ICCA 372.01 SU23
Final Exam # 4291
- ONE
When parties have consented in writing to arbitration, UNCITRAL Model Law Article I requires it for contractual disputes involving international legal relationships. Article VII emphasizes the independence of the arbitration clause, allowing it to stand on its own even if the main contract is not legally valid. This separability principle has been upheld in court rulings, ensuring that arbitration clauses in contentious contracts can be enforced.[1]
The beginning of arbitration is described in Article III of the Model Law. It is started by a claimant’s notice, and the arbitration process legally starts when the respondent receives that notice. Articles VI through VIII provide specifics on how arbitrators will be chosen, in line with the New York Convention’s guiding principles as applied in Ontario, Canada.
Article X provides a method for voicing concerns. Articles IX through XII outline challenges to arbitrators’ objectivity. Article XI mandates a 15-day interval following appointment for challenges to be reported, maintaining openness among concerned parties.
According to Article XVI, the selection of the arbitral venue is a subjective choice influenced by pertinent criteria. Article XIX requires respondents to present a comprehensive defense within a predetermined timetable, adding a fairness and structure to the process.[2]
By permitting claimants and respondents to modify their claims or defenses throughout the arbitration, subject to the tribunal’s discretion, Article XX injects dynamism. Moving on, Article I of the New York Convention emphasizes the acceptance and execution of foreign arbitral awards, highlighting their relevance in the settlement of international disputes.
The principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law provide a balanced approach to dispute resolution when a sponsorship contract is breached and a defamation claim is made. Even if the original contract is in doubt, the independence of arbitration clauses established in Article VII protects the parties’ intentions. This guarantees that the parties’ arbitration decisions are upheld, resulting in outcomes that are predictable and enforceable.[3]
The process, as described in Article III, starts right away after receiving notice, enhancing efficiency. Articles VI through VIII, which follow the Ontario model, offer advice on arbitrator appointments. The arbitration’s integrity is protected by challenges to the arbitrators’ impartiality provided in Articles IX to XII, while Article XI’s time limit upholds procedural clarity.[4]
Article XVI’s discretion on venue selection recognizes the need of gathering testimony and evidence in appropriate places. Article XIX’s requirement that respondents offer a thorough defense guarantees a serious discussion of the matter.
The introduction of a flexible component by Article XX improves the responsiveness of the arbitration by allowing parties to modify their claims and defenses. The Model Law and Article I of the New York Convention both establish the enforceability of foreign arbitral judgements, enhancing the legitimacy and efficiency of international conflict settlement.
When parties are referred to arbitration for alleged violations of sponsorship agreements and defamation claims, the interaction between the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention is crucial.[5] The Model Law makes sure that the parties’ objectives for arbitration are followed while the New York Convention firmly establishes the recognition and enforceability of international arbitral rulings. A fair, effective, and predictable procedure for resolving complex international conflicts is fostered by this unified framework.
- TWO
(a) Agreement to Arbitrate
The validity of the contract and the applicable legal framework must be carefully examined in order to determine if the parties intended for their arbitration agreement to be enforceable. The UNCITRAL Model Law[6] and the UNIDROIT Principles[7] are essential references in this case.
The commitment to arbitrate under the UNCITRAL rules is included in the contract between Striker and Montreux, which was signed in both writing and electronic form. The legitimacy of a contract is supported by the use of electronic records in contract formation. The arbitration-friendly environment in Canada is crucial in determining whether the arbitration agreement can be enforced. The ability of the parties to arbitrate as provided for in the contract is underscored by the jurisdiction’s preference for non-interference in arbitration cases, save in limited circumstances.
Jake’s modification of the arbitration’s venue is significant and warrants close examination. In accordance with Article 2.1.11 of the UNIDROIT Principles[8], Montreux’s lack of comment over this modification supports the altered terms of the contract. This is consistent with the consensus ad idem concept, which is crucial for upholding arbitration agreements. The UNCITRAL Model Law and the UNIDROIT Principles serve as a solid foundation for the parties’ commitment to arbitrate disputes.
Therefore, the arbitration should take place in London, Ontario, Canada, as claimed by Jake.
