SCC Spotlight Talk: Katarina Mild

Combining the roles of arbitrator and counsel, sometimes known as “double hatting”, offers unique insights but also raises important questions about perspective, advocacy, and arbitrator selection.

In this SCC Spotlight Talk, we speak with Katarina Mild, partner at Kastell and member of the SCC Council for Swedish Arbitration, about how these dual roles inform each other in practice. With extensive experience as counsel in international arbitration, as an arbitrator, and as in-house counsel, Katarina shares her observations on common pitfalls in advocacy, the interplay between different professional perspectives, and what parties should look for when appointing arbitrators.

How has your experience as counsel shaped your approach when sitting as an arbitrator, and conversely, has your role as an arbitrator influenced how you represent clients?

When sitting as an arbitrator, I bring with me what my work as counsel has taught me that commercial parties value most: predictability, clarity, and a nuanced commercial mindset. Accordingly, I strive to create a process in which parties feel heard, respected, and confident about what each step of the arbitral proceedings entails. My aim is to combine a rigorous assessment, grounded in the applicable legal framework and the evidence presented by the parties, with a human touch, ensuring that the proceedings are efficient, and that the award responds to the commercial realities driving the dispute.

In my role as counsel, my experience as an arbitrator has given me a deeper understanding of how an arbitral tribunal is best persuaded and how its decision-making process unfolds. By applying an arbitrator’s juridical perspective when analysing cases, I am better able to develop successful case strategies, and to assess which approaches are likely to be effective in any given situation during the arbitral proceedings.

I feel fortunate to be working at Kastell – a dispute resolution, EU and competition law boutique firm that is niche in the truest sense of the word, and which gives me the freedom to dedicate myself to both arbitrator appointments and counsel work. My impression is that it is more challenging to combine these roles at a full-service law firm.

How has sitting as an arbitrator changed your perspective on effective and successful advocacy?

I would highlight one aspect that I regard as particularly important for effective advocacy in arbitral proceedings: the importance of well-structured submissions. This applies not only to written submissions, but also to all forms of oral advocacy. In my view, any submission benefits if the arbitral tribunal can follow a clear structure and a coherent narrative throughout.

From your unique vantage point of having worked both as counsel and as an in-house lawyer, what advice would you give to parties and their counsel when selecting arbitrators?

One thing that nearly two decades in private practice and over four years in senior in-house roles have taught me is this: great lawyers are everywhere. The ones I trust most are those who are curious, take the time to truly understand the industry and the business behind the dispute, and know exactly how the legal framework and its logic will shape the outcome. These lawyers are often hard-working and hands-on in complex cases, but they are not necessarily the ones who appear most frequently at conferences or who take an overly  academic approach in their assessments. At the same time, the fact that an arbitrator is respected within the arbitration community and engages in the exchange of knowledge in different ways is usually a good sign. The key is striking the right balance. These are factors that my colleagues at Kastell and I consider when we appoint arbitrators in cases where we act as counsel.

It can sometimes be difficult for parties to gain intelligence about arbitrators in a particular market or field. The advice I would give to parties and their counsel is not to rely only on ranking institutes, but also to ask around among dispute resolution lawyers who serve as both counsel and arbitrators in the relevant market. One of the advantages of practising as both arbitrator and counsel is the insight we gain in relation to arbitrator appointments, as we often know how a particular individual behaves as counsel and how they reason when sitting as an arbitrator.