Transcript:

Intro: Hello and 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. 

José: Well, welcome, everyone. I am José Astigarraga , and I'm delighted to share this program with you. Very, very pleased to tell you that today we have Jason File, who, as I have the pleasure of sharing with you, is the new general counsel and representative of the USCIB in the United States. And I think we're going to have a really, really interesting conversation with Jason today. Let me tell you a little bit about Jason. He is currently the director of legal affairs for the U.S. Council for International Business in New York. He's a licensed attorney, has a very interesting background. He's licensed in New York, District of Columbia, England, and Wales as well. He's a graduate of Yale University as well as the University of Oxford and Yale Law School and is bilingual. He speaks English and French. He's had a very interesting career. Jason worked as a trial attorney in public and private international law since about 2005, and he began his career with WilmerHale, of course, the top of the top firms in international commercial and investor state arbitrations in a very wide range of cases that he had. Then as well, he worked with Cooley Firm in New York, again, working international commercial arbitrations in investor state, and as well did some court litigation related to the federal arbitration and the New York Convention. And I'll call it arbitration-related litigation. One very, very interesting aspect of Jason's career that I hope we'll have a chance to discuss is that he served as a war crimes prosecutor at a United Nations International Criminal Tribunal, and we'll hear about that. To top it off as well, Jason has taught international law in Europe and has spoken all over the world. So, Jason, welcome. I'm just so pleased that you've made time for us to be able to speak. Perhaps the most logical place to start might be to ask you about, can you tell us about your new position? 

Jason: Absolutely. And thank you, José, for inviting me to be a guest on this. And thanks to Reed Smith for hosting. I think it's a great program that you guys have. Getting the word out about arbitration across the world and in the United States is one of the main focuses actually of my new position. I've been in the job now for about four months, Director of Legal Affairs. We have USCIB is a wide ranging business organization that represents the interests interests of our members in many different international organizations, UN, OECD, IOE, and the ICC. And one of our many components of certain policy areas and issue areas is arbitration. We serve as the U.S. National Committee for Arbitration at the ICC. We constitute and we lead the U.S. delegation to the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. We have a nominations Nations Commission, which responds to requests from the Secretariat of the ICC when there is a need for an institutional appointment for arbitrators in pending ICC cases. They come to us with requests to end arbitrators in cases where there's a connection to the U.S. They're either looking for a U.S. National arbitrator or a U.S.-based arbitrator. We also intervene as as amicus curiae in pending litigation in the United States when there is an important arbitration-related issue, often related to either the Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention. Sometimes it's about evidence and discovery, those sorts of things. So it's a really fantastic opportunity that I've just started to enjoy, especially in terms of getting a little bit out of the trenches of litigation and arbitration, which is what I was doing for many years, and to have more of a kind of overview opportunity to be able to interact in a thought leadership way and a professional relations way with many of the practitioners in our field. And so it's been a really rewarding few months and I can't wait to continue in it over the coming months and years. 

José: I did not realize the whole range of activities of the USCIB. I mean, there's so much that we could talk about. And I want to go back for a second. So I understand the response. And we're going to talk about arbitration and the USCIB's role in arbitration and so on and its vision. But I wanted to ask you in particular. What does your job entail? In other words, what is the responsibilities that you have? 

Jason: So as director of legal affairs and general counsel, I am essentially the director of the arbitration committee, which I was just referring to. And I work side by side with Peter Sherwin, who is the chair of our arbitration committee. And we have, I think now 18 different subcommittees within this committee that it's a lot of plates to keep spinning. We have co-chairs from law firms around the United States and sole practitioners as well that run these various subcommittees that involve programming for events across the United States as well as abroad by our expat subcommittee, as well as looking at issue areas. J.P. Duffy from Reed Smith actually is one of the co-chairs of our new life sciences task force. And so we have a lot of different issue areas that we're tackling as a committee, and it's my job to help guide and direct that process across the different committees. I'm also the contact person when we receive these nominations requests, and also responsible for organizing the ICC commission on arbitration. But I have other issue areas that I I handle as well beyond arbitration. I serve as general counsel, so I do those types of general counsel tasks that one would expect in any organization. And I also handle the intellectual property portfolio. So we have member organizations and member businesses who are very focused on international intellectual property policy. And so that's also an area that I have responsibility for. 

