 Let me start by joining Andra and Marili in thanking very much the organizers of this conference, and in particular, Fajdan, who invited me to be here today and to speak in this panel. This conference is centered around personal relationships, about arbitration as a closed network, and maybe on the importance of transparency for arbitrators and counsel. Because of that, I think I may have to make a disclosure at the beginning of this little speech about a personal relationship that I have with a member of this panel. It happens that I have a personal relationship with a chair of the panel, Marie-Louise Kinsler QC, because it happens that our children, well, please don't get me wrong, not our children, our respective children, your daughter Thin and my daughter Maya, are studying in this faculty and they are in the same year, they are in the second year. Marie-Louise told me before coming here, before starting this conference, that Thin, her son, wouldn't come today because he's growing or doing other sports activities that are more interesting than listening to his mom. My daughter is in this room. I don't know if she came to check if I'm not stumbling or hoping that I stumble. If I speak to you today, the question is whether it is because of the social network skills of my daughter or because I was myself a student in this university more than 20 years ago, but this is another reminder that personal contacts of any kind do matter in this world for the good or the worse. As you will have seen from the program, the topic of my intervention is Arbitrator in the Morning, Council in the Afternoon. This was not supposed to be my topic. When Thin wrote to me, he asked in his email, could you please address the following topic, gaining access to the arbitration closed group, any added or any related topic. Then I proposed my topic and then he came back and wrote back to me, if I understand correctly, your focus will be on the consequences of this double identity or double hat for the relationships with other arbitrators and counsel. I think that Thin was concerned that I would go off topic, that I would start engaging in the ethical debates about the so-called practice of double-hatting, where the same individuals are acting simultaneously or subsequently as arbitrators and legal counsel and are exchanging these roles. Well, what I'm proposing to do is to share a few ideas about the link between the practice of double-hatting and the working of the arbitration community as a closed group. The practice of so-called double-hatting has attracted for quite some time already significant scholarly criticism, especially but not only in the field of investment arbitration. The main criticism, which is levied by well-respected academics and arbitrators or academic terms arbitrators, such as Professor Philippe Sands, is that of a conflict of interest or at least a perceived conflict of interest, when the same lawyer was instructed by a client to argue in a certain way about a legal issue is also appointed to resolve the same issue, the same issue rises in the case, there may be a perceived conflict of interest, there may be a perceived conflict of interest based also on the close relationship that is created between a counsel and arbitrators through this exchange of roles. The other main criticism of double-hatting is that it is said that this is one of the causes why the arbitration community is such a closed group in which it is difficult to get access to. Judge Bergenthel of the ICC wrote about the so-called revolving door practice, counsel selecting an arbitrator who they know the next time around when they are counsel will select them as arbitrator. He said, the practice of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours, does not advance the rule of law. It creates what has been said to be a small group of insiders, linked closely, Marely referred to that, the grand old men, mostly European, white, male with elite educational background. In other words, the charge against double-hatting is that it restricts diversity and it limits the possibility for outsiders to get access to the small arbitration group or club. While there may be, there are certainly some truths in this observation, I believe that a more balanced analysis of double-hatting requires to acknowledge that they are actually very strong arguments that support the practice and that double-hatting may actually contribute from another perspective to increase access and diversity in the arbitration group. And I will mention a few reasons that support that proposition. First, and this is to state the obvious, it is difficult for an individual to have a practice dedicated solely as sitting as an arbitrator when there is no guarantee that he or she will be appointed as an arbitrator. Arbitrators are selected for a particular dispute on an adult basis, this is not a permanent position, there is not a one-time appointment, so giving up the practice as counsel may not be an option from a purely economic perspective for most lawyers who practice in this field. Second, gaining experience as counsel in arbitration may be a necessary training ground to be a good or a better arbitrator. Barton Legume said this very eloquently, he said, I have a lot of sympathy for those who say you need only good arbitrators with skill and experience, or on earth does somebody get established as an arbitrator if he or she never gets a chance to start. So what I think, inevitably, there has to be some overlap between being counsel and arbitrator. It is also important to know that experience is not one-sided. You certainly become a better arbitrator when you have a diversified and extensive experience as counsel, but you also become a better counsel by sitting as an arbitrator. Once you have sat as an arbitrator, you will have the insiders experience of the internal dynamic of the arbitral tribunal, you will understand the do's and