The London International Disputes Week (LIDW) 2025 Main Conference convened on 03-06-2025 at the QEII Centre in Westminster, bringing together global dispute resolution professionals to discuss the theme: “Innovation in Dispute Resolution: Navigating Global Risks.”
London International Disputes Week, a premier event bringing together legal professionals from around the world to discuss and shape the future of dispute resolution. LIDW 2025 runs from 2 to 6 June 2025, featuring a series of events focused on innovation and global challenges in the legal landscape.
Opening the LIDW 2025 Main Conference, Sarah Sackman KC MP, Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, reaffirmed the UK Government’s steadfast support for the legal sector, highlighting the crucial role of dispute resolution in economic growth, international collaboration, and legal innovation.
Session 1
The geopolitical and economic landscape and its impact on disputes
A distinguished panel, moderated by Campbell Jackson (EY), convened in London to discuss the geopolitical and economic landscapes influencing global disputes. The session featured insights from Christopher Adebayo Ojo, Senior Advocate of Nigeria at Bayo Ojo & Co, Cherie Blair CBE KC, Founder and Chair of Omnia Strategy LLP, and Dr. Nigel Gould-Davies, Senior Fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The discussion covered four distinct yet interconnected topics, each pivotal to understanding the evolving dynamics of international law, politics, and economics. The panelists aimed to explore significant geopolitical shifts and analyze both global and regional perspectives.
Global Realignment and Political Shifts
The panel opened with an analysis of global realignment and how recent events had fundamentally altered the global order. The conversation touched on how the world was facing new challenges and power shifts, particularly with the rise of nationalism, populism, and conservatism.
The discussion emphasised that the changing global landscape was not only a matter of politics but also had profound legal and economic ramifications. The shift in political attitudes, particularly in Western countries, had created a more unpredictable international environment. The panelists discussed how geopolitical instability could be attributed to the growing tension between states’ national interests and international cooperation.
The legal implications of this shifting political landscape were also explored, with panelists highlighting the need for clearer frameworks to address new uncertainties. They raised questions about how legal institutions would adapt to this changing reality. The panel concluded by considering the future trajectory of global cooperation and the delicate balance between national sovereignty and international governance.
International Law and Arbitration: The Role of Courts and Arbitrators
The panel shifted its focus to international arbitration and its evolving role in global legal systems. One of the key discussions centered around the question: What should arbitrators do when fraud or corruption is suspected but not formally pleaded? This issue became especially pertinent in the context of international trade and investment disputes, where the stakes are often high.
The panelists discussed how arbitral tribunals were increasingly tasked with navigating complex cases involving suspected fraud or corruption. However, when such allegations were not formally brought to the table, arbitrators had to decide whether to investigate further, and if so, how to balance the procedural integrity of the arbitration process with the ethical responsibility to uncover fraudulent activities.
The role of courts in supporting or restraining arbitrators’ decisions in these scenarios was also critically examined. Panelists highlighted several real-life examples, including a recent case involving one of the poorest countries, where a significant legal battle had unfolded due to allegations of fraudulent conduct. They discussed how this case illustrated the complexity of legal actions taken in such circumstances, particularly the high costs and potential political ramifications of challenging arbitration awards in court
Global Law and National Sovereignty: The Intersection of Business, Law, and Ethics
In the final segment, the panel explored the intersection of business, law, and ethics in a world where nationalism and legal protections often collide. The panelists discussed the critical issue of investor protection and state sovereignty, and how this balance was increasingly tested in an environment that was both globalized and nationalist.
The conversation delved into the role of multinational corporations and their ability to navigate foreign legal systems, focusing on cases where the rules of international law were bent or ignored in favor of national interests. They also examined how state sovereignty was being prioritized, even at the expense of global economic stability and human rights protections.
The panelists also discussed the rise of social resistance movements, where legal systems in various countries were challenged by groups seeking greater protections for human rights and environmental concerns. In the context of foreign investment, the debate continued on whether businesses could trust national legal frameworks to uphold their rights or if these protections would continue to be eroded by growing nationalist policies.
In conclusion, the panel highlighted the unpredictability of the current global political and legal environment, where the traditional rules of international relations were being tested by rising nationalism, economic protectionism, and shifting legal frameworks. As the global order continued to evolve, panelists agreed that legal systems and international institutions must find ways to adapt to new realities while balancing the competing demands of national sovereignty and international cooperation.
