themselves. So, for example, in P&Q, a 2017 English High Court case, the claimant there applied for the removal of all three arbitrators appointed in an LCIA arbitration, alleging improper delegation of tasks to the Tribunal Secretary. And there, the claimant relied on time records, again, as in Yukos, and also an email from the chairman seeking the secretary's views on a procedural issue. Now, in that case, the court dismissed the application, again distinguishing between permissible support and impermissible delegation, reaffirming that the core adjudicative function must remain with the arbitrators. The judge did, however, note that whilst receiving input from a secretary does not automatically preclude independent decision-making, best practice is to avoid involving secretaries in anything that could be seen as expressing a view on the substance of the dispute. So taking all of this together then, these cases all reveal a number of key themes. First, the strictly personal nature of an arbitrator's mandate to determine the dispute. So it's clear that an arbitrator's decision-making function is strictly personal and cannot be delegated. And this is closely related to the central feature of arbitration, a party's ability to select its arbitrators. Parties choose their arbitrators for their judgment and expertise, and this is central to the legitimacy of the process. Secondly, in a number of cases, issues arise regarding the proper role of a tribunal secretary in the arbitral process. So there's a spectrum of tasks that secretaries may perform, ranging from purely administrative, so things like organizing hearings, managing documents, etc., to more substantive, conducting research, drafting procedural orders, even drafting sections of what may become the final award. Now, the further a secretary's tasks move towards analysis and decision-making, the greater the risk of challenge. The question then is what tasks and responsibilities can be safely delegated to a tribunal secretary for reasons of procedural efficiency before their role risks trespassing on that of the arbitrators. Third and finally, many challenges arise from a lack of clarity or agreement about the secretary's role. And this links back to what I was just talking about, about what tasks and responsibilities can be delegated. So early and explicit agreement on the scope of the secretary's task is crucial to avoid disputes later on.

