commercial dispute resolution survey - cornerstone.com · commercial dispute resolution survey 2 |...

Commercial Dispute Resolution Survey | 1

XXXXXXXXXXXX

At Legal Business’s � rst International Arbitration Summit held in London this September, esteemed practitioner Sir Frank Berman KCMG QC spoke about investor-state

arbitration increasingly moving into public consciousness. He said: ‘When I started out, investor-state arbitration was

crawling into existence – but what led me for the � rst time in the direction of international arbitration was my role as legal adviser to the Foreign & Commonwealth O� ce during the 90s. � e most distinct change in this area without a doubt is the emergence of investor-state arbitration, the ability of a private investor to bring an action as of right against a state. It’s a massive change in the international disputes system and has produced not just changes in attitude but structural change in the way you put together tribunals.’

His words signal the changing landscape of the dispute resolution market, and the widening availability of alternative mechanisms for resolving con� ict. It constitutes one of a myriad of changes to take place in the sector in recent decades.

As respondent opinion within this report will demonstrate, arbitration is becoming an increasingly popular mechanism for dispute resolution while a post-crisis market has also seen increasing levels of internationally focused litigation. Another notable trend in the sector is the widening in� uence of the in-house community, which clearly believes there will always be room within budgets for contentious work that requires greater resource and top-level expertise, despite the overall priority to demonstrate prudence. As such, the cost and resource burden faced by in-house teams inevitably means opportunities for law � rms and alternative service providers will become increasingly coveted. On these issues, and a host of other metrics, this report will provide statistical scope on private practice and in-house opinion on current and future trends in the dispute resolution sector, looking at challenges faced by both and trends to watch for the future.

Into the spotlightArbitration has come under the spotlight as a means to resolve international commercial disputes, with increasing support of arbitration by courts in most states and investment in private practice. One of its major bene� ts is con� dentiality, making it popular with parties keen to shield their actions from international scrutiny. Our statistics state that 46% of in-house respondents have used arbitration in the last two years. Notably, a good proportion of private practitioner respondents (58%) expect to be more engaged

Commercial Dispute Resolution Survey As Legal Business publishes its second annual Disputes Yearbook, Cornerstone Research scopes the views of in-house counsel and private practitioners to shine a light on trends within the international disputes market

Cornerstone Research

Disputes Yearbook 2015Commercial Dispute Resolution Survey

2 | Disputes Yearbook 2015

in settling disputes through arbitration over the next two years. Nearly 70% of in-house, however, believe that the proportion of commercial disputes settled by arbitration in the next two years will remain the same, which perhaps alludes to o�-cited concerns by the profession over costs and delays in proceedings.

�e global �nancial crisis of 2008 generated disputes predominantly in the �eld of �nancial, securities and insolvency litigation. In our report, litigation was the most widely cited mechanism used as a form of dispute resolution among in-house, according to 90% of respondents. For 47% of private practice respondents, the main advantage of litigation is that it o�ers a ‘clear solution to the dispute’ and 17% responded that the mechanism is particularly well suited to the type of dispute faced by the client. Other factors included litigation being ‘more cost e�ective than

alternatives’ and being particularly ‘well suited to the industry’ (9%) the client operates in. Despite recent gloomy market conditions, around 40% of in-house respondents say they will ‘always’ seek the expertise of outside counsel, experts, or other specialist assistance, while 36% say they will do this ‘o�en’ and 23% ‘occasionally’.

In an increasingly robust regulatory environment and clients anticipating greater risk in their commercial disputes portfolios, having specialised experience and a star reputation in the disputes market will continue to be crucial components to retaining coveted mandates. Ronnie Barnes, Principal in the London o�ce of Cornerstone Research, says: ‘In both the areas of cross border litigation and international arbitration, the demand for expert assessments of �nancial, economic and business matters have become increasingly important. In the case of international

‘When I started out, investor-state arbitration was crawling into existence.’