The session provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of global governance, the legal complexities surrounding international disputes, and the role of law in navigating shifting political landscapes. The conversation underscored the need for both clarity and adaptability in a world increasingly defined by unpredictable change.
Session 2
Fireside Chat
James Besley, Co-Head of Legal at Google DeepMind, engaged in a conversation with Gregory Mostyn, CEO of AI dispute resolution platform Wexler.
What are our responsibilities as dispute resolution practitioners?
Moderated by Rt. Hon Alex Chalk KC, Partner (Global Disputes) at Jones Day, the session tackled the legal profession’s ethical balancing act—how to reconcile conflicting duties and whether conscientious objection to certain clients or cases is justified.
Panelists included:
- James E. Castello, Independent Arbitrator, Arbitration Chambers, Paris
- Hana Abas, Barrister, Cloisters Chambers
- Adele Falconer, General Counsel EMEA, Christie’s
-
Professor Joan Loughrey, Head of the School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast
Framing the session, Rt. Hon Alex Chalk KC opened with a dual-focus:
He proposed to discuss the ethical obligations—or otherwise—that arise when taking on instructions and then explore the issues that emerge once representation has begun, particularly for in-house lawyers and within structured systems.
He pressed panelists to explore whether conscientious objection to clients, especially well-resourced or controversial ones, was justifiable within a legal system built on access to justice and professional neutrality.
Professor Loughrey traced the origins of the cab-rank rule and its justification, emphasizing its criminal defence context:
She voiced that the idea that lawyers are not responsible for what they do on a client’s behalf stems from the conception of the criminal defence lawyer—where liberty, reputation, and even life are at stake. However, she argued that this rationale does not translate easily into other areas.
She challenged the notion that professional obligations should override all moral judgments. Outside the context of criminal justice, lawyers are responsible for the choices they make.
Barrister Hana Abas addressed the issue from the perspective of younger legal professionals and employment law. She asserted that there’s a growing awareness of the tension between professional obligations and personal convictions, but this isn’t necessarily new. The power and relevance of the cab-rank rule has always varied across contexts. She emphasised the legal protection of moral beliefs in the workplace. The cab rank rule applies strictly to barristers, but in solicitors’ context, the situation is more nuanced, she viewed.
She stated that, “what we’re getting at in terms of the grey area, I don’t think that’s particularly compatible with the absolute nature of the cab rank rule”. Further, she underscored that th Equality Act effectively transposes Article 9 (ECHR) into employment, raising complexities in solicitor employment.
Adding to the conversation a perspective as an in-house counsel, Adele Falconer asserted that the in-house lawyers face additional complexity: various hats, fewer protections, and often not fully qualified under UK rules. She voiced her opinion, saying that “You just don’t have the luxury of in-house … of making binary decisions.”
Emphasising the importance of internal structures and legal voices at the strategic level, she opined that-
“If you think of the work coming through as a funnel … someone in legal needs a voice at the table.”
James E. Castello addressed that international arbitration does not have formal “cab rank”-style obligations. Ethical objections in arbitration often arise only in extreme cases (e.g., sanctions). He expressed concern over lawyer-client identity conflation, particularly in high-profile geopolitical cases (e.g., Russia/Iran). He reflected that the executive orders in the U.S. threaten law firms’ ability to operate and said, “Orders say lawyers can’t enter federal buildings or interact with federal employees.”
To which firms responded using First Amendment arguments—free speech and right to petition. It was argued that “Advocacy for clients has been treated as protected speech … becomes the law firm’s own speech.”
Concluding the conversation, Rt. Hon Alex Chalk KC posed a question- What is more important … professional detachment or the nature and quality of the clients?”
Giving insight, Hana said- “More and more young people going into law … want to know if there’s some legal protection … if they don’t want to work for a company”. She added that it does not reflect that, that’s more important to people entering the profession than their overriding sense of professional obligation and need to act independently on behalf of their clients, but people are anxious about the potential conflict.
Session 3
Building the dispute resolution practice of the future
This session examined how artificial intelligence, evolving client demands, and alternative business models are reshaping the legal landscape. William Peake, Global Managing Partner at Harneys, moderated the discussion, joined by:
- Andrew Austin, Partner and Head of London Dispute Resolution, Freshfields
- Greg Harman, Managing Director, BRG
- Natasha Harrison, Founder and Managing Partner, Pallas Partners LLP
- Fiona Meany, Global Head of Litigation, JLL
-
Lorraine Medcraft, Vice President of Court Reporting Sales, Epiq
The Panel discussion commenced with a warm welcome to the attendees, setting the stage for an engagaing schnage of insights. William Peake opened the conversation by inviting Natasha Harrison to outline her vision of what a successful student resolution would look like in 2025.