    14 min

  6. 08/20/2025

    Arbitration in Indonesia: Seat choices, enforcement and evolving trends

    Joyce Fong welcomes Afriyan Rachmad (Partner, Nusantara DFDL Partnership) to discuss Indonesia’s dispute resolution landscape. They cover interim court measures, enforcement timelines and procedures, seat selection strategy and practical tips for recognizing foreign awards. The episode also touches on the broader legal environment and recent trends shaping Indonesia-related arbitrations. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Joyce: Welcome to the latest episode of our Arbitral Insights podcast series. This is the third in a series of podcasts which I'm doing with DFDL, exploring arbitration across various jurisdictions in South and Southeast Asia. For this episode, I'm delighted to host Afriyan Rachmad, who will share insights from Indonesia. Afriyan is a partner at Nusantara DFDL partnership, an Indonesian law firm, and a DFDL collaborating firm. He is a projects and infrastructure specialist with particular expertise in natural resources and infrastructure projects. Afriyan’s dispute resolution practice includes litigation and arbitration. Selamat siang, Afriyan. Thank you for joining me today on this podcast.  Afriyan: Hi Joyce, thank you for inviting me to this podcast.  Joyce: To kick us off, perhaps you could give us an overview of the dispute resolution landscape in Indonesia. Tell us about the laws which form the legal framework for arbitration in Indonesia. Are they based on the UNCITRAL model law? And does the same law apply to both domestic and foreign arbitration?  Afriyan: Okay, the legal framework for arbitration in Indonesia is under law No. 30 of 1999 concerning arbitration and alternative dispute resolution. While they are not based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, although some provisions are adopting it. Yes, the arbitration law applies for domestic and foreign arbitration, although there are different sections for domestic and foreign arbitration.  Joyce: With these laws in place, would you say that arbitration is commonly used to resolve disputes in Indonesia?  Afriyan: In Indonesia, arbitration is more towards the complex disputes due to the high arbitration fee involved for conducting arbitration proceedings. The arbitration fee is based on percentage of claim value filed by the claimant. From a range of zero point six percent for claim above two trillion rupiah, approximately USD hundred twenty five million, to ten percent for claim less than one billion rupiah approximately USD 62,500. This is according to the BANI Domestic Arbitration Forum. On the other hand, court fees are in the range of USD 100 to 300 depending on the number of parties. Court litigation is however slower as it could take around three years to obtain a final and binding decision from district court to supreme court compared to arbitral award that could be rendered in approximately six months.  Joyce: So from what you've just said, Afriyan, arbitration appears to be faster but more expensive than court litigation. This is not at all surprising and is consistent with global trends. Given the significant cost difference, when do parties tend to choose to arbitrate their disputes?  Afriyan: Generally speaking, parties arbitrate more complicated disputes. For example, in construction disputes where they prefer an arbitrator who has expertise in the subject matter. Court judges just tend to have legal rather than technical knowledge. Parties also tend to choose arbitration where the dispute is between a foreign party and a local party or local company. I've seen in the past that parties tend to select the dispute resolution mechanism which is best suited for their dispute. regardless of the dispute resolution clause in their contract. I have seen cases where parties agree to arbitrate the dispute only after the dispute arises. I have also seen cases where parties agree to court litigation even though the contract has an arbitration clause. This tends to be accommodate parties' circumstances. For example, if one party causes an arbitration fee, Although the arbitration fee will be borne equally by both claimant and defendant, however, in practice, the claimant shall pay full in advance before the arbitration proceeding could be started. This is particularly for cases handled by BANI.  Joyce: So picking up on a point which you've just raised, Afryan, foreign parties often prefer arbitration of a litigation when contracting with a local party. There tends to be concerns with litigating on the local party's home turf, where the foreign party may be unfamiliar with the local court procedure and may also perceive the local party to have an upper hand. I think this is especially the case if the local party is well connected or linked to the government. Based on your experience, when parties agree to arbitrate, do parties tend to choose Indonesian or foreign arbitral seats?  