Sir Frank Berman KCMG QC, Essex Court Chambers

In-house C ounsel Pri va te Pr actitioners

Cost of pr oc eedings

Mechanism is particularly we ll suit ed to the indus tr y

Mechanism is particularly we ll suit ed to type of disput e typically fa c ed by client

Mechanism is mor e co st-e�ectiv e than alt ernativ es

Mechanism o� ers speedier r esolution than alt ernativ es

Mechanism o� ers clear solution to disput e

Mechanism o� ers higher chanc e of positi ve out c ome

Mechanism is particularly well suited to the industry

T ime tak en to r esolv e pr oc eedings

Unc ertainty ov er ho w institutions and pr oc esses oper at e

Lack of trus t in institutionsand pr oc esses

T ime tak en to other(please specify) pr oc eedings

Pri va te Pr actictioner In House

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Mechanism is particularly well suited to type of dispute typically faced by the organisation

Mechanism is more cost-e�ective than alternatives

Mechanism o�ers speedier resolution than alternatives

Mechanism o�ers clear solution to dispute

Mechanism o�ers higher chance of positive outcome

Mechanism is particularly w ell suit ed to the industry

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Mechanism is particularly w ell suit ed to type of disput e typically fa c ed by client

Mechanism is mo re co st-e�ectiv e than alt ernativ es

Mechanism o�ers speedier r esolution than alt ernativ es

Mechanism o�ers clear solution to disput e

Mechanism o�ers higher chan ce of positiv e ou tc ome

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Recovering �nancial loss

Protecting the organisation’s reputation

Protecting the organisation’s revenue streams

Opportunity for �nancial gain

Br each of c ontr act

IP

Anti-trus t/ c ompetition

M&A

Shar eholder action

Pr oduct liability

Mar ke t ins truments

Other (please specify)

Disc ov ery Re vie w

Data Collection

V aluation Metrics

Sour cing & pr eparing e xperts

Resear ch and analy sis

Regulat ory c onsulting


Reputation in handling c ont est ed matt er

Expertise in f acing c ont est ed matt er

Ability to help manage the disput e pr oc es s

Involv ement of �rm, la wy er or e xpert in dr afting original c ommer cial c ontr act

Recommendation fr om thir d party

Past e xperienc e of w orking with �rm, la wy er or e xpert in similar matt ers

Dir ect ory r ankin g

Firm, la wy er or e xpert is based in the same jurisdiction as the g ov erning la w of the c ontr act

Firm, la wy er or e xpert is based in the same jurisdiction as the seat of arbitr ation


What is the most common reason clients engageyour firm in commercial disputes proceedings?

Cornerstone ResearchDisputes Yearbook 2015


14%UK

Where have these class actions taken place?

86%1-5

14%10-20

How many class actions has your organisation been involved in?

21%Yes

79%No

Are you aware of the new ‘opt-out’ collective action procedures under the Consumer Rights Act?

18%Yes

82%No

Has your organisation been involved in class action disputes?

US & Canada

43%

43%Europe

e Consumer Rights Act

� e Consumer Rights Act, which comes into force in the UK in October, introduces an opt-out regime, so that claims for redress can be brought on behalf of groups of individuals without the need to identify all the claimants. Cases will be brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. � e US Chamber of Commerce has lobbied hard to prevent US-style class actions being brought in the UK courts as litigation funding expands to promote consumer rights.

Cornerstone Research has worked on several antitrust class actions across regions, involving allegations of demand and price in� ation that plainti� s have argued caused class-wide impact, even for consumers who were not exposed to or in� uenced by the challenged conduct. Jamie Meehan, Senior Vice President of the London o� ce of Cornerstone Research, believes that we could see similar arguments being put forward by claimants under the new opt-out regime in the UK.

‘Class certi� cation in these cases frequently turns on the particulars of the challenged conduct, the overall structure of the industry and the market, and the individual transactions. � e overarching question is whether common evidence should be used to prove that the challenged conduct shi� ed demand and, if so, whether such a demand shi� caused all the prices paid by the proposed class members to increase. � is survey shows that there is a low awareness of the new opt-out regime in the UK and respondents believe that it will have little impact on them. We expect in-house counsel and their advisers may well have to grapple with similar arguments we see being advanced in US antitrust cases under the new Consumer Rights Act.’

Robert Bell, head of the EU Competition team at Bryan Cave, goes further: ‘� e new provisions in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which promote collective proceedings on behalf of claimants are likely to have a signi� cant e� ect on the UK litigation landscape. Cases brought under these rules could give rise to substantial damages awards, the levels of which have not hitherto been seen in this country for breach of competition law. Companies ignore these reforms at their peril.’



arbitration, for example, we are increasingly dealing with issues around quantum by carefully analysing whether market distortions in input and output prices, interest rates or exchange rates are appropriately re�ected in damages calculations.’