(b) Scope of Arbitration Clause
An intricate understanding of the parties’ intentions and the applicable legal system is required to determine if the defamation claim is covered by the arbitration clause.[9] The New York Convention’s Article III emphasizes obedience to national procedural laws and provisions1, but the court retains the right to interpret those laws and provisions under the guidance of the UNIDROIT Principles.
In this setting, the significance of the separability clause becomes clear. It permits the arbitration clause to be enforced even if the larger contract is invalid. Jake’s defamation claim, which is inextricably tied to Montreux’s acts during contract termination, is covered by the arbitration clause because it expressly refers to non-contractual claims under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. This interpretation is made possible by the UNCITRAL Model Law’s and the UNIDROIT Principles’ convergence.
Furthermore, the court’s authority to interpret contracts is reaffirmed by Article 2.1.11 of the UNIDROIT Principles. A solid foundation for substantiating the scope of the arbitration provision is created by the combined approach of the UNCITRAL Model Law and the UNIDROIT Principles.
(c) Agreed Arbitral Seat
The duty of the court is defined while addressing the agreed arbitral seat, highlighting the arbitral tribunal’s greater authority. Unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise, the tribunal may choose the site of the arbitration, as stated in Article 16(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. The determination of jurisdiction is consistent with the principles of territorial jurisdiction, assuring practicality, convenience, and fairness.[10]
The idea of party autonomy, a cornerstone of international arbitration, serves as the foundation for the tribunal’s authority. The tribunal’s flexibility to take testimony into account, have meetings, and do inspections before determining the seat emphasizes the care taken in this procedure. For this jurisdictional issue, the unified framework of the UNCITRAL Model Law offers a reliable and consistent reference point.
As a result of the analysis of the Jake/Montreux dispute, an extensive examination of their arbitration agreement, the terms of the arbitration provision, and the designated arbitral location is required. The UNCITRAL Model Law and the UNIDROIT Principles work in concert to build a solid legal framework that directs these inquiries, improving the coherence and efficiency of the arbitration process.
- THREE
The specifics of the arbitration provision are what matter when negotiating a software design contract between an American corporation and a Taiwanese software designer. Consideration of each term’s impact on control, negotiations, and probable results is necessary to rank the importance of phrases such ad hoc vs. administered arbitration, the institution to be used, the number of arbitrators, the location of the hearings, substantive law, and the legislation governing arbitration agreements.
(1) Seat of Arbitration
The cornerstone of the entire arbitration process is the choice of the seat of arbitration, which is of utmost importance due to its numerous implications. Beyond its function in granting jurisdiction to a particular legal system, the seat determines the procedural framework that governs the arbitration1, the extent of court intervention, and the enforcement of the final award.[11]
(2) Law Governing All Aspects
A crucial component of guaranteeing predictability and consistency throughout the arbitration process is the law regulating every aspect of the arbitration agreement. This includes both the fundamental concepts that direct the resolution of conflicts as well as the procedural regulations.[12] The arbitral proceedings are shaped by the adopted law, which also controls challenges to arbitrators and the parameters of judicial review. Additionally, it establishes the function of the court, including its power to select arbitrators and annul awards. The arbitrator’s course is set by the carefully chosen law, which also highlights the relevance of this phrase.[13]
(3) Contract’s Governing Law
The provision stating the governing or relevant law of the contract becomes important in resolving the dispute’s fundamental issues. It directs the interpretation of substantive provisions and the assessment of the legality of the contract, going beyond procedural concerns. This factor takes special significance in conflicts involving software design contracts, because the contract’s core provisions are at stake. The law of choice affects how the contract’s conditions are evaluated, limiting or enlarging the range of potential outcomes. Thus, this word strikes at the core of the contractual disagreement and has a significant consequence on how it will be resolved.
(4) Place of Physical Hearings
The distinction between the seat and the place of arbitration has subtle ramifications despite being frequently ignored.[14] Logistical eases and tactical concerns are influenced by the location of physical hearings. A smooth arbitration procedure is crucially dependent on elements including closeness to the parties, witnesses, and evidence.[15] Further influencing the course of the arbitration are the legal ramifications of the venue, which may be in line with particular procedural rules. This concept straddles pragmatism and strategic choices, necessitating careful consideration.