In response, Natasha shared her vision of a successful student resolution in 2025, emphasising a people-oriented and personalized approach. She explained that in today’s legal landscape, particularly in scientific and commercial contexts, clients, especially scientists, do not necessarily choose a law firm based on name alone. Instead, they seek out trusted advisers, individuals who understand their commercial goals and provide tailored guidance.
Natasha highlighted that not every legal professional will have the opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court or make changes in the law. She said “The type of law most people practise here is not going to be cookie-cutter. It’s going to be nuanced and importantly, rarely try judging it. It’s not just facts; it’s judgments and solutions which serve clients’ best interests”.
Next, William Peake turned to Lorraine Medcraft, steering the discussion toward the role of co-operative technology and recent developments in the field. He remarked that, given the theme of the session, many might have expected a strong focus on technology, particularly as it continues to dominate client conversations. He posed the question to Lorraine: What are you seeing in terms of technological developments and client expectations around them?
In response, Lorraine described the discussion on co-operative technology as highly timely and relevant. She noted that it is an exciting moment to be at the forefront of technological innovation, particularly given the rapid pace at which advancements are occurring.
Lorraine highlighted the growing role of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution, particularly in tasks such as document classification, identification, summarisation, and analysis. These tools, she asserted, are not just improving efficiency, but are poised to transform how future legal practitioners work.
However, she stressed the critical importance of emotional intelligence in parallel with technological tools. While AI can enhance productivity and streamline processes, it cannot replace the human understanding required in legal disputes, which are often emotional, stressful, and resource-intensive experiences for clients. She emphasised that clients do not select lawyers solely based on qualifications or experience but also on their ability to offer empathy, support, and practical guidance through complex legal challenges.
Lorraine further observed that clients expect efficiency and cost-effectiveness through the use of technology, but they also want their outside counsel to understand their specific needs and motivations. She noted that the integration of emotional intelligence with technology is vital, not only in handling disputes but also in the new business generation. Without understanding client drivers and building meaningful relationships, there can be no sustainable dispute resolution practice in the future.
William Peake turned the conversation back to Greg Harman, reflecting on the ongoing discussions around artificial intelligence. He then pivoted to Greg’s extensive experience, asking him to share his reflections on automation in the legal space, particularly in light of his own history of being advised by lawyer, especially during witness testimonies. William also noted how AI is often discussed in a somewhat clumsy or oversimplified manner in public forums and asked Greg, “What does it mean to you, and how do you grapple with it in your work?”
Greg responded with a thoughtful reflection on the realities and limitations of AI in the legal and expert advisory context. He began by clarifying that much of what is popularly referred to as AI, particularly large language models is often misunderstood. “These models,” he explained, “are not sentient beings. They are essentially sophisticated predictive tools, similar to advanced auto-complete systems that generate text based on vast datasets.”
He noted that AI is highly effective in specific tasks, such as document summarisation, text generation, and even coding, where there is a clear right or wrong answer. However, he cautioned that it is not a calculator, AI can struggle with simple numerical accuracy and often fails at complex, nuanced legal or expert questions.
A key concern he raised was trust and verification. In expert work, particularly in court settings, the credibility of analysis is paramount. If AI gives one answer and a human expert gives another, the fundamental question becomes: “Which answer can be trusted, and why?” Greg emphasised that AI lacks transparency, it does not always indicate what data it prioritised, what it discarded, or whether its sources were credible. These are crucial issues in legal settings where decisions must be defendable and reasoned.
He acknowledged that while newer models may improve, current AI still fabricates information when it cannot find an answer and does not self-learn after deployment. Therefore, outputs generated by AI should be treated similarly to a first draft by a junior lawyer: valuable, but always subject to human review, interpretation, and context.
In conclusion, Greg asserted that while AI is a useful tool for efficiency and scale, the role of expert judgment and human oversight remains critical, particularly when dealing with the kinds of complex, novel questions that clients bring to legal and advisory professionals.
William Peake then turned to Fiona Meany, representing the client perspective, and invited her to share her reflections. Acknowledging that much of the discussion had focused on legal service delivery and the use of AI, he playfully suggested that Fiona might have been “eye-rolling” at some of the points raised.