Signature Litigation founding partner Graham Huntley adds: ‘It’s no surprise that there is a lot of growth in high-end work in the global and niche �rms. �e trend will continue with increasing regulation and investigative work, while the niche market grows its focussed o�ering. Whatever happens, clients will always want a “special commitment” from their litigators.’

Hogan Lovells’ head of litigation and arbitration Michael Davison says litigation has become ‘a critical tool in the

armoury of business’. He adds: ‘How companies deploy that armoury is changing incredibly quickly. Clients rightly expect their lawyers to operate round the clock, in every jurisdiction knowing exactly what is happening on the ground, taking advantage both of cutting edge technology and innovative project management. �ere has never been a more exciting and challenging time to be a litigator.’

Signalling the evolving strategy of law �rms to capture a share of the growing market in cross-border disputes and provide that ‘special commitment’ Huntley refers to, our research showed that �rms now handle commercial disputes throughout domestic and international markets quite evenly, with 55% and 45% respectively.

In-house C ounsel Pri va te Pr actitioners

Cost of pr oc eedings

Mechanism is particularly we ll suit ed to the indus tr y

Mechanism is particularly we ll suit ed to type of disput e typically fa c ed by client

Mechanism is mor e co st-e�ectiv e than alt ernativ es

Mechanism o� ers speedier r esolution than alt ernativ es

Mechanism o� ers clear solution to disput e

Mechanism o� ers higher chanc e of positi ve out c ome

Mechanism is particularly well suited to the industry

T ime tak en to r esolv e pr oc eedings

Unc ertainty ov er ho w institutions and pr oc esses oper at e

Lack of trus t in institutionsand pr oc esses

T ime tak en to other(please specify) pr oc eedings

Pri va te Pr actictioner In House

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Mechanism is particularly well suited to type of dispute typically faced by the organisation

Mechanism is more cost-e�ective than alternatives

Mechanism o�ers speedier resolution than alternatives

Mechanism o�ers clear solution to dispute

Mechanism o�ers higher chance of positive outcome

Mechanism is particularly w ell suit ed to the industry

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Mechanism is particularly w ell suit ed to type of disput e typically fa c ed by client

Mechanism is mo re co st-e�ectiv e than alt ernativ es

Mechanism o�ers speedier r esolution than alt ernativ es

Mechanism o�ers clear solution to disput e

Mechanism o�ers higher chan ce of positiv e ou tc ome

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Recovering �nancial loss

Protecting the organisation’s reputation

Protecting the organisation’s revenue streams

Opportunity for �nancial gain

Br each of c ontr act

IP

Anti-trus t/ c ompetition

M&A

Shar eholder action

Pr oduct liability

Mar ke t ins truments


Disc ov ery Re vie w

Data Collection

V aluation Metrics

Sour cing & pr eparing e xperts

Resear ch and analy sis

Regulat ory c onsulting


Reputation in handling c ont est ed matt er

Expertise in f acing c ont est ed matt er

Ability to help manage the disput e pr oc es s

Involv ement of �rm, la wy er or e xpert in dr afting original c ommer cial c ontr act

Recommendation fr om thir d party

Past e xperienc e of w orking with �rm, la wy er or e xpert in similar matt ers

Dir ect ory r ankin g

Firm, la wy er or e xpert is based in the same jurisdiction as the g ov erning la w of the c ontr act

Firm, la wy er or e xpert is based in the same jurisdiction as the seat of arbitr ation


What is the most important reason your organisation has for selecting a particular dispute resolution method?

‘I am confident the use of local/regional institutions will grow.’

Jayne Bentham, Simmons & Simmons



Further, 90% of respondents said their commercial disputes work has become more international, while 63% referenced Europe as the region where the � rm handled the greatest number of disputes over the last two years.

Against a positive sway towards litigation, another notable trend from in-house respondents is the general reluctance to initiate a dispute in the � rst place. Nearly two thirds (59%) listed the time taken to resolve proceedings as an a� ecting factor, and more than half (55%) cited risk of reputational damage. Many in-house respondents will also consider managing a problem internally before proceeding to litigation, with 76% viewing direct negotiation between management teams as their second preference.