(5) Ad hoc vs. Administered
Beyond procedural preferences, the choice between ad hoc and administered arbitration resonates. It displays a tactical decision made with regards to the harmony between party autonomy and procedural predictability. In an administered arbitration, the chosen institution is in charge of handling the proceedings, the lending arrangement, and the stated rules.[16] This decision reduces flexibility but increases predictability. Ad hoc arbitration, on the other hand, allows the parties to customize the process but necessitates a thorough comprehension of arbitration laws and protocols. A careful balancing act between flexibility and structure is necessary for the detailed evaluation of these alternatives.[17]
(6) Choice of Institution/Appointing Authority:
The institution or appointing authority that is chosen reveals more about cultural quirks, standards, and legal knowledge. Understanding the institution’s acquaintance with the parties’ jurisdictions becomes crucial, beyond evaluating the regulations, costs, and prestige.[18] For instance, the New York Arbitration Centre may be aware of the demands of an American corporation but may not adequately address the worries of the Taiwanese company. A more impartial organization, such as LCIA, might guarantee fairness and lessen any apparent bias. To achieve this equilibrium, one must thoroughly examine the contexts and priorities of both sides.
(7) Number of Arbitrators
The number of arbitrators is determined, and this decision affects the arbitration’s dynamic and resource distribution.[19] This decision frequently involves negotiation and compromise in institutional arbitration. The number has a significant impact on decision-making, diversity of viewpoints, and process effectiveness. Furthermore, a fair and informed decision can be made possible by the credentials and experience of the arbitrators. This phrase has implications for the arbitration’s effectiveness and quality that go beyond simple procedural arrangements.[20]
The evaluation of the arbitration clause’s terms exposes a layered landscape where each term interacts with practical, legal, and strategic issues. This hierarchy guides discussions, molds parties’ expectations, and lays the foundation for a fair and efficient dispute resolution procedure.
- FOUR
The assertion that arbitration occupies a position of supremacy among dispute resolution processes, frequently referred to as “first among equals,” highlights its crucial function in settling disputes.[21] This differentiation results from its innate adaptability and versatility, which enable customized strategies that take into account certain situations and the persons involved.
This idea has been discussed by numerous panels and organizations in an effort to bridge the gap between various dispute resolution techniques, such as litigation and settlement, to reach amicable resolutions. This strategy stands out because of its outstanding performance in business transactions, operations, and real-world situations. It is essential to examine the nature and justification of this conflict resolution procedure and consider all of its complex characteristics in order to fully comprehend why arbitration has this special position.[22]
One of the pillars of arbitration’s “first among equals” reputation is its distinction as the most adaptable and flexible mode of conflict resolution. This versatility efficiently accommodates a wide range of goals and complaints that parties desire to address. This quality benefits both parties and makes it possible to find answers beyond the confines of a trial or negotiation setting. Therefore, arbitration makes it easier to reach agreements that satisfy each party’s particular demands and result in fair decisions.[23]
Arbitration’s improved secrecy and confidentiality are fundamental to its success. Due to the procedure taking place outside of the public court realm, there are no public records, which encourages a higher level of confidentiality. When sensitive or confidential issues are at the center of the disagreement, this element is very advantageous.[24] Additionally, confidentiality of communications made during arbitration enhances participants’ sense of security.
Additional differences between arbitration and litigation and settlements include speed and cost-effectiveness. Arbitration is quicker and less expensive because it is more effective than drawn-out legal proceedings or drawn-out settlements. Given the decreased time, effort, and money needed from all stakeholders, this expediency is a huge benefit. As a result, arbitration becomes a viable and effective choice in the dispute resolution landscape.[25]
The basis of arbitration’s “first among equals” distinction is its ephemeral nature. This comprehensive strategy has a number of benefits, including adaptability, privacy, and cost effectiveness. Without this malleability, parties would have trouble accessing dispute resolution choices that include these characteristics, which would eventually make it more difficult to resolve their issues quickly and affordably. Arbitration’s reputation as the favored method for prompt and satisfactory conflict resolution is cemented by its pliable nature.[26]
In conclusion, it may be said that arbitration’s reputation as “first among equals” results from its adaptability and distinctive qualities. Many parties seeking effective, discreet, and individualized resolutions to their problems find this strategy appealing. Arbitration’s adaptable nature supports its particular position in the field of dispute resolution and supports its reputation as the best method for quickly resolving disputes.
