David Zaslowsky

September 29, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, say that with international arbitration frequently involving more complex, "big ticket," matters, parties and arbitrators alike need to be especially mindful of the potential that exists for disasters or bonanzas, depending on one's point of view. But, they partners point out, in their efforts to establish or defeat liability, the parties may give a lower priority to issues of damages.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

10 minute read

July 29, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, write: It is probably fair to say that the generally accepted view of the duties of a party-appointed arbitrator should be properly understood as making sure that the other members of the tribunal have a full understanding of the position of the party appointing her. But what does this mean? Does it indicate that the party-appointed arbitrator proceeds in a biased way, but artfully enough so as not to push the other party-appointed arbitrator into a more partisan position? There are cynics who might (privately) say so, but it can also be fairly argued that the generally understood role of the party-appointed arbitrator is consistent with both the source of his appointment and his expected independence in carrying out his duties.

By Lawrence W. Newman And David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

May 31, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, write that representatives of North American and European companies have encountered criminal charges, arrest and even incarceration in foreign countries at the instigation of nationals of those countries with whom the companies have commercial disputes.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

July 22, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their International Litigation column, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, members of Baker & McKenzie, examine recent developments that show that the conflict between broad U.S.-based discovery rules and EU member states' privacy and data protection directives is not close to being resolved.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

March 30, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, discuss a number of recent federal court decisions that relate to challenging arbitral awards on grounds of manifest disregard of the law, obtaining evidence from non-parties for use in arbitration and whether discovery is available in the United States in aid of an international arbitration being conducted abroad.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

12 minute read

November 26, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, write that "corruption" can be found in many different forms and the lines are not always easy to draw. The important lesson is no different from the one an international counselor should apply in all her work: make oneself aware of such subversive issues and either avoid the countries where dangers lurk or, if the temptations are too great, try to have legally viable plans for dealing with the perils of corruption.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

February 01, 2002 | New York Law Journal

T IS A BASIC TENET of arbitration jurisprudence that arbitration is a creature of contract and that parties are free to include in their arbitration clause the particulars of their arbitration. It is also well known that the courts give great deference to arbitral awards and that it is a formidable task to convince a court to overturn an award. These two policies collide head on when parties seek to liberalize the standards called for by statute and provide in their arbitration clause that either side can a

By David Zaslowsky

12 minute read

January 30, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, write that discovery in international arbitration is an important bone of contention, often because the arbitrator may not share the assumptions of the parties with respect to the extent or even the presence of prehearing disclosure. Recently, a working group has been preparing a protocol to give all parties a clearer understanding of the scope that will be accorded before going into the arbitration proceeding.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

12 minute read

May 27, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their International Litigation column, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, suggest how arbitrators can best run proceedings that are both fair and efficient and how many efficiencies can be achieved by the arbitrators' mandatory empowering of the parties in various ways.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

10 minute read

March 26, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, write that there are different ways of challenging witnesses in oral hearings, depending on the culture and tradition both of the examining lawyers and of the arbitrators before whom the cross-examination is conducted. A recent conference held in Paris on cross-examination in international arbitration revealed these different approaches.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

10 minute read