Legal Technology Interview Series: Sapfo Constantatos
In the second in the Legal Technology Interview series, Anish Patel, Practice Manager, Three Crowns and Basil Woodd-Walker, Counsel, Simmons & Simmons, interview Sapfo Constantatos, Senior Legal Counsel at Standard Chartered Bank.
Are you encouraging your counsel to adopt more efficient greener practices, particularly in their use of technology, e.g. in the way they manage your matters, or when they are settling a procedural order or terms of reference?
Because of the international nature of our business, we have invariably worked cross-border to resolve contentious matters, within virtual teams including external counsel. We also have greater access to technology not only to manage documents but also to communicate. At the Bank we partner with the experts in our eDiscovery and Data Advisory team, and our approach is to host documents on the Relativity platform for review by internal and external counsel. The days of sending bundles of documents to counsel, witnesses or experts are very much in the past. Now, we are more intentional in our approach, about the resources we use and the impact we have from an environmental perspective. So, to an ever greater degree than before, we would expect to have conversations about the conduct of the proceedings, and careful consideration to be given to printing and travel for everyone involved in a matter. Those conversations should also extend to how much data needs to be collected, processed and reviewed.
Lucy Greenwood, in her interview, said: “[t]he minimum that parties should be able to expect is that their tribunal is technologically competent”. Is that a fair assessment and do you have any expectations of a tribunal in their approaches and application of technology?
Absolutely. Tribunals have an obligation to conduct the arbitration efficiently and expeditiously, and this includes leveraging technology and fostering early engagement of the parties on these issues. This is particularly the case where almost all information is transmitted and stored electronically, and where it needs to remain confidential and secure. The expectation on all of us is that we continue to learn, adapt and innovate. For me, that is one of the best parts of being a contentious lawyer - the opportunity to dive into new areas and new issues. Technology forms a big part of that.
A recent Herbert Smith Freehills study demonstrated that “virtual hearings are significantly less carbon-intensive and cheaper for arbitration parties than in-person hearings”. What are your views of fully virtual hearings, compared to in-person hearings?
Unsurprisingly, there is no universal roadmap but the parties should expect to have a fulsome discussion about the conduct of the arbitration and be afforded a fair opportunity to present their case. That may mean conducting a final hearing in person, but the parties should consider whether all or some aspects of an arbitration can be conducted virtually. In the course of only a few years, through difficult and challenging times, we have had to re-imagine the way we work, collaborate and build teams and businesses. “Getting in a room” does not necessarily require us physically to convene in the same place. We now have more experience in conducting virtual hearings and I expect that this will become easier, more seamless and inclusive, with further developments in infrastructure and technology across more locations. I imagine that what we are doing today, will seem clunky and archaic in the future.
What, in your view, are the major challenges for the practice of international arbitration, with technology in mind, in order to achieve a greener arbitration?
One challenge is ensuring equal treatment of the parties on issues such as access to technology and reliable broadband, language barriers or expertise necessary to employ the technology. Sharing experiences among practitioners on the tools available and how best to use them is important. One great example of such initiative is the IBA Arb40’s Technology Resources for Arbitration Practitioners. Another significant challenge to holding virtual hearings is differing time zones – in some cases this can be insurmountable.
What are your tips when working electronically? Are there any particular tools/software that you use or describe as “must-haves” either from a personal perspective or more generally that you would expect your counsel to have familiarity with?
Inevitably, we all work on multiple devices, with different applications and security protocols which may not be compatible. Simplicity is welcome, and I value discussion with external counsel about technology from the outset of a matter. Flexibility, preparation and advance testing are also key to ensure that whatever technology is chosen, it can be accessed and runs smoothly on the day.