José: In other words, your responsibility includes not just arbitration, but all of the other aspects of international business that would be of concern to the business community? 

Jason: That's right. That's right. We have another good example is within our trade portfolio, we have a focus on investor state issues. And so there is an aspect to that where we're working with UNIDOI and the ICC World Business Institute for a project that they're handling on international investment contracts. That's another area of current study. I think as bilateral and multilateral investment treaties begin to reduce the opportunities or narrow the opportunities to bring claims directly against states, it doesn't mean those disputes are going to go away. They're just going to probably happen in some other format. And I think that international investment contracts will probably be more often the recourse that we begin to see in cases where an investment has gone in a direction that was unexpected. 

José: Very, very interesting. That could be a topic of a podcast in and of itself. 

Jason: Absolutely. 

José: But we'll keep this one sort of at a more macro level. Jason, what is your, if there's a difference, I'll ask you about the USCIB perspective and your personal perspective, but they have the sense that they're likely as overlap. What is your sense of international arbitration, of course, looking towards the future? I mean, how do you see this? It's a very general question, but there's just so many aspects of, well, and you've given us a perfect example, investor state arbitration, gee, is it going to evolve and so on, or how is it evolving? On that sort of macro level, if you had to say, what are you know, what are the three most important trends or developments that you see headed towards a future international arbitration from the perspective of the business community? What do you think they would be? 

Jason: Well, I think there is certainly an expansion in specific subject matter areas and industries. I think we're seeing much more frequent use of international arbitration in the technology sector, which wasn't really the case 10 or 15 years ago. And I think that is certainly going to expand. There's a lot more energy, I think, coming from the arbitration community in California, where a lot of multinational technology companies are based and also where they are incubated in garages from the beginning. And so I think that, you know, leading up to the, you know, maybe within the past 10 years, it was more common to see companies, especially larger companies, using local courts and federal courts as their dispute resolution provisions because they had the negotiating leveraging contracts, international contracts, and they would push for that. And I think that sometimes, at some point, there was a dawning realization that winning in court on your home turf in an international case can be a bit of a pyrrhic victory because then you have to go and force that judgment. And if there aren't assets or very many assets here in the US, it starts to to get complicated and the U.S. doesn't have any arrangements or treaties with other countries to enforce those judgments abroad. So I think there's been a growing realization that. International arbitration is really the way to go for international disputes, especially because of that enforcement capability under the New York Convention. I mean, if you win an arbitration in Santa Clara County in California, and it's an international arbitration under the New York Convention, you can enforce that against assets in over 170 countries, you know, that are based on reciprocal enforcement under that convention. So I think that that's one trend that is going to continue happening, and we'll be seeing more of those cases in the future alongside the very traditional sectors that we've been seeing all along, like energy, construction, infrastructure, those sorts of things. Another thing I think that is happening is within the United States, I think, and this is something that I'm hoping to encourage in whatever way I can, that international arbitration, will be seen as more of a separate practice area. I think that the United States is a little bit different from what I've seen in Europe, for example, where international arbitration is treated a little bit more like a specialization. And here in the US, I think there are a lot of litigators who might get a case from a client that is an international arbitration case, and they'll just take it and run with it. And sometimes if they're going against a firm that is specialized or some attorneys who are specialized in this area, they might get outmaneuvered in certain areas, either in the arbitral nomination process, or it could be, not grasping the important differences in the way that document disclosure works or the way that you build a case, primarily your case in chief going in on paper, those kinds of things. I think that that's starting to change in the US. It's just been a little bit slower. And I'm looking forward to that happening because I think it's going to be good for the practice area, for the attorneys attorneys who are focusing on this area. And I think it's going to be good for clients and the companies that are using this dispute resolution technique. 

