Arbitration Expert Reports

Procedural rules differ by forum: DIAC Rules (Articles 32-34) and ADCCAC Rules are comparatively flexible; ICC Rules (Articles 25-26) and LCIA Rules (Articles 15-16) impose more rigorous international-standard requirements, referencing the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence. An expert report that survives in DIAC may be rejected in ICC or LCIA if it falls short of these norms — we tailor preparation to the specific forum.

A defining feature of modern arbitration is ‘expert conferencing’ or ‘hot-tubbing’, where experts from both sides discuss their opinions and disagreements in real time before the tribunal. This favours experts who are confident and genuinely knowledgeable; we prepare experts through mock hot-tub sessions, ensure they understand the opposing report and likely counterarguments, and coach them to engage substantively and acknowledge genuine areas of agreement.

Arbitration expert evidence also raises distinct privilege and confidentiality questions — reports are typically exchanged with the opposing party and may be referenced in a published award. We structure engagement letters and reports to isolate sensitive information in confidential annexes and seek protective orders from the tribunal where needed.

Key Features

Forum-specific expertise: reports tailored to DIAC, ADCCAC, ICC, and LCIA rules and procedural orders

International standards compliance: evidence prepared to meet IBA Rules and international professional norms

Hot-tubbing preparation: experts extensively coached for real-time expert conferencing

Privilege and confidentiality management: reports structured to protect sensitive information appropriately

Multi-jurisdictional coordination: consistent expert evidence across international co-counsel

Who this serves: Arbitration counsel in international disputes before DIAC, ADCCAC, ICC, or LCIA tribunals; foreign parties to UAE arbitrations needing local expert support; multinational corporations with disputes spanning multiple jurisdictions; construction and infrastructure project disputes requiring engineering and quantity surveying evidence.

Common questions

Arbitration Expert Reports FAQs

Can't find your answer? Our team responds to every enquiry within one business day.

Ask a question

Sequential testimony has each expert examined, cross-examined, and questioned in turn; hot-tubbing has both experts appear together, discussing agreement and disagreement directly with the tribunal and each other. It surfaces genuine disputes faster but rewards experts who are articulate and well-prepared for real-time interaction.

Tribunals have broad discretion to admit evidence and assess weight rather than exclude pre-emptively. Objecting can signal weakness in your own position; usually the stronger route is preparing your expert to rebut the opposing evidence effectively through cross-examination and conferencing, reserving formal objections for genuinely serious flaws.

Confidentiality of the award does not automatically extend to expert reports, which may be exchanged with the opposing party. Sensitive information should sit in a confidential annex, with a protective order sought from the tribunal before disclosure.

This follows the tribunal’s procedural order. Simultaneous submission is fairer and usually favoured if your evidence is strong; sequential submission allows rebuttal but favours whoever submits last. Prepare on the assumption of simultaneous submission by anticipating and preemptively addressing likely opposing arguments.

The duty means the expert must be truthful, complete, and willing to disclose unfavourable findings — it does not mean neutrality. Experts known for genuine objectivity are ultimately more persuasive to tribunals than those known for advocacy.

More expert reports & legal opinion services