� is preference for direct negotiation between management teams is understandable; 65% of in-house respondents stated they do not have a dedicated disputes department.

Should they proceed, more than two thirds of general counsel (74%) view past experience of working in similar matters as the most important metric for choosing outside counsel, while other factors include: expertise (58%); reputation in handling contested matters (53%); the ability to help manage the dispute process (35%); a recommendation from a third party (21%); involvement of the � rm; lawyer or expert in dra� ing the original commercial contract (19%); and directory rankings (12%).

Delving into the thinking behind in-house counsel decisions to delegate the work, the most common reason for clients to use external counsel for proceedings is to recover � nancial loss (61%), while protecting the organisation’s reputation and its revenue streams took an even vote with 18% respectively. No respondents cited opportunity for � nancial gain. � e statistics largely match the view of private practitioners, of which 81% said the cost involved is the most common reason for clients’ reluctance to initiate proceedings, correlating with the in-house respondents’ vote at 76%.

An example of cost control taking priority for general counsel in recent months has been witnessed in the � nancial

For private practitioners, what is the main advantage of mechanisms in dispute resolution? Litigation Arbitration Mediation Direct negotiation

Mechanism is particularly well suited to the industry* 9% 27% - 6%Mechanism is particularly well suited to the type of 17% 26% 7% 3%dispute typically face by the client

Mechanism is more cost e� ective than alternatives 10% 2% 39% 30%Mechanism o� ers speedier resolution than alternatives 4% 27% 15% 33%Mechanism o� ers clear solution to dispute 43% 2% 5% 9%Mechanism o� ers higher chance of positive outcome 7% 5% 29% 15%

35%Yes 65%

No

Does your organisation have a dedicated

disputes department?

76%of in-house counsel ‘often’ or ‘always’ seek outside counsel

* Financial services 20%, Transport 9%, Automotive 7%, Information technology 7%, Retail and consumer services 7%, Construction 5%, Healthcare 5%, Oil and gas 4%, Utilities 4%, Leisure/hotels/food 4%, Media, entertainment and sport 4%, Mining 4%, Real estate 4%, Telecoms 3%.



Breach of contract 89%Shareholder action 59% Antitrust/competition 38% IP 38% M&A 38% Market instruments 27% Other 18% Product liability 17%

industry, with the Royal Bank of Scotland this summer demanding that law � rms freeze their fees as it undertakes a review of its near 60-strong legal panel. � e bank is currently embroiled in a highly complex dispute following its £20bn government bailout in 2008, as investors seek to recoup their losses following its nationalisation.

Looking ahead to potential commercial disputes in the next two years (valued at over £5m), respondents in private practice cited breach of contract as the most likely reason a con� ict will arise (89%) while shareholder action (59%) and issues relating to M&A, intellectual property and antitrust/competition law each stood at 38%.

More than half of private practitioners (56%) also anticipate greater activism from company shareholders and 61% believe that, compared to the present time, the number of regulatory proceedings against clients will increase in the next two years. Weil, Gotshal & Manges London disputes head Juliet Blanch says: ‘As corporates wrestle with reforming their approach to anti-bribery and other regulatory and compliance issues, whether as a result of self-directed internal, or regulator directed investigations, the knock-on e� ects are being felt in the disputes market. � e widespread reviews taking place of historic transactions and relationships in this context are providing fertile ground for litigators in advising corporates as to how best to resolve situations that have been tainted with wrongdoing and forward-looking advice on how new agreements might be negotiated to protect clients.’

Of the in-house respondents, opinion is generally divided over whether counsel expect to be involved in commercial disputes, with 46% believing they will be involved in a similar number of large commercial disputes while 41% believe they will be involved in fewer.

Other predictions include growing disaggregation in legal services and a rising pressure on law � rms to bifurcate business lines and price, with 53% of private practice respondents ‘o� en’ and 43% ‘occasionally’ engaging with outside experts or other specialist services to assist in handling a dispute. � e most cited reasons sourcing outside assistance valuation metrics (47%); data collection (41%); sourcing and preparing experts (34%); discovery review (29%); and research and analysis (28%).

‘In-house counsel understand their needs and requirements and are more discerning as purchasers of legal services today than ten years ago.’

