Arbitration can run under the wing of an administering institution or proceed ad hoc, with the parties and tribunal managing the process themselves. Each path carries trade-offs in cost, speed, oversight, and predictability. We help you choose the framework that fits your dispute, and we represent you with equal command whether the case is institutionally administered or conducted ad hoc.
Working Within Institutional Rules
Institutional arbitration brings administrative support, established procedures, and a measure of quality control over the process and the award. We handle cases under the major institutional rules, including the ICC, LCIA, AAA-ICDR, SIAC, and HKIAC, and we use the structure those bodies provide to keep proceedings on track. Familiarity with each institution's practices lets us anticipate how scrutiny of the award, fee schedules, and case management will play out.
Running an Ad Hoc Proceeding
Ad hoc arbitration, often conducted under the UNCITRAL Rules, gives the parties more control and can reduce administrative fees, but it puts the burden of procedure on counsel and the tribunal. We supply that structure, drafting procedural orders, managing timetables, and arranging appointing-authority involvement when the parties deadlock. Done well, an ad hoc process delivers the flexibility you want without the gaps in administration that can derail an unmanaged case.
Choosing the Right Framework
The choice between institutional and ad hoc arbitration is best made when you draft the clause, not after a dispute begins. We weigh the value of administrative support against its cost, the importance of award scrutiny, the sophistication of the likely parties, and the seat where enforcement may be needed. We give you a straight recommendation so your dispute resolution mechanism reflects how you actually want disputes handled.