He asked her, as someone who works closely with and independently evaluates a range of service providers, what might have been missed in the conversation so far, and what clients like her are truly looking for in terms of legal advice and support.
Fiona responded with thoughtful clarity, highlighting that while the pace of technological change is undeniably fast, the greater concern lies in what might be lost in the rush to adopt it.
She stressed that the client-adviser relationship remains fundamentally human, and that judgment, intuition, and experience are irreplaceable qualities that must be preserved.
“The client-employer relationship is fundamentally a human relationship. It’s that human judgment piece that is so important to retain. That ability to synthesise intuition, (experience, expertise is irreplaceable, absolutely irreplaceable” – Fiona Meany
Reflecting on her own experience as a client, Fiona shared her top three tips for the future, noting they likely would have been the same five years ago and will remain relevant five years from now:
- Don’t over-engineer.
- Avoid expertise dilution.
-
Prioritise communication.
In summary, Fiona called for a balanced approach, embracing the efficiency and speed of new technologies, but anchoring legal and advisory services in trusted relationships, clarity of thought, and the irreplaceable human touch.
William Peake directed a question to Andrew Austin, asking him to discuss the unique challenges he faces while working in remote areas. He inquired whether operating in such environments made things more challenging, or if it was actually an advantage. Specifically, he wanted to know if the lack of external monitoring and the opportunity for uninterrupted focus helped Andrew become more productive. William also probed whether being in a remote location made it easier for Andrew to concentrate on his work, without the distractions that might come from a more urban or monitored setting.
Andrew’s response highlighted the mixed advantages and challenges of remote work in legal and expert contexts, particularly drawing from his experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. He acknowledged that while working remotely can eliminate the urgency and awkwardness of in-person meetings, it also comes with significant downsides. Remote settings, he noted, don’t allow for these immediate, intuitive adjustments, which can sometimes lead to misunderstandings or missed opportunities to clarify.
While acknowledging that remote hearings may have some utility in less formal or administrative phases of litigation, Andrew argued that high-stakes litigation benefits from the more dynamic environment of an in-person court. In such cases, he believes that the immediate, nuanced feedback provided by physical presence is invaluable. However, he recognized that remote tools can certainly help in more cost-effective or logistical parts of the litigation process, such as during preliminary meetings or status updates.
The session closed with a call for a more thoughtful integration of technology in legal practice, underscoring the need to adapt without losing sight of what makes client relationships and legal advice truly effective.
Pro Bono, Access to Justice, and the Rule of Law
In a dedicated session on legal ethics and social equity, Sharif A. Shivji KC (4 Stone Buildings) and Richard Jeens, Partner at Slaughter and May, led an impassioned discussion on the role of Pro Bono, Access to Justice, and the Rule of Law.
Navigating supply chain disputes and risk
Moderated by Jeremy Wilson, Partner and Co-Chair of International Arbitration and Disputes at Covington & Burling, offered a cross-sectoral analysis of today’s complex global trade challenges. He was joined by:
- Mr Justice Henshaw, Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court of England & Wales
- Richard Indge, Senior Managing Director, Ankura
- Natasha McCarthy, Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
-
Marc Merrill, General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer, Uniper SE
The session on “Navigating Supply Chain Disputes and Risk” kicked off with Jeremy setting the stage for an in-depth discussion on the evolving challenges facing global supply chains.
During the session, Jeremy Wilson asked Mark Merril to highlight some of the key risks and challenges that had been facing their supply chains. He inquired about how these issues were impacting both the company’s operations and the broader energy industry.
In his response, Mark discussed the growing complexity and unpredictability of global supply chains, emphasising how recent global shocks have significantly impacted the energy sector. He began by noting that while supply chains have always been vulnerable to risks like pandemics, natural disasters, and geopolitical tensions, the speed and scale of changes in today’s interconnected world have introduced new challenges. Mark pointed to the dramatic disruption caused by COVID-19, which forced a reevaluation of traditional risk management strategies, including the shift from just-in-time to just-in-case models, and the move toward on-shoring and friend-shoring.
Finally, Mark touched on the role of his legal department in mitigating the risk from sanctions and other compliance challenges. He explained that keeping up with changing regulations, such as the ongoing EU sanctions against Russia, requires constant vigilance and effective dispute resolution strategies, particularly when counterparties are unable or unwilling to exit relationships due to local laws.
