Undivided attention.

Not everything is about economy of scale. Arbitration is quite certainly not.

As a private adjudicator specialized in international legal proceedings and procedures, I believe that I am bound to offer more than what a disputing party can get from a public judge: more skills, more expertise, more efficiency, more focus. Indeed, the essence of arbitration is that the parties have the possibility of choosing individuals that they trust in these respects.

The benefits of having a specialized, multi-linguist, adjudicator that actually reads the parties’ arguments and is focused on delivering a decision in a reasonable timeframe, usually offsets the apparently higher costs of arbitration compared to litigation in domestic courts (to the extent that a long-protracted civil law suit before a public judge overwhelmed with hundreds of cases might even be costlier for the parties – in terms of lawyers, damage to the economic activity, and business relations).

I believe that is a betrayal of the parties’ trust in my adjudicating mission, to delegate the study and understanding of the case (if not more) to a team of persons that work for me – so that I can take up more cases, that will be dealt by a growing number of people working for me?

For this reason, my associates help me deepen the knowledge of a case, understanding the parties’ arguments, brainstorm, and, for sure, doublechecking my drafting for typos or format issues – however, decision-making and drafting are mine and mine alone: this is my guarantee.

For these reasons, I carefully take up only a limited number of cases at the same time: to keep offering, to the parties that choose to have me as their adjudicator, my undivided attention.

For the same reasons, I refuse to participate in any legal contests or awards, nor I ever consider running for any leading role in any legal society or association. Similarly to when I vet the people working for me, my credentials are my expertise, work, and reputation.