SCC Spotlight Talk: Brian Kotick & Joel Dahlquist

In today's competitive field of international arbitration, how important do you think it is for arbitration practitioners to develop a personal brand? Could you share your journey in building your own brand and how your podcast, the Arbitration Station, has played a role in this process? 

When we met in 2013, we were young and relatively inexperienced lawyers – Joel was a doctoral candidate at Uppsala University and Brian was a junior associate at Mannheimer Swartling. We were both seconded to the SCC that summer and our conversations inevitably led to discussing our experience working in arbitration: who you know, what you know and future career ambitions. We realised that, after a few years in the field, arbitration practitioners are a special breed of person. They are intellectual, yet uncharacteristically social.   

We decided to capitalize on an industry filled with type-A personalities who wanted to knowthe most and be known by most. Adapting to the social media generation, we realised thatthere was (already) an app for that. At that time, podcasting was still a relatively new medium, and legal podcasts were virtually non-existent (except, of course, Michael McIlwrath's podcast for the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution). Recognizing an opportunity, we aimed to create a platform that encouraged open discussion among young lawyers, allowing them to engage with arbitration topics without the fear of being wrong. The aim was to replicate the kind of conversation that happens immediately after an arbitration conference, when the pressure of the panel is gone and the cocktails are served, but the focus of the conversation is still on the substance. 

Our podcast initiative sought to demystify the field and make complex issues accessible and relatable. By discussing nuanced arbitration topics in an approachable manner, we aimed to showcase our knowledge and ability to articulate intricate concepts effectively. This approach not only facilitated deeper understanding among peers but also helped in establishing our presence in the international arbitration community. 

The response was overwhelmingly positive. Our podcast quickly became a focal point in interviews and conferences, with people eager to discuss our insights and the innovative format we had pioneered. It provided a unique way for listeners to evaluate our expertise and communication skills, setting us apart in a crowded field. 

Moreover, the podcast became a powerful tool for networking and professional development. It created a space where young lawyers could share their perspectives, learn from each other, and build a supportive community. This initiative underscored the importance of embracing new media and innovative approaches to professional branding in the legal industry. By breaking traditional barriers and fostering open dialogue, we were able to build a strong, recognizable brand that resonated with both peers and industry leaders. After seven seasons, it is still rare that either of us (or our co-host Saadia Bhatty) attend an arbitration conference without at least a few people walking up to say that they listened to the podcast during their studies, or stumbled upon some episode while doing work-related research. Those interactions have probably been the most rewarding part of this whole endeavour.  

As Swedish lawyers in the field of international arbitration, how has your Swedish heritage influenced your perspectives and practices in this global arena?  

For this question, we should probably have to answer it from our individual perspectives, which was actually our unique selling point in developing the podcast. 

Brian: As a lawyer educated in the United States, my written and oral advocacy skills were often classified as "bombastic". After just a short time in Sweden, I was re-trained to avoid elaborate prose, dramatic emphasis and, frankly, any adjectives. I quickly learned that this approach to advocacy helped in presenting arguments more clearly, credibly and effectively – a lesson I have taken with me even after leaving Sweden. One specific lesson that always remains front of mind is to remember to enjoy the "pleasure of silence" during negotiations.  

Joel: The main thing I take with me from my Swedish background (which, for better or worse, goes further back in time than Brian’s) is the collegial and informal interactions in most Swedish professional settings. As a young or aspiring lawyer, I always addressed superiors informally, and felt included and important – be it in regular “fika” meetings or actual, important work meetings. By the same token, when I was teaching in Sweden, it was always unthinkable that students call me “professor” rather than “Joel”. I’ve found that this relatively informal approach to professional interactions has served me well in international arbitration outside of Sweden. Of course, seniority is respected in the field (and rightly so!) but compared to domestic litigation in many jurisdictions, arbitration is very collegial and informal. It’s a people business, after all, and in my experience that is an important thing to recognize; most people enter this field because they’re interested in other people and cultures, not because they are interested in formal pomp and circumstance.  

Your podcast, the Arbitration Station, has covered numerous stories and insights about arbitration. Can you share a memorable story or episode from the podcast that stands out to you? 

Looking back over more than 100 episodes, the “substantive” topics that have stayed with us are too many to recount – broadcasting from two ICCA congresses, repeated fights over which jurisdiction has figured out a given problem better than others, or running a semi-regular “arbitration book club”. Although we endeavoured to tackle some of these topics ourselves, we always welcomed the thought leadership of our guests. Saadia recalls interviewing Toby Landau on the fallacy of witness evidence, Brian enjoyed his interview of Andrew Fulton KC and Manuel Casas on the Maduro Saga, and Joel often recounts his interview with Taylor St. John about the history of ISDS. Selfishly, we saw these interviews as ways to learn more about breaking developments in international arbitration from the experts ourselves, but at the same time hoped they would benefit our listenership in the process. 

The most memorable segments, however, have generally tended to be the less informal, shorter sessions which we’ve called the “happy fun time” segments: what is the most useful second language in arbitration? Who, really, wants to be an arbitrator? What is the default way of greeting an acquaintance at an arbitration conference – kisses, hugs or handshakes? Perhaps not the most profound of discussions, but relatable topics that we found to occupy the minds of many in the field.