Afriyan: Well, this perception I think can be used by parties. But if the balance of power is equal during the contract negotiation, parties tend to choose international arbitration. for example, seated in Singapore or Paris with SIAC or ICC administrating. The main reason probably international arbitration proceeding is more comfortable for foreign parties compared to domestic arbitration institution. If the local Indonesian party is likely to be the defaulting party under the contract, an Indonesian seat with BANI administrating is popular. Jakarta is often selected as the seat, unless there is another seat which has closer connection to the dispute. For example, the parties may choose Bali or Kalimantan as a seat where the dispute relates to a construction project there. There is a famous case between PT Pertamina and PT Lirik Petroleum, in which the case was handled by BANI. This case was brought appealed to Supreme Court when was requested for enforcement. And Supreme Court at that time made consideration that the case is deemed as foreign arbitral award due to the race element of foreign in the contract, although the parties are Indonesian and it was handled by BANI, particularly BANI Mampang. In end of 2024, a lecturer filed a case to concessional court to review definition of foreign arbitral award under the arbitration law and constitutional court give a decision that a case considered as foreign arbitration proceeding or domestic arbitration proceeding based on territorial principle in which if the case was handled by foreign arbitration institution and seated not within the Indonesian territory then it will be considered as foreign arbitration proceeding. I will also add that there are two different institutions called BANI in Indonesia. It was started in 2016 and for around six years there are duality in BANI, which is BANI Mampang and BANI Sovereign. Both parties were arguing in civil court, state administrative court, and commercial court for trademark violation. In the recent years, BANI Mampang tends to be more popular than the BANI Sovereign, since currently we cannot find BANI Sovereign website or legal domicile address of this BANI Sovereign. Due to this invariability and taking consideration of the amount of the case that is being handled, we will suggest for any dispute that would like to choose local arbitration or domestic arbitration institution to choose BANI Mampang.  Joyce: Thank you for the helpful insight on the two BANIs. It's certainly important to nominate the right BANI if parties intend to select BANIs as an arbitral institution. Otherwise, there is being satellite litigation over which BANI was the parties intended. I also find it quite interesting what you said about all arbitrations in Indonesia being deemed to be domestic, regardless of whether there's a foreign element and which institution administers the arbitration. On that note, is ad hoc arbitration common in Indonesia?  Afriyan: Although ad hoc arbitration is permitted in Indonesia, but it is not common to the best of my experience, Joyce.  Joyce: Okay, okay. Just going back then to the choice of Indonesia as a seat, what are the advantages to parties for seating and arbitration in Indonesia?  Afriyan: According to the arbitration law, it is easier to enforce a domestic award in Indonesia due to the arbitral award in Bahasa Indonesia. The arbitral award can go directly to the local district court to register the award for enforcement. Note that this must be done within 30 days from the date of the award. If it is missed, then the domestic arbitral award could not be requested for enforcement to the district court. The winning party could wait until the counterparty voluntarily do the domestic arbitral award or to file a new case at the district court and the domestic arbitral award will be the primary evidence. For foreign awards, the arbitral award must first go to the Central Jakarta District Court to request for the issuance of execution of the award. Before bringing that word to the local district court who has jurisdiction to conduct execution over the losing party. Note that arbitration law requires few documents to be filed together with the original arbitral award issued by the foreign arbitration institution. There is, however, no time limit for filing this enforcement of foreign arbitral award to the Central Jakarta District Court compared to the domestic arbitral award that I have mentioned previously.  Joyce: My takeaway from what you've just said, Afriyan, is that domestic awards, in other words, awards which are issued in Indonesia-centered arbi