Jeremy Wilson, Covington & Burling

Private practitioners: Compared to the present time, in which of the following areas does your fi rm expect to be involved in large (ie over £5m) commercial disputes over the next two years?

In-house: In which of the following areas do you expect to be involved in large commercial disputes over the next two years?

Breach of contract 78%Product liability 23% Antitrust/competition 20% IP 18%M&A 15%Other 10% Market instruments 8% Shareholder action 5%



What criteria does your organisation use in selecting outside counsel, experts, or other specialist assistance?

Past experience of working with firm, lawyer or expert in similar matters 74%Expertise in facing contested matter 58%Reputation in handling contested matter 53%Ability to help manage the dispute process 35%Firm, lawyer or expert is based in the same jurisdiction as the governing law of the contract 30% Recommendation from third party 21%Involvement of firm, lawyer or expert in drafting original commercial contract 19%Directory ranking 12% Other 9%Firm, lawyer or expert is based in the same jurisdiction as the seat of arbitration 7%

Nearly half (45%) of in-house counsel further predicted that there will be more risk in their commercial disputes portfolio in the next two years. In terms of the measures used to mitigate against the risk of bribery and corruption, 81% of in-house respondents cite an ‘internal audit of company practices’, while 53% use ‘anti-corruption and anti-bribery tool kits’, 50% ‘appoint specialist anti-corruption o�cials’, a further 47% cited ‘facilitating whistle-blowers though mechanisms including con�dential hotlines and e-mail boxes’ and 38% ‘conduct compliance stress tests’.

Covington & Burling partner Jeremy Wilson says in-house counsel are becoming increasingly sophisticated at managing the operational and logistical issues behind complex international litigation and arbitration. ‘�ey understand their needs and requirements and are more discerning as purchasers of legal services today than ten years ago. As a result, the relationship between in-house and outside counsel is much more collaborative and integrated. While this can enable law �rms to provide a more e�ective service, the challenge is to continue to meet growing client demands on increasingly tight legal budgets. To accomplish this, in-house and outside counsel must be creative in allocating risk and reward, and this o�en means a departure from the traditional hourly rate model.’

A changing landscape One respondent cites changes to the UK’s court system as having a knock-on e�ect for litigators: ‘�e court fee changes will result in signi�cantly less access to local civil courts, so lower value disputes will become more expensive and demand more time to attend courts further away from our o�ces. Also, the use of eBay law and online hearings would be bene�cial, but I do not believe the Ministry of Justice is capable of successfully leading large IT projects of that kind based on experience of the last 15 years.’

UK lawyers specialised in commercial litigation are facing a changing landscape, as the Ministry of Justice’s cost-cutting agenda in relation to court fees has proposed introducing or increasing fees for tribunals, including the property, tax and general regulatory chambers; a general 10% rise to a wide range of fees in civil proceedings including for divorce and possession claims; plus an increase in the maximum fee for money claims from £10,000 to at least £20,000, which will a�ect claims worth £200,000 or more. Justice Secretary Michael Gove, who said this summer that

‘e survey shows that there is low awareness among respondents of the opt-out regime contained within the new Consumer Rights Act.’

Jamie Meehan, Cornerstone Research



the current system ‘restricts access to high-quality resolution of disputes by being too complex, too bureaucratic and too slow’, also indicated that the judiciary’s reform programme has already committed to invest in the technology which will underpin it.

Domestic issues aside, litigation is expected to remain the preferred method of dispute resolution. Stewarts Law partner Clive Zietman says the � nancial crisis of 2008 will continue to bear fruit for litigators based in western economies. ‘Investigations by regulators, criminal authorities and antitrust bodies continue to unearth fertile ground for commercial disputes. � e growth of litigation funding and the steady increase in contingent fees

has added a new dimension to the process. Although most institutional clients are keen to avoid litigation, in particular trials with wider implications, much of the big ticket litigation o� en involves a war of attrition with mediation and settlement not occurring at an early stage.’

Notably, when private practice respondents were asked about whether new specialist dispute resolution forums such as the Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in Finance (PRIME) or the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) will become more popular choices for those involved in a dispute in the next two years, 58% of respondents said no. What was also noticeable was 70% of respondents had ‘no knowledge’ of such specialist dispute forums. In-house respondents were even less aware of both forums (94%). � is is all the more surprising as 90% of private practice respondents had at least some focus on arbitration.

