Having grown up in a common law country (Sri Lanka), studying law in London, England had always been a long-held dream. Studying in the jurisdiction that shaped many of the written and unwritten principles of the common law, and observing its evolution to accommodate arbitration, was particularly riveting.
With a background in Political Science and legal philosophy from the University of Toronto, my early understanding of the legal system was grounded in a traditional view of how the law operates, with litigation as the primary expression of the adversarial process. It was particularly striking for me to observe how those who have shaped the Canadian legal system increasingly engage with alternative dispute resolution and arbitration, with many senior judges transitioning into arbitral roles after leaving the bench. This exposure sparked my interest in how dispute resolution extends beyond the courtroom, leading me to explore how arbitration functions as a flexible and internationally responsive forum for resolving complex commercial disputes.
My theoretical shift in understanding began to take on a more practical dimension during a Model United Nations internship in my undergraduate studies. Until then, much of my view of dispute resolution had been shaped by popular legal media, mock trial competitions and law society activities, which often mirror a distinctly adversarial, courtroom centred and largely American-style version of litigation. Tasked with negotiating a resolution alongside a cohort of security council delegates, many of whom were law students from England already familiar with alternative dispute resolution, I relied on the mock trial and moot court skills I had developed and refined during my undergraduate studies. What stood out was the rapid shift from positional argumentation to collaborative problem-solving. Rather than seeking to win and attack, the emphasis was on building consensus, managing competing interests and developing solutions that could be collectively accepted. This experience offered an early, practical insight into the effectiveness of structured negotiations and mediation as alternatives to litigation.
According to the 2025 International Arbitration Survey, behaviours that most negatively impact efficiency in arbitration include adversarial approaches by counsel (24%), lack of proactive case management by arbitrators (23%), and counsel over-lawyering (22%). These concerns were particularly pronounced among respondents in the Asia-Pacific and North American regions, where interviewees frequently highlighted dissatisfaction with overly adversarial approaches. Some described a tendency for counsel to advance “often baseless and alternative defences or arguments,” which was perceived to undermine credibility while also increasing cost, delay, and procedural complexity. Others pointed to the adoption of litigation-style advocacy, “guerilla” tactics, and overly formalised styles of argumentation as being at odds with arbitration’s intended flexibility and efficiency.
The survey further captured criticism of what some respondents referred to as the “Americanisation” of international arbitration, particularly in relation to expansive disclosure requests and more aggressive adversarial conduct. Several interviewees also noted that clients can become sidelined in strategic decision-making, with suggestions that greater client involvement in case management conferences could improve outcomes. Arbitrators were also notably critical, with 35% identifying over-lawyering as a key source of inefficiency. Across responses, there was consistent frustration with excessive written submissions and repetitive rounds of pleadings, with a recurring view that “less is” more.
These findings were particularly striking in shaping my own developing perspective on arbitration, as they closely reflected the tension I had observed between adversarial litigation-style instincts and the collaborative ethos that arbitration is intended to preserve.
At Brunel University London, alongside several other UK law schools, the LL.B. programme offered exposure to international arbitration and dispute resolution through elective modules, alongside opportunities for students to engage with Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) pathways outside the core curriculum. The graduate-entry pathway offered limited opportunities to specialize in arbitration, with only a small number of electives alongside mandatory core courses. Upon returning to Canada and completing the NCA process, I observed proceedings in both the Ontario Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, seeking to better understand the litigation pathway that commonly precedes a career in arbitration.
Through informational interviews and coffee chats with practitioners, judges and arbitrators, I also began to understand the professional realities of the field. While companies increasingly rely on arbitration and mediation to resolve disputes efficiently and privately, the pathway into arbitration remains comparatively narrow. Arbitration in Canada is widely viewed as a quasi-judicial role, typically occupied by senior practitioners, partners, in-house counsel, or retired judges with deep subject-matter expertise.
These conversations also highlighted the scale of the Canadian market. Although Canada has a strong arbitration culture supported by institutions such as the ADR Institute of Canada, leading arbitration hubs such as London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, and Paris are consistently ranked among the most preferred arbitration seats globally in the Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey. London and Singapore rank among the top five seats for each of the six regions in which respondents principally practise or operate. Recognising these realities has helped me approach a career in ADR with greater clarity, patience, and a long-term perspective.
Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.