José: You know, that's very interesting, and it very much resonates with me. I'll tell you two quick points. Basically, sort of the idea is you have excellent, excellent litigators, of course, and one of the challenges that they face is coming, if they're new to the world of international arbitration, is, as you point out, is that there are some nuances and specific requirements for international arbitration, and one firm can gain an advantage over the other. I sat as chair in a tribunal, and it was interesting because both excellent firms on each side, but by and large, made up of domestic litigators. And they got around the challenge by stipulating that the arbitration would proceed in accordance with the federal rules of civil procedure. So it turned out to be basically a mini U.S. courtroom trial with objections to evidence and all things that go along with it. So I thought that was a very, very interesting way for them to deal with that challenge. And the other part is that I so believe in your point about, look, as time goes by, there is just a need for, quote, more specialization. And I think particularly as clients become and all have become more and more sophisticated and attuned to international arbitration, I think that specialization is very key. I will tell you that when I, as you know, I founded a boutique on international arbitration back in the year 2000. And really what one of the things that drove me to that was my complete conviction that that was the direction that this was going. I had originally started out as a US courtroom litigator, but I saw what was happening in international arbitration and really believed on the idea of, you know, it's becoming a specialized practice. And when we founded the firm, my point is that the tagline of the firm was the power of focus. In other words, we were focused on that. And I think that clients responded to that. So I think you are 100% on the money that this is going to continue to happen. 

Jason: I think that example you gave is a really good one because it does demonstrate that arbitrations are ultimately customizable however the parties want. And if they feel more comfortable having a federal court style arbitration that is using kind of, you know, full discovery techniques, you know, depositions, all that sort of thing, then that's perfectly fine. And they can absolutely do that if they want. And by contrast, if you have a situation, I had one case where we were opposite a, you know, large, global, very reputable firm, but litigators who were primarily federal and state court commercial litigators. And we were fighting over the scope of discovery or disclosure in this case. And we were making reference to the IBA guidelines on the taking of evidence. And this was a completely new concept for them. And. By and large, two of the three were more internationally minded. They accepted the guidelines, the applicability of the guidelines. And so I think that that was a surprise to them. 

José: Absolutely. Your message definitely resonates, no question. Let me ask you, because you're based in New York. I know really you operate throughout and much beyond New York, but I understand you're based in New York. And one of the realities of the international arbitration space is that there are seats that are actively competing with each other to try to attract more international arbitration work. What is your view on that and the way that you see seats evolving and so on? Do you have any thoughts? 

Jason: Yeah. I mean, I think at, you know, at USCIB, we definitely are advocates for arbitrations being seated in the United States. You know, we have a strong, capable judiciary that, you know, especially on the federal side is familiar with both the Federal Arbitration Act and the New York Convention's applicability. And I think we have a lot of solid protections for Hardees when they decide to have their arbitrations in the United States. We're agnostic as to the cities that they choose. I think that the statistics show that New York continues to be the most common seat for arbitrations, international arbitrations, in the United States. However, there are many other locations that are popular, And sometimes it depends on the industry or the type of dispute. As you know, having been based in Miami for a long time, Miami is a huge center for international arbitration, especially related to Latin American disputes and disputes that are heard in Spanish in many cases as well. And the ICC conference that happens every November or December at the end of each year in Miami has become one of the sort of marquee events for the Americas, North and South America, for arbitration, especially related to Latin America. I also think that you see more arbitral seats being selected in California, San Francisco in particular. And that, I think, goes back to this trend that I was identifying earlier with technology companies. Putting arbitration clauses in their international commercial contracts more frequently, life sciences companies as well. And we also have a lot of activity in Texas, in the Midwest, in Chicago. I think that we're moving towards a trend of having more seats and a more diverse set of seats within the United States. And I think that that's a good thing because it can build on the strengths of the international arbitration bar across the country, not only in select cities that have traditionally hosted the majority of them. 