- FIVE
In her upcoming paper for the law review titled “Mind the Gap,” Prof. Catherine Rogers emphasizes the disconnect between the laws requiring arbitrator disclosure and the remedies available for disclosure failures. I agree with Prof. Rogers’ assessment that there is an urgent need for more coordination between these crucial aspects of arbitration. This contradiction presents complex problems that go beyond procedural details.
The arbitration procedure may be severely hampered by the discrepancy between disclosure obligations and available remedies. Without coordination, openness and trust in arbitrators’ actions are hampered, which could result in miscommunication and strained relationships between arbitrators and parties. Furthermore, the legitimacy of arbitration rulings is questioned by the absence of cogent penalties for non-disclosure, which encourages disagreements and appeals that lead to expensive litigation. The integrity of the arbitration procedure is compromised because, as Prof. Rogers correctly points out, this imbalance does not encourage arbitrators to complete their disclosure requirements honestly.
This dissonance has ambiguity surrounding “arbitral disclosure,” which is one of its main causes. Arbitrators are unsure of the extent of their responsibilities because there are no clear standards for defining what constitutes sufficient disclosure and what constitutes a conflict of interest. This ambiguity exacerbates the gap between disclosure standards and available remedies as arbitrators struggle to share information openly while simultaneously averting conflicts. This gap might potentially be closed and the process’ legitimacy could be strengthened with more clarity in the definition of disclosure responsibilities.
The nondisclosure remedies are also riddled with ambiguity. The application of suitable punishments is made more difficult by the difficulty in separating carelessness from intentional concealment. Due to this uncertainty, it is difficult to apply strong penalties and parties are discouraged from seeking effective remedies for nondisclosure. Gradated fines could be implemented as a subtle solution to this, taking into account the level of non-disclosure, the intent, and the potential effects on the arbitration process.
A two-pronged strategy is required to effectively address these discrepancies. First, special rules for disclosure obligations should be devised and adapted to the unique circumstances of each arbitration. These rules should include the stages leading up to, during, and following disclosure, ensuring a thorough approach to transparency. Second, procedural modifications can balance the disclosure and remedy gaps. The likelihood of unfair conclusions resulting from non-disclosure could be reduced by adding adversarial components to arbitration or encouraging parties to evaluate arbitrators independently.
The consequences of non-disclosure should also be made clearer in the arbitration process.[27] The fairness of decisions could be improved by holding arbitrators accountable for their failure to disclose facts that had an impact on a party’s choice.[28]
The difficulties it creates in terms of practice and procedure support Prof. Catherine Rogers’ claim that there is a conflict between arbitrator disclosure regulations and remedies. The dependability, impartiality, and integrity of the arbitration process are all compromised by this inconsistency. To close this gap and strengthen the fundamentals of arbitration, a focused strategy comprising exact disclosure rules, proportional remedies, and procedural changes is required.
- SIX
An essential component of arbitration is deciding how to set up the arbitral tribunals, with options ranging from institutional appointments to party autonomy. This essay thoroughly examines the benefits and downsides of these opposing points of view, supports a complex hybrid model, and looks at potential solutions to the disagreement.