It is arguable that two years is not much time to market alternative forums to a profession that holds old established venues like London, New York and Paris in traditionally high regard. But as Jayne Bentham, a partner at Simmons & Simmons, says: ‘It’s certainly the case that the local and regional institutions in Africa are struggling to break through into the international market. It takes time for new arbitral institutions, whether it’s an organisation such as PRIME Finance in � e Hague or less well-developed jurisdictions in Africa, to � lter through new cases. I am con� dent, however, that the use of local/regional institutions will grow. But time alone will not produce a change of this nature – it is up to the profession to lobby this cause.’

In any event, a greater proportion of private practice respondents (62%) believe Europe will handle the greatest number of disputes over the next two years, with the UK coming second (27%), the US and Canada in third (6%) and Asia-Paci� c last (5%).

Where our research showed that breach of contract is the most likely cause of a dispute, current low interest rates will stoke further con� ict amongst parties, particularly in the � nancial services industry, as � nancial institutions seek to remove themselves from undesirable terms in contracts dra� ed prior to the 2008 crisis. Major high-pro� le disputes involving lenders and

‘ e widespread reviews taking place of historic transactions and relationships are providing fertile ground for litigators in advising corporates.’

Juliet Blanch, Weil, Gotshal & Manges

Which external services are of most value to your fi rm when handling a dispute?

Valuation metrics 47%Data collection 41%Sourcing and preparing experts 34%Discovery review 29% Research and analysis 28%Regulatory consulting 13%Other 7%



ongoing regulatory investigations will inevitably generate interest from potential groups of claimants, of which we are already seeing a US-style ‘class-action’ environment in the UK from the RBS and Lloyds Banking Group litigations.

Arbitration is easily predicted to continue to see an uptick in popularity as cross-border investment returns to pre-crisis levels and the political climate in relation to investment treaty arbitration

becomes more nuanced, particularly in developing economies, which will further draw parties to consider handling con� ict outside the traditional domains of Western Europe and the US.

With such favourable market conditions those lawyers specialising in commercial dispute resolution should expect the various strands of the market to remain in rude health for the foreseeable future. ■

Respondent data – methodology

Research conducted by Legal Business for this report involved surveying the views of 302 participants via an online questionnaire, of which 64% were private practice (192) and the remaining 36% were in-house counsel (110).

In private practice, 65% of respondents were partners, 16% were associates, and the remaining came under team head (6%), senior partner (4%), managing partner (2%) and chairman (1%). 43% of respondents in-house were general counsel, and 47% were director of legal.

Just over half of respondents from private practice were based in Europe (51%) while 35% were located in the UK and the remaining in the US (8%), Asia (2%) and other locations (4%). Nearly all (91%) of respondents in private practice specialise in dispute resolution and most (92%) act for both claimants and defendants.

In-house had similar geographical results with 51% from Europe and 23% from the UK, with the remaining located in Russia (3%), Asia (2%) and other locations (2%), while respondents’ industry specialisation included � nancial services (20%), transport (9%), automotive (9%), retail and consumer services (7%), healthcare and construction respectively with 5%, and the remaining included media, entertainment and sport (4%), oil and gas (4%), mining (4%), utilities (4%), leisure and hotels (4%), telecoms (2%), and other (15%).

Nearly 70% of in-house respondents have roughly zero to � ve disputes ongoing at the present time, while 13% have � ve to ten, and 5% have ten to 20. � e total value of nearly half of disputes for respondents in-house ranges between £5m to £10m, while 8% of disputes range between £10m to £50m and 5% between £50m to £100m and £100m to £250m respectively. � e survey showed 8% of disputes for respondents stood at over £1bn.

About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research provides economic and � nancial consulting and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. � e � rm works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the best-quali� ed expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and e� ectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis for over 25 years. � e � rm has more than 500 sta� and o� ces in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, Menlo Park, New York, San Francisco, and Washington.

36%64%In-house counsel

Private practitioners

Respondents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

20-50

10-20

0-10

0-5

None

Total number of large commercial disputes (over £5m) in-house respondents have been involved in

Commercial Dispute Resolution Survey

For further information on our disputes research services, please contact Alex Fetrot:E: [email protected] • T: +44(0)207 396 5671

commercial dispute resolution survey - cornerstone.com · commercial dispute resolution survey 2 |...

Documents