José: Interesting. And it's always interesting, you talked about sort of industry-centric seats and so on. And so that would be a topic in and of itself, but there's so much more for us to cover. And in particular, I wanted to talk to you about some of your practice experience. But before we switch, I'm going to ask, what I think is on the front of many, many people's mind, and that is, what is your sense of the impact that artificial intelligence is going to have on international arbitration? 

Jason: Yeah, it's definitely the question of the day. I think almost every conference also has a panel on this. It's a frequent topic of discussion. I think the things that I've heard the most, which I'm not going to really rehash, are there's a lot of talk about making discovery and document review and that sort of thing more efficient, being able to process more information quickly without having to rely on human labor, which is one of the big cost drivers in our industry. Industry, you know, creating timelines, that sort of thing. And then there's also a lot of talk about the risks of relying too heavily on AI, you know, asking it to write submissions, and then it, you know, it invents and quotes from fictitious cases and that sort of thing. You know, we've all talked about that case in New York where this happened, and there were sanctions for the attorneys. But I think that there are other interesting things that are going to happen as well as time goes on. I think that not only for international arbitration, but for business dispute resolution in general, I think it's going to change a little bit the nature of the evidence that we rely on. I mean, I think that one of the main issues in many cases is establishing knowledge or intent. And the holy grail for that for the past decade or more has been looking at people's emails and trying to figure out what they received and what they said at a given time. But now you can get your emails summarized by AI. You can have your emails written by AI. And so. I think that we could end up in a position where it's going to be more credible when people say, I didn't see that, or I didn't even write that. And if that's true, then we may see an evolution in the sort of the value of certain types of evidence that we've been relying on for a long time. It's hard to say where that's going to go. But you know, if you can send an AI like to a virtual meeting, as you can now, and get a report, they could say, I didn't hear that person say that because my AI didn't report it to me. And so these, I think, are going to change the way that arguments are made and the way that evidence is collected. The other issue, I think, is that it makes, I think it's going to make us have to reflect a little bit more on some of the kind of pathologies of our systems of dispute resolution, especially in the United States, where we have this heavy reliance on very broad discovery, I think. And we did a panel on this, actually at Salesforce headquarters back in April, along with my colleagues from the ICC business development side of things, Marek Krasula and Abbey Hawthorne. This was a really interesting panel. I was moderating this panel, and a lot of the panelists were talking about how the AI could just end up amplifying what we're already doing, in a sense, by saying, now. If we have more processing power, and we don't have to, you know, have people looking at all of this information, then let's collect more, let's get more data. And let's, let's do broader discovery. And if we don't think about how AI interacts with the system that we have, I think it may not actually be a problem solver, it's just going to be a sort of a tool that that augments, you know, what we're already doing. And it may not, you know, that the data collection may just grow to fit the capacity instead of thinking more critically about how we might make this process more efficient. 

José: Very, very interesting. Again, there's so much we could talk about, but before transitioning, let me pick up on something you said in the ability of AI to summarize. I mean, one of the things, particularly in things like investor state, but obviously private, big private commercial cases as well, that takes place when you're writing an award is, of course, this detailed procedural history about, you know, the case. What is your or the USCIB’s or the ICC's view on the advisability proprietary, propriety of having AI do the procedural summary? 

Jason: I mean, it's complicated, and we haven't issued any official views or guidance on this issue. But it is something that I've seen, again, come up many times in conferences. It's a source of anxiety for people, I think, because I think that ultimately, arbitrators and decision makers have to be responsible for what goes into an award. And I think the challenge is trying to manage situations where AI could take a leading role and actually kind of, instead of executing the will of the decision maker, it ends up guiding the decision maker in a way that would make us uncomfortable, I think. And so there's a real tension there. And I don't think I have a good answer for it right now, but I think we all can agree that having an AI drafting awards is a real problem. And that even when it comes down to something that people consider a little bit more rote in terms of summarizing what the parties have said and what the procedural timeline has been, it could be helpful, but we've got to be careful. 

