| Freedom of Choice of Counsel |
 |
 |
 |
 An important factor that is often overlooked in selecting the seat of an international arbitration proceeding is whether the local laws regulating the practice of law in a given jurisdiction make clear that parties are free to select counsel of their choice to represent them in such proceedings, regardless of whether their counsel of choice is admitted to practice in that jurisdiction. This is often a grey area of the law that is fraught with many potential hazards. Only a few jurisdictions throughout the world, especially in the Americas, have laws that clearly provide that an attorney need not be admitted to practice in the location where the arbitration is taking place in order to participate in an international arbitration proceeding occurring in that location. The laws of most jurisdictions either prohibit or place severe restrictions on such a practice, or, at best, are unclear. Although local practitioners in such jurisdictions may attempt to downplay this important hazard by offering assurances that these laws are seldom enforced, the fact remains that this situation presents a substantial and unpredictable risk.Accordingly, the International Law Section of the Florida Bar worked together with many international arbitration practitioners in Florida in 2003 in order to promote the promulgation of rules by the Supreme Court of Florida that clearly allow parties to select counsel of their choice to represent them in international arbitration proceedings conducted in Florida, regardless of whether their counsel of choice is admitted to practice in Florida. In addition to the significance of the enactment of these important rules, the fact that countless international arbitration practitioners in Florida worked together to achieve this objective demonstrates Florida's commitment to continue to establish itself as a leading venue for international arbitration. These rules provide parties a vital right to use their counsel of choice when conducting an international arbitration proceeding in Florida. Usually parties to an agreement choose neutral territory as the location of the arbitration to avoid giving either party an advantage, and the choice of law is typically different from that of the forum. Thus, if parties are prohibited from using their own counsel who is familiar with the transaction and the operation of the parties' businesses, together with the chosen law, many of the benefits of international arbitration are lost. |