    21 min

  7. 07/29/2025

    Spotlight on … Isha Shakir

    Host Gautam Bhattacharyya welcomes Isha Shakir of Henderson Chambers for this episode of Spotlight on… The conversation explores Isha’s decision to enter the legal profession as a barrister, mentors she has benefited from along the way, career highlights to date and what SAHM 2025 means to her. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Gautam: Hello, everyone, and welcome to our latest episode of our Spotlight on podcast series. And this is one of our special mini-series to mark South Asian Heritage Month 2025, the theme of which is Roots to Roots. And I'm really delighted today to have as our guest the wonderful Isha Shakir. Isha is a barrister at Henderson Chambers in London. I've been really looking forward to this discussion with her because she's really one of the real bright stars at the bar. And I know she's got a huge career in front of her. She's already done lots and lots, and I'm going to introduce you to her by saying a few words about her. So Isha, as I mentioned, is a barrister at Henderson Chambers. She has a broad practice, both litigation and arbitration, and inquiries of which she has considerable experience. And interestingly she's involved currently in the Dieselgate group litigation and amongst other things in the post office inquiry. It's a really great experience and amongst her areas also she can include insolvency and various aspects of commercial law practice. So it's really really good to have you on Isha. I'm really looking forward to our discussion. Let me ask you this to get us going then. Tell us a little bit about your background, because this is about heritage. So tell us a little bit about your, well, first of all, maybe your family's background, your own personal background in terms of your journey to where you are today as a, as I say, a bright star at the bar and why you chose to do law and ultimately also why you wanted to become a barrister. Isha: Sure. Well, firstly, it's an honour to be on your podcast, and it's an honour to meet you. In terms of my family's background, so my granddad emigrated here to the UK from Pakistan, and he chose this little town called Bishop Auckland in County Durham to settle down. He had my dad, so my dad is first generation English, and my mum is Pakistani, and that's my background so I grew up in Bishop Auckland which is in County Durham next to Newcastle that's the accent I'm trying to retain my accent in a form of defiance. Gautam: You should be very proud of it you should be very proud of that accent. Isha: I am I'm very proud of it I am and so I guess where I started was you know growing up in Bishop Auckland and it's quite serious from the get-go because I'm the only ethnic minority in my school and also in my town and I'm the only visibly Muslim person there too and as I grow up I realized that during school and you know when I walked to town there is a lot of resistance against who I am and my identity in the form of Islamophobia, racism and it was quite intense growing up because you know I can tell you my first memory of primary school is being called dirty sat on a bench crying and I told the teachers about this and this is like a reoccurring story in my life is that I do tell people and nothing is done and I'm told to have thicker skin I think that was the sort of starting point for me to go internal and to gain this resilience and strength from myself from my faith and to then embrace my identity years later, which was the cause of so much pain growing up. And just moving on to secondary school, it was no better. In fact, it was a lot worse because, I mean, kids at that age are very judgmental. But when incidents happen, like terrorist incidents or whatever, I would be called a terrorist. I'd be told it was my fault. I'd be spat on. One of the main incidents was that a teacher drew the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, on the board. And thought that was okay and a funny thing to do. And this is like, this is the background that I guess created who I am. And another sort of pivotal moment, I think, in my life was a careers advisor. You know, I went to a state school. I'm the first in my family to eventually go to university and the first in my family to have a proper profession in that sense. And I was really motivated growing up to go to uni and I wanted to do that so I told that to my careers advisor and she said to me that I wasn't smart enough to go to university and I should do a beautician course in the local college instead and that was her advice to me without looking at my grades without assessing my aspirations without knowing anything about me I was stereotyped into being a beautician and then even more heartbreaking is when I leave the this meeting this awful meeting and I talk to my school colleagues and they say that they were told the exact opposite that they were told to go to university and to aim high and I just thought that is systematic racism that I've had to come across and it took, it actually devastated me for about a week. And I went home and I was crying and my parents were asking me, you know, what's, what's going on? Come on, tell us. And then I told them, and that is, I think. The support that I received from them is so important in my life because they just said to me, don't let anyone tell you no. You go for it and you try. And it's going to be hard. It's not going to be easy. But if you work hard, if you hold on to your faith, you can accomplish things. And I really internalized that. And I was like, okay, these people are writing me off. They're underestimating me, which still happens to this day. And we'll talk about that. But it doesn't define my capabilities and my potential right I I can do I can change, opinions and I can aspire for great things so I used that incident as well to convince my family to let me go to a six form and outside of my little town in a different town called Darlington and I convinced them to let me travel on the bus for an hour and a half each day to get there. And that place was a bit more, it was more diverse. I didn't feel like the odd one out. And the teachers were really supportive. And I managed to get good grades at A-level and I got into York University. And as I started university, that careers advisor was still in the back of my mind. And I was thinking, I got in, that's great, but am I really smart enough to be here? And I just had to battle against that self out and I just tried really hard. I worked hard. You know, my faith comes into it because I truly believe that I'm protected. There is a plan for me and that all I have to do is try my best and everything else will work out. That's what I believe in. And it did. So with York, I think someone was looking after me and trying to really correct that, in a dialogue that I had with that careers advisor and every single person that told me that I wasn't good enough or that I don't deserve to be here because I ended up getting the highest academic grade three years in a row at York. And I graduated top of my year. and I think that that moment was just the seal on all of that negativity of the past that actually I am smart enough to be here I do deserve to be here and I can accomplish great things at York I was told about well actually I can phase in when becoming a barrister was you know on my radar because growing up I didn't know what a barrister was and there's that that cliche of barrister/barista and I honestly did not know the difference and obviously I knew I knew about lawyers things but I didn't know about the bar and how I came across that was in my first year of university I randomly signed up to become a witness in just this you know the advocacy training process they do for barristers to just refresh their skills like CDP and I was playing this witness who couldn't see very well and I was just acting at this point. And the senior silk who was training the other barristers said to me, you'd be very good at mooting. And I just smiled and nodded and I was like, oh, thank you. And I secretly hoped that mooting was a good thing because I had never heard of it. And I remember afterwards, I came off the stand. And I Googled what is mooting and I realized what it was. And I just threw myself into it because I thought, okay, well, let's give this a chance. Let's try. And as I did that, I discovered more about what being a barrister was because I was actually doing it, these little mock trials and cross-examination pieces and all of those things. And I realized that I really like advocacy. I really like complex legal problems. I was already dealing with that in my degree, sort of the law side of things. But it was the advocacy side of things that really came alive for me. And I felt electric every time I was on my feet. And I felt the idea of representing someone in court and speaking for people and for clients. It was amazing to me and something that I truly believe that I was created to do. I think another part of my passion for advocacy came in a little bit earlier than that because I decided to do something about this Islamophobia problem, to do something about the racism in my little town. I mean, my town has annual marches, which is Bishop Auckland against Islam. And it is a very, very difficult place to grow up in with someone like me to grow up. So I know for a fact that there are more people like me coming into that town and my sister was there, my cousins. And so I wanted to try and make a shift, make a change in