José: There's no question. I agree. I'll give you a thought, and that is I spoke at New York Arbitration Week, gave a speech actually on, I won't call it AI, I called it really computer technology because AI is such a laden word right now with lots of baggage. But proposed essentially that computer technology can help us to overcome some of the flaws in our thinking. You know, I've spoken a lot about cognitive biases and how basically given examples of how arbitrators and their thinking are subject to anchoring and hindsight bias and the story model and so on. And I posited that computer technology can help us to overcome some of those flaws in our thinking and actually gave some cognitive tests, if you would. I mean, people can't see it, but I'm doing air quotes to ChatGPT and Bard and showed how they did not fall victim to these cognitive tests that when given to, I'll call it humans, you know, they were prone on, generally speaking, et cetera, to flaws in the reasoning. So I think it is just a hugely important area that I think really could help improve the output of the arbitral process. But again, the subject of a whole nother podcast in and of itself. Wow. But I'd like to switch really to another aspect of our conversation that to me was also very interesting. And then that really comes from your background. As I mentioned at the outset, you went to Yale for college and law school, you have a degree from Oxford and you're admitted to practice in the US and UK and taught in France and so on. How did you wind up with such a varied trajectory? 

Jason: Well, I think there are a lot of reasons, but I think one in particular was, studying in law school with Michael Reisman, who was one of my mentors during law school. I took every class that was available from him at the time. And I think that the unique. Aspect to both his career trajectory and his kind of philosophy of international law was that this sort of distinction between public and private international law categories can be sometimes a bit of an artificial distinction, and that really the systems and structures of international law across all of their various forms and iterations have this sort of collective contribution to world public order. And it created the possibility, at least in my mind, that it would be possible to have an international law career that touched on different areas of practice. And when I started, I did a clerkship in New York and then moved to London to work in the WilmerHale International Arbitration Practice Group. That was a thrilling place to start and get very in-depth exposure to different aspects of international arbitration in different industries. But I also knew that it would be at least possible to aspire to the types of international legal practice that would involve more public organizations and that could address the sorts of cases that are handled in the Hague. And that's ultimately, as I was becoming a more experienced attorney, I did begin to have this desire to work on these types of cases to potentially have the opportunity to work alongside people seeking accountability for some of the worst atrocities that have been perpetrated in the latter half of the 20th century. And that became a focus of mine. And I think it was. Facilitated in some ways by the significant overlap in the trial procedures of international criminal tribunals as compared to international arbitration tribunals. I mean, obviously the subject matter is very different, but the procedures themselves have a lot of overlap. I mean, at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the ICTY, which is where I ended up working, a lot of the case in chief for the prosecution, as well as the defense, goes in in the form of witness statements and annexed evidence. Much in the way that you would see in a typical international arbitration. And I think that's something that is inherited from certain civil law jurisdictions, as well as some common law jurisdictions as well. And then the sort of the predominant part of a witness's appearance in court ends up being cross-examination, which then comes to a certain extent more from the common law system. And those, I think those overlaps made it a smoother than one would expect transition to go from the practice of international arbitration to the practice of international criminal and international humanitarian law. And so that was kind of the sort of driving force for me. And I think I really relished the opportunity to have a real kind of induction into the trial attorney experience of spending a lot of time in court, doing a lot of witness work in The Hague. I think that was something that happened less frequently, especially as a junior attorney in a private law firm. And so having that opportunity was really invaluable, especially with challenging witnesses, often with simultaneous interpretation. That was a huge experience for me and for my career and just for learning to be a lawyer who could operate in court in those types of cases. 