Party Appointment
Party appointment proponents argue that the parties to the litigation are most qualified to choose the tribunal members because they are the parties most familiar with the dispute. Their argument is based on the idea that parties have an unmatched grasp of the nuances of their case, enabling them to identify specialists who have the necessary training, experience, and education to reach a just conclusion. This situation increases public confidence in the arbitration process since arbitrators chosen by the parties are more likely to approach the case impartially.[29]
This strategy is not without flaws, though. Due to the care that must be taken in finding and evaluating qualified arbitrators, the party appointment model may unintentionally lengthen the arbitration period. The financial ramifications of such protracted proceedings may discourage parties from using arbitration or reduce its value. Additionally, it can be difficult to match an arbitrator’s competence to the complexity of the case, which can result in poor choices that could result in an unbalanced representation of the dispute’s aspects. Unfair influence threatens the essential principles of neutrality and independence when one side tries to influence the other’s proposed arbitration selections.[30]
Institutional Appointments
The effectiveness and efficiency provided by central organizations with established expertise, such as the International Court of Arbitration, are championed by supporters of institutional appointments. The main claim is that because these organizations have a track record of respecting arbitration rules, they are in a better position to put together panels of qualified, unbiased arbitrators. This is meant to increase trust in the arbitration process and ensure that panel members uphold the highest ethical standards.[31]
Institutional nominations, however, also encounter significant difficulties. Parties may be wary of the removal of direct party involvement in choosing arbitrators because they worry that the tribunal’s makeup will become disassociated from the case’s intricate details. The tribunal’s ability to comprehend the complexities and subtleties that affect how the dispute will be resolved may be jeopardized by this distance. Another issue is the possible standardization of arbitrator profiles, which can come about as a result of the institutional selection procedure and may overlook the necessity of specialized knowledge in some cases. Additionally, parties may think institutionally chosen tribunals are more likely to exhibit biases favoring results favorable to the institution, which might undermine trust in the tribunal’s objectivity.[32]
A Hybrid Paradigm
When navigating this complex environment, a hybrid strategy shows promise as a workable answer. In this concept, institutions and parties work together to design a process that balances party autonomy and institutional knowledge. An independent organization compiled a pre-approved list of potential arbitrators from whom the parties might choose. Institutions could also suggest a shortlist of arbitrators, leaving it up to the parties to make the ultimate decision. This arrangement strengthens both party appointments and institutional appointments while tamping down their flaws.[33]
In conclusion, the establishment of arbitral tribunals elicits a nuanced interplay of viewpoints essential to the success and integrity of arbitration. Nuanced investigation and fair calibration are necessary to understand the dynamics of party autonomy and institutional competency. The hybrid approach, which combines the two paradigms, shows how collaboration between litigants and institutions can lead to impartiality, efficiency, and competence that is specifically suited to the needs of the dispute.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Andrle Jr, W. J. (1983). Extension of Absolute Privilege to Defamation in Arbitration Proceedings-Sturdivant v. Seaboard Service System, LTD. Cath. UL Rev., 33, 1073.
Barber, C. (2017). The evolution of global politics and the pacific settlement of international disputes, 1794–1907 (Doctoral dissertation, ResearchSpace@ Auckland).
Belohlavek, A. J. (2013). Importance of the Seat of Arbitration in International Arbitration: Delocalization and Denationalization of arbitration as an Outdated Myth. ASA Bulletin, 31(2).
D’Silva, M. (2014). Dealing in power: gatekeepers in arbitrator appointment in international commercial arbitration. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 5(3), 605-634.
Fleischhauer, C. A. (1986). UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Arbitration journal, 41(1).
Fontaine, M. (2017). The International ‘Rayonnement’of the Unidroit Principles. Uniform Law Review, 22(1), 202-212.
Henderson, A. (2014). ‘Lex arbitri’, procedural law and the seat of arbitration: Unravelling the laws of the arbitration process. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 26, 886-910.
Hoellering, M. F. (1986). The uncitral model law on international commercial arbitration. The International Lawyer, 327-339.
Jemielniak, J. (2016). Legal interpretation in international commercial arbitration. Routledge. Karton, J. (2020). International Arbitration as Comparative Law in Action. J. Disp. Resol., 293.
Lowenfeld, A. F. (1995). The Party-Appointed Arbitrator in International Controversies: Some Reflections. Tex. Int’l LJ, 30, 59.
Mackie, K. J., & Mackie, K. (Eds.). (2013). A handbook of dispute resolution: ADR in action. Routledge.
McGarry, B. (2018). Cost-Efficiency in Inter-State Dispute Settlement. Integration and International Dispute Resolution in Small States, 319-337.
Perillo, J. M. (1994). Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts: the black letter text and a review. Fordham L. Rev., 63, 281.