    32 min

  8. 07/18/2025

    A conversation with Reed Smith’s Mahmuda Kamalee, Ravi Pattani and Akshay Sevak

    Reed Smith lawyers Mahmuda Kamalee, Ravi Pattani and Akshay Sevak join host and international arbitration partner, Gautam Bhattacharyya, for a special episode to kick off this year’s SAHM celebrations. In this reflective conversation, our speakers share the inspirations that have shaped their careers and lives, lessons passed down through generations, the best advice they have received (to date!) and what heritage means to them. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Gautam: Hello everyone and welcome to the first of our Reed Smith podcasts to celebrate South Asian Heritage Month 2025. This year the theme of South Asian Heritage Month is Roots for Roots. And I'm delighted to say that for this episode I've got three of my very dear colleagues at Reed Smith as our guests. I'm going to briefly introduce them to you. And then by the end of this podcast, once you've heard them speak to the questions I will be putting to them, you'll realize what fabulous people they are, let alone what brilliant lawyers they are. So first of all, I will introduce Mahmuda Kamalee, Mahmooda is a newly qualified associate in the Global Commercial Disputes Group in London. and she is doing a broad range of work in a number of areas in that practice. Secondly, I will introduce Akshay Sevak, who is another associate in the Global Commercial Disputes Group in London. He too does a broad mix of work and he is, at the time that we're doing this podcast, he's halfway through his Higher Rights of Audience course. So by the time this podcast goes out, I'm sure he'll have a further set of titles to put after his email block when he sends you all emails. Last and definitely not least is my partner, Ravi Pattani, who is a partner in our corporate group doing a broad mix of corporate transactional work and is definitely one of the future leaders of that corporate practice. So delighted to see you all and have you all here. I'm looking forward to our discussion, and I don't want any of you to hold back, okay? So I want you just to let it flow and tell me exactly what you think about the questions I'm going to ask you, because you are some of the shining lights in our practice of South Asian heritage. So let me go straight into it and ask the first question, and I'm going to ask each of you this question. I'm not going to ask you all the same questions, but I'm going to ask you all a few of the same questions. The first thing I think is always interesting, because I know I've been asked this question so many times in the course of my career so far. Why did you choose law as a career? So maybe I start off with Mahmuda on that, please. Mahmuda: Thank you, Gautam, for the lovely introduction. And I'm really pleased to be here with you all today. If I'm very honest, I can't actually remember a particular reason as to why I chose a legal career. And I know as a lawyer, we can shy away from saying that because there should be multiple reasons why we chose it. But I think my earliest memory of wanting to become a lawyer was when I was around 14 or 15 years old. And I recall we had a careers day at school where we were learning of the different roles and jobs in society that we could take on. And I was introduced to the idea of a judge, a solicitor and a barrister. And I just remember leaving curious as to what their roles were and the way in which their roles enabled them to achieve justice in different respects. And then from there on, I decided to research as I grew older into different work experience opportunities at law firms. I attended legal clinics and I attended other events for other jobs to see whether sort of my curiosity in law was shifted at all. And I'm really pleased today to say it wasn't. And all of these experiences enabled me to see how impactful legal work can be, both in a courtroom, but also in everyday lives. So this continued to reaffirm my interest in the field. If I look at it from a more academic perspective, I've always been interested in analytical thinking and subjects which emphasise written skills. So naturally, law stood out to me as a discipline, which combined these elements. And I particularly enjoyed doing a law degree. And like I said, the analytical thinking and the emphasis on written skills was the motivation behind choosing to study law at undergraduate level. And then I proceeded to seek a training contract at Reed Smith, which I was very lucky to get. And now here I am today as part of your wonderful team, having the opportunity to work with yourself. Gautam: Well, thank you, my Mahmuda. Well, you know, I can certainly say that I've been a witness to your analytical skills and your drafting skills. So I'm very glad you made that choice. And I'm very glad that your curiosity was really brought about because we've got you. So thank you. So let me ask that same question to you, Akshay, please. Akshay: Thanks, Gautam, and thanks for having me on this podcast. I don't mean it in any small way when I say it's a real