José: That is such a great point. I do think as the practice of law has evolved, obviously I started practicing a long time ago. As the practice evolved, I found that it was more and more difficult for the non-senior lawyers, called the young lawyers, if you would, to get the type of hands-on experience on cross-examination, on opening, on closing, and so on, that I, and I'll call it my generation, had been able to, I'm talking now American lawyers, my generation had been able to do at the outset. As I mentioned, I started out as a regular American courtroom litigator and was able to do live fire early on. That really experienced for me very, very well once I transitioned into the world of international arbitration. But to make very clear, I'm not contradicting what I had said earlier, which was, look, You can't simply, I believe that if you're purely a litigator that you can't just parachute into international arbitration and say, okay, I'm here, I can do it. But my point is that there are skills that you develop as a regular, I'll call it courtroom litigator that I think apply very well into an international arbitration context. I think that was a very smart career move on your part to try to get that frontline hands-on experience. 

Jason: Yeah, and I get it. I mean, if clients, you know, if clients are hiring José Astigarraga to represent them in an international arbitration, it might be a harder sell to say, let's let this 50-year associate, you know, cross-examine this witness in a hearing. They might say, well, you know, let's have the guy who's done this, you know, 20 or 50 or 100 times. And so that's something where I think it's sometimes challenging, even when the senior partner on a case really wants to give those opportunities to a junior person. Sometimes it's just, it's hard to make it happen. And so I think that it's nice to try to get those opportunities when you can, because they're sometimes hard to come by. 

José: No question. It was interesting because I mentioned to you, I found them all at my own firm. We made it an effort to try to make sure that people got experience along the way. But there were times where I would say to the lawyers, look, you're good enough to win the case, but you're not good enough to lose it. And what I meant by that was very simply, if this case goes wrong, I've got to be able to say to the client, okay, I did it. In other words, it went wrong for these reasons as opposed to, well, why on earth did you trust this to somebody, blah, blah, blah, and so on. So it's definitely, it's a balance. But can you contrast a little bit of your experience in terms of being before a purely common law tribunal setting and now having to practice before a, I'll call it a mixed or even predominantly civil law tribunal? 

Jason: I think it's a really interesting question. Oftentimes, when I hear people discussing this or read about it, I think the first thing I see or hear relates to the difference between binding precedent versus not binding precedent and that sort of thing. And I'm not actually sure that that's really where the action is in terms of the distinction. I mean, you know, it is true that common law jurists may have a somewhat different relationship to the, you know, importance or binding nature of a prior decision that's on point. But even if it's not technically binding in a civil law setting, I do think that there I've never seen civil law jurists, you know, ignore persuasive on point authority from prior cases. They're just as interested as everyone in having a consistent application of law and vice versa. I mean, in the common law setting, if there are equitable circumstances that are really pushing in one direction. People will identify distinctions that will enable them to come up with a decision that is ultimately just, even if it might have certain tensions. You know, with prior cases. So I'm not so sure that that is a huge difference. I do think that the practice, the courtroom procedures end up being some of the most important differences in terms of what the expectations are, what a trial looks like. I think that- 

José: Can you give me an example? 

Jason: I think in common law or adversarial systems, there's more of a kind of background assumption that that you're going to be hearing from the witnesses, you know, telling their story, you know, a more robust direct examination that the trial that the trial or the hearing is really where the the story of the case is told and you hear it primarily from the from the witnesses mouths as they're on the stand. And in the civil law system, that's really not the way it's done. A lot of this evidence is put in on paper. And then the questioning of the witnesses in many countries is led by the decision maker, led by the judge. And so you have a much more active panel of jurists. And I certainly found that was true in The Hague. We had in one of my trials, the prosecution of Rakom Latic, we had a predominantly civil law judging panel for that case. And it was a real change for me in terms of having to adapt to a more interventionist panel with questions, especially when I was in the habit of structuring cross-examinations very rigorously with many kind of narrow questions, closing off escape escape routes for different for different points, and then and then sort of culminating in some final questions and moving on. And they were, you know, sometimes kind of elaborate and you would be going through these questions and you'd see the light bulb go off with one of the judges and then it was over. I mean, they would jump in with a question that would take it off the rails or indicate where things were going or provide an opportunity to explain something in a way that maybe wasn't what you were going for. And so it was getting used to and adapting to that kind of situation and thinking about how can I get the most useful answers out early before we start getting the involvement of the panel was kind of important lesson to learn. And I think that I haven't seen as many international arbitration tribunals really get in like that at that extreme level, but it does happen. And I think that the moment you know that that is beginning to happen, it does, I think, help to be able to adjust on the fly and restructure in a way so that you're not just going through a long process ultimately to have everything just kind of fizzle. 

