Young ICCA Workshop on Oral Advocacy

IMPORTANT: Registration will begin at 18:00, and the event will start at 18:30, running until 21:00.

Young ICCA is pleased to invite you to an engaging workshop on oral advocacy.

The event will feature a mock submission on the admissibility of evidence in an arbitration proceeding, followed by structured feedback from a tribunal and an open discussion on effective oral advocacy techniques. Designed to provide practical insight and guidance, the workshop is aimed at young practitioners and students looking to sharpen their advocacy skills.

For this workshop, with the permission of the VIS Moot, we have used a fact pattern related to the exclusion of evidence in arbitration, inspired by the problem of the 32nd VIS Moot.

Our oralists are two rising stars in international arbitration:

• Ruxandra Irina Esanu, Senior Associate at Wordstone (Paris), specializing in investment treaty and commercial arbitration;
• Maanas Jain, English-qualified barrister and Senior Associate at Paul Hastings (London), with a practice focused on international commercial arbitration, investment disputes, and public international law.

The mock tribunal will consist of:

• Prof. Dr. Mohamed Abdel Wahab, C.Arb, FCIArb (Zulficar & Partners Law Firm, Egypt)
• Peter Turner, KC (39 Essex Chambers, France)
• Valikhan Shaikenov (ADL Disputes, Kazakhstan/ Germany)
• The session will be moderated by Eva Chan of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (New York).

We extend our sincere thanks to Shirin Gurdova (Wordstone) and Antonii Dubeu (SCOR) of the Organizing Committee for their invaluable support in making this event possible.

Registration is now open! Spaces are LIMITED, so be sure to secure your spot early.

Post-Event Report

Young ICCA Skills Workshop: The Art of Oral Advocacy

By Daria Kuznetsova (Senior Associate at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP)

On 10 April 2025, Young ICCA hosted a skills workshop titled “The Art of Oral Advocacy” at the Delos Arbitration Centre in Paris, France. The workshop offered participants valuable insights into oral advocacy techniques.  Ruxandra Irina Esanu (Senior Associate at Wordstone, Paris) and Maanas Jain (Senior Associate at Paul Hastings, London) presented their submissions regarding the admissibility of evidence in arbitration based on a fact pattern inspired by the problem of the 32nd VIS Moot. Their arguments were followed by feedback from a distinguished mock tribunal comprising Prof. Dr. Mohamed Abdel Wahab (Zulficar & Partners Law Firm, Egypt), Peter Turner, KC (39 Essex Chambers, France), and Timothy Nelson (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, USA). 

Following introductory remarks from Ms. Eva Chan, Young ICCA Co-Chair and Associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (USA), Ms. Esanu presented Claimant’s submissions regarding the exclusion of internal communications from in-house counsel on the basis of privilege and illegality. In response, Mr. Jain objected to Claimant’s application and submitted that a purported unsolicited and without-prejudice offer from Respondent should be excluded on confidentiality grounds.

The tribunal posed incisive questions to both parties, probing how Respondent had obtained the internal communications, whether privilege extended to in-house counsel’s communication, whether the unsolicited settlement offer qualified for any privilege or implied confidentiality, and whether exclusion was necessary at this stage given that the documents were already in the record.

In their feedback, the tribunal members commended the oralists’ presentation style and their ability to respond to the tribunal’s questions:

• Mr. Turner observed that the scenario was an excellent opportunity for the oralists to refine their skills when facing an interventionist tribunal. He praised the structure and clarity of the submissions and emphasised the importance of selecting strong arguments and deciding what arguments are most persuasive. 
• Mr. Nelson highlighted how both oralists maintained composure while facing difficult questions. He noted the importance of providing the most reassuring answers to the tribunal’s questions without being misleading. 
• Professor Abdel Wahab noted the oralists’ thorough preparation and their anticipation of the tribunal’s questions. He stressed the importance of counsel remaining civil, measured, and mindful of tone when presenting their arguments.

Ms. Chan posed a question to the oralists and the tribunal on the common elements of effective oral advocacy and persuasive submissions.

• Mr. Mohamed Abdel Wahab observed that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, emphasising the need to know one’s audience and understand the background of the court or Tribunal. In his view, counsel should let the arguments speak for themselves and be prepared to articulate them clearly. He stressed the importance of a well-structured presentation — focusing on the points that truly matter and providing the Tribunal with a straightforward path to its decision. 
• Mr. Turner agreed, reiterating how fundamental preparation is to success in oral advocacy. He underscored how understanding one’s case in detail and honing in on the most significant arguments will enable counsel to answer the Tribunal’s questions straight away. 
• Mr. Nelson then highlighted stylistic differences between courtroom advocacy and advocacy before an arbitral tribunal, suggesting the latter can sometimes require a moderating tone. He explained the importance of storytelling: developing a cohesive narrative and showing why the Tribunal has the power to address the dispute.

Mr. Nelson’s remarks prompted a further question from Ms. Chan regarding advice for young practitioners on effective story-telling and tools to simplify their arguments. 

Mr. Nelson emphasised the necessity of knowing the record thoroughly. He noted that younger lawyers often have an advantage in this regard, as they may be more immersed in the details. Echoing these remarks, Mr. Abdel Wahab emphasised that honesty, a solid structure, and a sensible approach are crucial to persuasive advocacy. Mr. Turner added that once counsel lose credibility—particularly by misrepresenting the record — it is difficult to regain. Mr. Jain observed that in arbitration, counsel have the opportunity to build their narrative with the Tribunal from the earliest stages of the proceedings, well before the final hearing.

Ms. Chan next asked the arbitrators to share a lesson that fundamentally changed how they approach oral advocacy. Mr. Turner emphasised the value of focusing on preparation from the case’s outset, while Mr. Nelson noted that acknowledging weak points — where there is little chance of prevailing — demonstrates courtesy to the Tribunal. Finally, Mr. Abdel Wahab underscored the importance of flexibility: counsel should be ready to adapt their presentation style when necessary.

During the concluding Q&A, participants asked when an arbitral tribunal might be inclined to address certain issues preliminarily, and when, as advocates, they should propose such an approach. The panellists generally suggested it can be helpful to raise such questions early if resolution of particular issues could streamline the proceedings or encourage settlement.

To conclude the event, all attendees were invited to a cocktail reception where they had the opportunity to network and discuss the workshop in greater detail.