Mark concluded by underscoring the importance of risk management and compliance, stating that, despite the many challenges, the legal department is essential in protecting the business, ensuring successful operations, and navigating the increasingly complex global supply chain landscape.
The discussion shifted as Jeremy asked Richard Indge to share his perspective from the viewpoint of an expert advising clients on navigating the complexities of modern supply chains.
“Richard, in your role as an expert working with various clients, what are some of the most pressing issues and risks that you’re currently observing in supply chains? Furthermore, what best practices are you seeing your clients adopt to manage these challenges and ensure resilience in their operations?”
Richard provided a comprehensive response, shedding light on the evolving issues and challenges he’s observing in supply chain management, especially from a dispute and risk perspective.
When it comes to M&A disputes, Richard reported that supply chain issues arising from disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic are a primary source of conflict. Many M&A disputes have stemmed from the cash flow problems that businesses experienced during the pandemic, which continue to have a ripple effect on post-acquisition operations
Richard concluded by sharing some best practices his team has been advocating for in the context of supply chain issues. One key recommendation is to place greater emphasis on due diligence during M&A deals, specifically focusing on understanding and identifying supply chain vulnerabilities. Richard noted that, as supply chain disruptions become more frequent and severe, businesses are realizing the importance of anticipating potential risks during deal-making processes. Although he acknowledged that legal teams are best positioned to draft stronger contractual clauses, he emphasised that companies should increasingly focus on supply chain risk assessments as part of their due diligence efforts.
Continuing the discussion, Jeremy turned to Justice Henshaw, asking, “In your role as the judge overseeing the Commercial Court, what key trends are you currently observing in supply chain-related disputes being litigated before the English courts? Are there any specific lessons or insights from recent cases that you could share with our audience?”
Justice Henshaw began by highlighting the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on supply chain disputes, noting that while the cases have become less frequent, they continue to surface.
Turning to another shipping-related issue, Justice Henshaw mentioned the thorny issue of implied indemnity, particularly in cases involving shipbuilders. He then turned his attention to sanctions and their growing impact on supply chain-related disputes.
Another significant point he raised was a case where a buyer of Russian wheat negotiated a new contract at a lower price due to sanction-related payment difficulties. This situation, he noted, illustrated the commercial consequences of any uncertainty surrounding the impact of sanctions on existing contracts. In such cases, clarity in the contractual terms is paramount, particularly for parties involved in international trade and financial transactions. Finally, Justice Henshaw addressed a growing trend in disputes related to jurisdictional and arbitration clauses.
Jeremy continued the discussion by turning to Natasha McCarthy, seeking her perspective on how her firm is advising clients in the context of supply chain risks. He asked, “I’d like to hear from you on some of the key lessons learned over the past few years. How are you now approaching your advice to clients, especially in terms of helping them mitigate the growing risks in their supply chains?”
Natasha began by acknowledging the significance of the key themes discussed by her fellow speakers, particularly the importance of clearly drafted contractual provisions to allocate risks effectively and reduce the potential for disputes. She emphasised the growing relevance of well-crafted force majeure clauses in the context of geopolitical shocks, natural disasters, and unexpected disruptions to supply chains.
Natasha outlined that force majeure provisions, often considered boilerplate, should be tailored to reflect the specific commercial and geographical realities of each party involved.
Further, Natasha discussed how businesses facing supply chain challenges could include provisions for early notification from suppliers in case of potential delays, even before a formal force majeure event occurs. This would allow businesses to activate contingency plans in advance to mitigate any disruptions. Additionally, she raised the point about the evolving judicial perspective on reasonable endeavours in the context of force majeure clauses.
Natasha then shifted focus to other contractual clauses that businesses might consider to provide further protection in uncertain times. She highlighted the growing importance of price escalation, hardship, and material adverse change clauses in contracts, especially where external circumstances make performance more burdensome but do not meet the strict criteria of force majeure.
Finally, Natasha concluded by emphasising the necessity of regularly reviewing contracts, particularly in the context of fast-changing supply chains.
The session wrapped up with a call to action for continued vigilance, collaboration, and innovation in an increasingly interconnected and unpredictable world.
The LIDW 2025 Main Conference in conclusion served as a compelling convergence of legal minds, industry leaders, and global stakeholders, reflecting the critical role of dispute resolution in today’s rapidly evolving geopolitical and technological landscape.