honor and it's a real privilege to be able to share the stage with yourself, Mahmood and Ravi. So I think mine was, my reasons were a lot less structured than Mahmuda’s. I actually, so I grew up in Kenya and my plan, to be honest, when I was 16 was, when I look back at it, I was very much trying to become a professional pianist. I was going to go to music school and And then I decided when I was 16 that I didn't have the maturity to understand music in the way that you needed to do that. Certainly not at that age. And I thought, well, what else do I like doing? And I like talking, which is why I'm here. I liked the analytical subjects like history, English. I liked physics and maths quite a lot, the detail in that. And someone said, well, why don't you consider studying law? And I thought, well, I am coming from abroad. I probably should do something relatively rigorous to justify the endeavor to my family. So I came to law school and I just, I was so great because everyone was so, so smart. The work was really difficult. It was really interesting. And I just didn't appreciate until I started studying it that you really can sort of grasp and really grapple with so many different facets of life through this one medium. So when I was at law school, similar to Mahmoodo, I applied for vacation schemes and training contracts. I was so fortunate to land one at Reed Smith. And even to be honest, as my training contract completed, I really did think that it was time now to go back home. And there was no intention to stay on. And so when the department I'm now in, Gotham, your team, the Global Commercial Disputes team, offered me a job to stay on, And it was just very, very good luck. And so here I am now. Gautam: Well, thank you, Akshay. And I mean, I know you still play the piano very well. But I'm also very glad that you chose law over the piano. And I'm also glad that you made London your home. So that's very good. Thank you. Okay, last but not least, I'd like to ask you, Ravi, the same question. So what brought you into the law in the first place? Ravi: Thanks good to be here I wish I could say that I was like Mahmuda or Akshay and really thought about the career choice I was going to make and thought about my skill set and how that would complement the law but I was probably about 12 or 13 watching TV and seeing all these high-powered lawyers and suits and fancy offices and fancy cities around the world I thought oh that sounds like fun and I kind of just stuck to it and had no imagination to go for anything different to what what I thought I wanted to do back when I was a 12-year-old watching TV. I come from a South Asian heritage, like all of us here, and despite the regular view of your parents want you to be a lawyer or a doctor, my parents were very much against me being a lawyer and wanted me to be either a doctor, a dentist, a pharmacist, anything in the sciences. And so actually when they said, no, don't do law, it was actually almost like a weird rebellion. Given that it's law, It's quite a sensible rebellion, but it was a slight rebellion. And so I kind of just wanted to get into the career. And like Mahmuda and Akshay, and actually I did study law as an undergraduate, I actually didn't enjoy the undergraduate degree, so much so that I kind of didn't really put a lot of effort into thinking about my career and applying for roles and doing the vacation schemes. But thankfully, I had really good friends around me who encouraged me to apply for a vacation scheme. I applied to Reed Smith and the rest, as they say, is history. Gautam: Well, I am very grateful to those friends of yours who gave you that nudge, really. Because in life, we all need a nudge now and again, right? You know, since we all share that South Asian heritage, as you said, it is interesting that point you made about how, you know, we study things, but there's a sort of perception of what we might want to do, what people think we ought to do. And sort of just finding our own way is so important. And I want to pick up on that theme with you all, actually, and ask me the next question. And this, again, is going to be directed to all of you. What's the best bit of advice that someone has given you so far in the course of your career? Is there something you can particularly remember that made a real impact on you that's helped you and guided you to drive forward in what you do. And maybe I can start with Akshay on that one first, please. Aksha

    37 min
See All (150)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
8 Ratings

About

Arbitral Insights brings you informative and insightful commentary on current issues in international arbitration and the changing world of conflict resolution. The podcast series offers trends, developments, challenges and topics of interest from Reed Smith disputes lawyers who handle arbitrations around the world.

Information

  • Creator
    Reed Smith
  • Years Active
    2020 - 2026
  • Episodes
    150
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Copyright 2026 All rights reserved.
  • Show Website
    Arbitral Insights