José: Well, Jason, again, what you've said just resonates with me. I have not done international criminal tribunal cases, but I, of course, have done international arbitration cases in very much mixed tribunals and purely civil tribunals and so on. And I have seen it where you're in the process of cross-examination and as you put it, you're sort of closing the escape badges for a witness that is not telling the truth and where the arbitrator basically says, okay, I get it. And then it starts in effect sort of intervening and it can allow a skillful witness to sort of undo and get away with, if you would, from the point that was trying to be made in cross-examination. So I've seen that, definitely. Just wondering what other thoughts, I've kept you so long, I didn't mean to do this, but it's been so interesting to speak with you. Do you have any other thoughts that you would want to share with our listeners in terms of of the, you know, the great tasks that you've got before you? And then as well, even in terms of some of the things that we've talked about on your career path. 

Jason: Well, I mean, I think that that's one thing that we're also looking at within the USCIB in the arbitration field is making sure that we are getting the message out as broadly and widely as we can about this practice area, which is an area that I think is, you know, one of the most rewarding ways to spend a career in the law in terms of working with colleagues who often have really varied experiences from different parts of the world, different legal traditions, you know, the kind of open-mindedness and collegiality that you see on this international level, I think is just very satisfying professionally and personally. And I think that it's because of the intellectual challenges that are involved in some of the complicated issues that come up in our area. It also brings a lot of intellectually curious people, which I really enjoy. So I want to make sure that we are letting people know that this is out there. I think that even at the law school level, it's not a course, international commercial arbitration. It's not a course that you find in every single law school. And there are a lot of people who will graduate without even knowing that this exists and they'll find out about it later. And I think that's something else I would like to change. I think it's going to help with increasing the diversity of our profession within the United States, creating a broader pipeline of talent that will ultimately become the future leaders of practice groups and the future arbitrators of these cases. And so that's another goal I have is looking for ways to encourage people to practice in this area and learn about it and think about it and write about it. I think that it's been very rewarding for me and I would like to see more people have the chance to do it. 

José: Well, that's fantastic, Jason. You know, there are so many, I think, more opportunities now as well. You know, sort of when I started out, the reality is that it was, you know, a fairly, you know, small group. So everything is relative, obviously, because we're talking about the world. But the point was, it wasn't, there weren't the opportunities for the under 40 arbitrators. Now there's even the very young arbitrators, you know, and things like this. And so there is opportunities for people to get involved. And, you know, it's be fantastic that you're going to do this work and sort of letting them know that, you know, the world is a roister in terms of the international arbitration world. So absolutely. Yeah. Wonderful. Well, just thank you so much for being generous with your time. I really enjoyed this conversation. Like I said, there's so much that we could talk about. And once you catch your breath and get settled, you know, I'd love to renew the conversation with you. 

Jason: Absolutely. I look forward to it, José. Thanks for having me. 

José: Well, thank you so much. And to our listeners, thank you for being with us. We look forward to seeing you at the next installment of Arbitral Insights. 

Outro: Arbitral Insights is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's global international arbitration practice, email arbitralinsights@reedsmith.com. To learn about the Reed Smith Arbitration Pricing Calculator, a first of its kind mobile app that forecasts the cost of arbitration around the world, search Arbitration Pricing Calculator on reedsmith.com or download for free through the Apple and Google Play app stores. You can find our podcast on podcast streaming platforms, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts at Reed Smith LLP. 

Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers. 

All rights reserved.

Transcript is auto-generated.