Match the lawyer to the dispute, not to the brand
Start with the dispute rather than with a list of firms. A construction delay claim under DIAC rules, a shareholder dispute in the ADGM Courts and an investor-state claim under a bilateral treaty are three different practices, and very few teams are genuinely strong in all of them.
Three things should match. The forum — has this team actually run references under the rules in your clause, or litigated in the court that will supervise or enforce. The sector — because quantum is proven differently in construction, energy, hospitality and shipping, and a tribunal comfortable with one method is not automatically comfortable with another. And the scale — a team used to modest commercial claims will struggle with a document-heavy multi-party reference, and a firm geared to the largest matters may not staff a mid-value claim economically.
A firm that tells you honestly that your matter is not their strength is giving you useful information, not losing a client gracefully.
Who will actually run your file
This is the question that separates most firms, and it is routinely left unasked. The partner in the pitch meeting is frequently not the person who will draft your submissions, attend the procedural hearings or answer your calls.
Ask directly: who runs this day to day, what is their experience in this kind of reference, and how much of the partner's time is actually committed. Ask how the team is staffed — a very junior team supervised thinly is cheap per hour and expensive in total, because work is redone.
Continuity matters over the two to three years a substantial arbitration runs. A team that changes twice loses the institutional memory of the file, and you pay for it to be rebuilt.
The questions to ask in the first meeting
A short list will tell you most of what you need. How many arbitrations has this team taken to award under the rules in my clause, and in the last three years? What went wrong in one of them, and what would you do differently? What is your assessment of the weaknesses in my case — not the strengths?
Then the practical ones. What is your phased estimate to the Request, to the hearing and to the award, and what assumptions is it built on? What would make it move? Who else will I be dealing with? How will you report to me, and how often?
And one on outcome. What does success realistically look like here, and what is the recovery position if we win — is the counterparty good for the award, and where are its assets? A firm that has not thought about enforcement before advising you to commence is not thinking about your outcome.
Fee structures, and what each one actually means
Hourly rates are the default and the least informative number in the conversation. What matters is the estimate, the assumptions and the revision mechanism.
A phased fixed fee gives certainty for defined stages and requires the firm to have understood the work. A capped fee limits your exposure and is usually priced accordingly. A conditional or partly contingent arrangement aligns interests where it is permissible, and shifts the conversation to what counts as success and when it is payable.
Look past fees to the rest. Tribunal fees and institutional charges are often the larger number and are payable in advance. Experts are frequently the largest single cost after counsel. And costs ordinarily follow the event, so an unsuccessful party contributes to the other side — which means the downside is not only your own bill.
| Structure | Certainty | Best suited to | Watch for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hourly | Low | Unclear scope | No estimate, no revision trigger |
| Phased fixed | High per phase | Defined stages | What falls outside the phase |
| Capped | High ceiling | Budget-constrained | Priced for the risk |
| Conditional / partly contingent | Aligned | Strong claim, recovery risk | Definition of success |
| Tribunal & institution fees | Separate | All references | Payable in advance, often the larger sum |
Conflicts, independence and arbitrator relationships
Conflicts should be checked against the counterparty, its group, the likely arbitrators and any third-party funder, and the answer should be given in writing rather than assumed.
The arbitrator relationship question deserves care in a market this size. A firm that regularly appears before, or sits with, the arbitrators it proposes is not disqualified by that — familiarity with how a tribunal thinks is part of the value — but you should know about it, and so should the other side. Non-disclosure is what causes problems, not the relationship.
Where third-party funding is involved, disclosure obligations may arise under the applicable rules, and the funding agreement should be reviewed for control provisions before it is signed rather than after.
Red flags worth ending a meeting over
A guaranteed outcome. No competent lawyer promises a result, and a firm that does is either inexperienced or managing you rather than the case.
No discussion of weaknesses. Every case has them, and a lawyer who has not identified yours in the first meeting either has not read the papers or is not telling you.
A rate with no estimate and no willingness to give one. An unwillingness to say who will actually do the work. Pressure to commence immediately without an enforcement assessment — starting is easy and expensive, and stopping is not free. And any suggestion of influence with a tribunal or a court, which should end the meeting and prompt a report.
How to verify what you are told
Licensing first. A UAE advocate practice is licensed by the Ministry of Justice and registered with the relevant emirate's authority, and rights of audience differ between the onshore courts, the DIFC and ADGM. A firm should be able to tell you what it can and cannot appear in, and registrations are independently verifiable through the regulator's published register.
For the practice itself, independent directory rankings are published by the directories rather than by firms, and a claim to be ranked can be checked at source. Reported judgments and published awards are a stronger signal than a website, because they are a record of work actually done.
References from clients with matters like yours are worth more than a general testimonial, and a firm confident in its work will provide them.
Primary sources
The law and rules this page relies on. Links go to the issuing court, tribunal or legislator.
Frequently asked questions
What is the single most useful question to ask?
Who will actually run the file day to day, and what is their experience in this kind of reference. The partner in the pitch is frequently not the person drafting your submissions or answering your calls, and this question is routinely left unasked.
Is a litigation firm good enough for an arbitration?
Not automatically. They are different disciplines. Arbitration turns on the clause, the institution's rules, tribunal constitution, the approach to evidence, and an award that must survive a challenge and an enforcement court. Ask how many arbitrations the team has taken to award, under which rules — not how many disputes the firm has handled.
How should I compare fee quotes?
Largely ignore the hourly rate and compare the estimate, its assumptions and what triggers revision. A low rate with no estimate usually costs more than a higher rate with one, because the cost risk sits entirely with you. And look past fees: tribunal and institutional charges are often larger and payable in advance.
Should the firm discuss the weaknesses in my case?
Yes, in the first meeting. Every case has them. A lawyer who has not identified yours either has not read the papers or is not telling you — and both are reasons to keep looking.
Is it a problem if my lawyers know the arbitrators?
Not in itself — in a market this size familiarity with how a tribunal thinks is part of the value. What matters is disclosure. Non-disclosure causes problems; the relationship generally does not.
Should I ask about enforcement before starting?
Always. Ask whether the counterparty is good for an award and where its assets are. A firm that has not considered enforcement before advising you to commence is not thinking about your outcome — only about the reference.
What should make me walk away?
A guaranteed outcome. No discussion of weaknesses. A rate with no estimate and no willingness to give one. Refusal to say who will do the work. Pressure to commence without an enforcement assessment. And any suggestion of influence with a tribunal or court — which should end the meeting.
How do I verify a firm is properly licensed?
UAE advocate practices are licensed by the Ministry of Justice and registered with the relevant emirate's authority, and rights of audience differ between onshore courts, the DIFC and ADGM. Registrations are independently verifiable through the regulator's published register — ask for the registration and check it.
Are directory rankings meaningful?
They are useful because they are published by the directory rather than the firm, so a claim to be ranked can be checked at source. Reported judgments and published awards are a stronger signal still, being a record of work actually done.
Does it matter which institution the team knows?
Yes. DIAC, arbitrateAD, ICC, LCIA and SIAC differ on cost structure, expedited and emergency relief, default tribunal size and consolidation. Experience under the rules in your clause is more relevant than general arbitration experience.