don'ts of advancing effectively in an arbitration setting, and you will know when not to press a procedural argument too far. Also, if being an arbitrator was a different profession from being counsel, the consequence would be actually to reduce the pool of potential arbitrators. The arbitrator community would still be a smaller group to which access would be still more difficult. We see this in the recent practice, with the emergence of a class of full-time arbitrators as a new social professional category of its own. The individuals who are part of this category are the so-called primadonas of international arbitrators. They constitute precisely the distinguished elite club to which it is the most difficult to become part. It is much easier to develop a practice as counsel and to get occasional appointment as arbitrators, so double-hitting increases the pool of potential arbitrators coming from different horizons. In this fascinating piece that has been mentioned by Andrea about sociology of international arbitration, Emmanuel Gaillard referred to the development of full-time arbitrators as an evolution towards what he called, borrowing from the field of sociology, a polarized model where the players tend to occupy specific functions as opposed to alternating them. And this has contributed arguably recently in the segmentation of functions within the arbitration field, with some actors acting more often or sometimes only as a cool arbitrator or a wing arbitrator for a specific kind of party, or only as president of an arbitral tribunal, or only as counsel for these kinds of parties, or counsel for these other kinds of parties, or secretary of tribunal, or expert witness. And Emmanuel Gaillard theorizes that this segmentation of functions within the arbitration field may, in the creation of smaller clubs within the big club of arbitration, may have been caused, at least in part, by the aggressive criticism against the practice of double-hitting. And from this perspective, access and diversity may be better served by having a larger group of players, of lawyers who alternate functions by acting simultaneously or subsequently as counsel, party-appointed arbitrator, president of arbitral tribunal, secretary of tribunal, expert witness counsel. There is a final reason that I wish to mention why double-hitting or diversified arbitration practice can increase diversity and access. While most arbitrators are appointed by the parties themselves, the winged arbitrators by necessity, and sometimes the president when they are appointed jointly by the parties. So while the arbitrators are appointed by the parties themselves, it is well-established that, in fact, in-house counsel within the parties tend to be heavily reliant on their external counsel as their primary source of information about potential arbitrators. In the 2018 Queen Marie International Arbitration Survey, it is noted that the most often quoted source of information about arbitrators are worth of miles, 77%, followed closely by advice from internal colleagues, 68%. This confirms just or important it is to be part of a sophisticated network of peers that have the relevant information. The problem is that this may create a so-called information asymmetry for those who do not have this information. For instance, those outside of the major arbitration hubs or outside of specialized law firms. Again part of the solution against this information asymmetry is to promote and increase the pool of lawyers who alternate arbitration functions to stimulate and encourage actually double hatting. A parallel can be drawn with a field of social network analysis. Securing arbitrator appointments depends essentially on the network to which you belong. If you look at social network analysis, the way persons interact on a social network, it has been observed that individuals with strong ties form close communities. They form closeness. They share a lot of information and they do not interact with other groups. On the other hand, individuals with weak personal ties have often interactions with different groups. They act as a bridge and provide access to information and resources outside of the cluster. This has been called the strengths of the weak ties. This can be seen on Facebook or LinkedIn or I do not know. There are separate groups and in each group there is a cluster with a very close relationship and it is those with weak ties to a group that have ties with several groups. Those are the persons who act as a bridge between the groups. If you apply the social network analysis to the arbitration network, it is likely that full-time professional arbitrators will be those with strong ties. They are the strong ties persons and they will arrange in clusters and they have access to full information and they have less interaction in general with persons outside of the cluster. This is confirmed in the Queen Mary survey which notes that among all the various group of people who have been surveyed, it is the so-called full-time arbitrator subgroup which claims to have the better information about the arbitration community and about the qualification of various arbitrators. 80% of this group is satisfied of the level of information which is not found in other capacities. The occasional double-hatter practices as canceling arbitration and also canceling litigation and occasionally sits also as an arbitrator is less likely to be part of a small cluster of arbitration. E has the strength of weak ties and it can act as bridge and provide information and resources outside of the arbitration club. So access to the arbitration group and diversity can be increased again by increasing the number of individuals practicing both as canceling and arbitrator occasionally in various functions. So in conclusion, arbitrator in the morning, canceling in the afternoon and always connected and informed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.