Richler, J. (2017). Commercial Arbitration from Commencement to Hearing: Practical and Legal Considerations. Advoc. Q., 47, 387.
Samuel, A. (1992). The Effect of the Place of Arbitration on the Enforcement of the Agreement to Arbitrate. Arbitration International, 8(3), 257-280.
Shaw, G. J. (2017). Third-party funding in investment arbitration: how non-disclosure can cause harm for the sake of profit. Arbitration international, 33(1), 109-120.
Tiba, F. (2016). The Emergence of Hybrid International Commercial Courts and the Future of Cross Border Commercial Dispute Resolution in Asia. Loy. U. Chi. Int’l L. Rev., 14, 31.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Arbitration Rules New York Convention Guide. (1958). Retrieved from https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&pageid=10&menu=620&opac_vie w=-1.
Xue, Hanqin. (2017). Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. BRILL.
[1] Tiba, F. (2016). The Emergence of Hybrid International Commercial Courts and the Future of Cross Border Commercial Dispute Resolution in Asia. Loy. U. Chi. Int’l L. Rev., 14, 31.
[2] Fleischhauer, C. A. (1986). UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Arbitration journal, 41(1).
[3] Mackie, K. J., & Mackie, K. (Eds.). (2013). A handbook of dispute resolution: ADR in action. Routledge.
[4] Richler, J. (2017). Commercial Arbitration from Commencement to Hearing: Practical and Legal Considerations. Advoc. Q., 47, 387.
[5] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Arbitration Rules New York Convention Guide. (1958). Retrieved from https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&pageid=10&menu=620&opac_view=-1
[6] Hoellering, M. F. (1986). The uncitral model law on international commercial arbitration. The International Lawyer, 327-339.
[7] Perillo, J. M. (1994). Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts: the black letter text and a review. Fordham L. Rev., 63, 281.
[8] Fontaine, M. (2017). The International ‘Rayonnement’of the Unidroit Principles. Uniform Law Review, 22(1), 202-212.
[9] Andrle Jr, W. J. (1983). Extension of Absolute Privilege to Defamation in Arbitration Proceedings-Sturdivant v. Seaboard Service System, LTD. Cath. UL Rev., 33, 1073.
[10] Henderson, A. (2014). ‘Lex arbitri’, procedural law and the seat of arbitration: Unravelling the laws of the arbitration process. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 26, 886-910
[11] Belohlavek, A. J. (2013). Importance of the Seat of Arbitration in International Arbitration: Delocalization and Denationalization of arbitration as an Outdated Myth. ASA Bulletin, 31(2).
[12] Ibid
[13] Ibid
[14] Samuel, A. (1992). The Effect of the Place of Arbitration on the Enforcement of the Agreement to Arbitrate. Arbitration International, 8(3), 257-280.
[15] Ibid
[16] Jemielniak, J. (2016). Legal interpretation in international commercial arbitration. Routledge.
[17] Ibid
[18] Karton, J. (2020). International Arbitration as Comparative Law in Action. J. Disp. Resol., 293.
[19] McGarry, B. (2018). Cost-Efficiency in Inter-State Dispute Settlement. Integration and International Dispute Resolution in Small States, 319-337.
[20] Ibid
[21] Barber, C. (2017). The evolution of global politics and the pacific settlement of international disputes, 1794–1907 (Doctoral dissertation, ResearchSpace@ Auckland).
[22] Ibid
[23] Ibid
[24] Hanqin Xue, Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (BRILL 2017).
[25] Supra note 10
[26] Ibid
[27] Shaw, G. J. (2017). Third-party funding in investment arbitration: how non-disclosure can cause harm for the sake of profit. Arbitration international, 33(1), 109-120.
[28] Ibid
[29] Lowenfeld, A. F. (1995). The Party-Appointed Arbitrator in International Controversies: Some Reflections. Tex. Int’l LJ, 30, 59.
[30] Ibid
[31] D’Silva, M. (2014). Dealing in power: gatekeepers in arbitrator appointment in international commercial arbitration. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 5(3), 605-634.
[32] Ibid
[33] Onyema, E. (2010). International Commercial Arbitration and the Arbitrator’s Contract. Routledge.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )