This live session brought together practitioners from across the arbitration community for a candid discussion on how to navigate the seemingly endless calendar of arbitration events and turn them into meaningful professional opportunities. We heard from Velimir Zivkovic, Matej Pustay, Miljana Bigovic, and Michail Risvas, with great contributions from the audience.
Why are there so many arbitration events?
Zivkovic opened by reflecting on the proliferation of arbitration conferences, weeks, and “days”, noting that one could soon speak of whole “arbitration months”. This growth can be seen as evidence of arbitration’s global spread and the increasing number of practitioners seeking community and visibility. The moderators also acknowledged practical limits: it is now impossible to attend everything, and participants must be more deliberate about where they invest their time and budgets.
From a counsel’s perspective, Pustay stressed that the key question is not why there are so many events, but what you want to get out of them. With different formats – international weeks such as London or Paris, versus local “arbitration days” – lawyers should choose events that align with specific goals, whether that is meeting local counsel, seeing clients, or staying close to an institution’s ecosystem.
Content versus community
There is a sharp distinction between two core purposes of events: high-quality content and community building. The best conferences, still offer ideas and perspectives that cannot simply be downloaded or replicated online. That requires thoughtful programme design, strong speakers and, crucially, skilled moderation – often overlooked, but transformative when handled by a professional journalist or an experienced chair.
At the same time, events are undeniable engines of networking. For law firms and arbitrators, sponsorship and visibility matter, but so does the less tangible benefit of seeing one’s community in one place. Gannon contrasted large gatherings such as the International Bar Association’s annual conference – where thousands attend sessions and thousands more only the social events – with smaller, more focused meetings where connections can run deeper.
Networking as currency in arbitration
Bigovic, speaking from Miami during Arbitration Week and in her capacity as President of the Harvard Arbitration Association, emphasised that arbitration is unusually network-driven compared with many other practice areas. She cited a mentor’s line that “your network is your net worth”, noting that impressions formed during a three-minute conversation can later influence decisions on whom to appoint as arbitrator or which law firm to involve as co-counsel.
Networks also shape referrals. Within large international firms, cross-border work is often passed internally; for smaller practices, external networks and associations become essential to reassure clients that the team can mobilise quality support across jurisdictions. Groups aimed at practitioners from smaller firms were highlighted as especially valuable for those who cannot rely on a global brand to open doors.
Choosing the right events – counsel versus arbitrators
Nina Jankovic drew a clear line between the incentives of counsel and arbitrators. For counsel, the opportunity cost is stark: weeks spent at conferences can mean weeks of lost billable time, and most events are heavy on peers and light on actual clients. Counsel must therefore be honest about whether an event is likely to generate mandates, strengthen existing relationships, or primarily serve profile-raising within the arbitration community.
For arbitrators, the calculus is different. Visibility, perceived engagement with the community and regular contact with instructing counsel are all reasons to be physically present. Here, events can function as reputational infrastructure: showing up, speaking, and contributing to debates signals reliability and seriousness as a potential appointee.
Pustay explained that he personally prioritises smaller, more local events for their ability to connect him with local practitioners, while reserving time for major weeks where his institutional roles make attendance particularly worthwhile. The panel agreed that there is a de facto hierarchy of events, with some having earned their status as “must-attend”, while newer regional initiatives are still building their brand – but can be excellent for targeted relationship-building.
Planning, support and the role of diversity
The discussion turned to preparation and firm support. Gannon asked how far business development teams work with lawyers ahead of major conferences to map who is attending and line up meetings in advance. For many smaller teams, Nina Jankovic noted, that function simply does not exist; lawyers must self-organise, research attendee lists and choose a small number of “must-meet” people per event.
Michail highlighted the growing diversity of arbitration events, both geographically – with new hubs and “wannabe hubs” across and beyond Europe – and in terms of participants. Panels and audiences are no longer limited to a handful of “big names”: they now draw people at different career stages and from different professional backgrounds, making conferences richer but also more complex to navigate.
First-time attendees: practical tips
Zivkovic asked what advice the panel would give to someone attending their first arbitration event. Bigovic spoke frankly about the need for a thick skin. Senior practitioners are often on tightly scheduled, budget-constrained trips and may appear brusque or uninterested in conversations with students or junior lawyers. Rather than internalising this, she encouraged newcomers to see such encounters as data points about the other person’s values, not their own worth. Today’s student may be tomorrow’s in-house counsel deciding who to instruct or which arbitrator to appoint.
Franklin, a junior lawyer, asked how much time one should spend with each person when there is limited networking time and many people wanting to speak to the same speakers. Pustay responded that there is no fixed formula: short, focused conversations during breaks, followed by a suggestion to connect later for a coffee or call, often work best. Evening socials, by contrast, can allow for longer, more relaxed discussions. The important thing is to read the room and to respect that the person opposite you may also be trying to speak with others.
Across the panel, there was consensus on the importance of follow-up. A brief email or LinkedIn message after the event – reminding the person where you met and picking up a thread from your conversation – helps convert a one-off chat into the start of a relationship. For firms, investing time and budget to let younger lawyers attend and learn this craft is not only good business development; it is also key to retention and professional growth.
The session closed with Zivkovic previewing further Platforum9 discussions and reiterating the central message: with intention, preparation, and a human approach, arbitration events can be more than crowded calendars – they can be platforms for building the careers and community of the next generation.
