Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2012

Abstract

Many of the letters, cards and emails of condolence that I received after my father, Professor Hans Smit, passed away last year were from lawyers who had appeared before my father, serving as arbitrator, in international arbitrations. Most said very nice things about my father, some over the top: “worthy of canonization,” “a force of nature,” “Odysseus,” an “icon.” Others were kind but more restrained (coming perhaps from attorneys whose clients fared less well before my father): “creative,” “indomitable,” “fair but scary.” One of my favorites, from a non-native English speaker, was even more neutral, describing my father simply as a “large man.”

While I never had the privilege of appearing as counsel before, or serving as arbitrator with, my father in an arbitration for obvious conflict reasons, he and I spoke frequently over the years about arbitrator selection in international arbitrations, both generally and in connection with particular arbitrations in which we were involved. Because I was unable to follow my father’s golden rule in arbitrator selection – “Just choose me” – I received the benefit of Professor Smit’s more detailed thinking concerning the selection of sole arbitrators, chairs of three-member tribunals, and party-appointed arbitrators in international arbitration. One way to reminisce about my father, I thought, might be to apply his own wit and wisdom of arbitrator selection to the selection of Professor Smit himself as arbitrator: would Professor Smit have been a good choice as arbitrator, applying his own criteria for arbitrator selection? The answer: an unequivocal yes (usually)!

Disciplines

Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Law | Legal Biography

Download

Share

COinS