I would like to pursue a career in international arbitration, but am torn between two LLM programs that I like very much (good problem to have). Each has its benefits:

1. GW's International & Comparative Law program -- excellent reputation for international law, great course selection, located in D.C.

2. Miami's International Arbitration LLM -- specialized degree, small LLM class of only a few students, excellent new additions to the program (AJ van den Berg and Jan Paulsson), located in Miami.

Essentially -- Would the prospect of earning the specialized degree, and the opportunity to work closely with these world-renowned arbitrators be enough to pass up going to GW? In these down economic times, what would matter more: reputation of the program, or reputation of faculty, references, recommendations?

Thank you in advance for your responses!

Any thoughts? I'm leaning GW, due to its reputation. But should I give greater weight to the small class and chance to work with these guys at Miami? Maybe I'm over analyzing?

i am also curious about the miami program. how many students are enrolled, what kind of contact does one get w the big guys, what kind of systems do they have in place for placement? have you considered the mids program in geneva, also there is a specialized program at the university of vienna that is well considered. (both in english, both of these are arbitration centers.)

I am graduating from UM now and though I was not in the LL.M. I had a chance to take almost all of the arbitration classes offered. I had a chance to take a class with Jan Paulsson that had about 15 students in it and a class with Albert Jan van den Berg that was about the same size. The LL.M.s also had some classes restricted to them like the oral advocacy workshop that was taught by a team from Freshfields. There is a great amount of interaction between the students and these professors. They are surprisingly down to earth and accessible (van den Berg told us he likes to listen to Beyonce as he grades our exams...haha). The system for placement is a bit decentralized but catered to each student's individual needs. There are a lot of people to talk to for career advice and the recommendations you can get from the faculty will open doors to any opportunity you could imagine in international arbitration. I know of students who are thinking of positions at institutions like the ICC Uncitral, the PCA, to students who have positions at firms like Freshfields and Shearman in Paris. At UM if you put in the right work the sky is the limit for a career in International Arbitration.

If you want to lear international arbitration go the MIDS in Geneva.. they have Paulsson, Van den Berg, and all the most important professors of the world! Unfortunately I was not accepted =´(
I will try next year though

Paulsson and van den Berg may also give a few lectures in Geneva but I can imagine it being comparable to having them around full time in a small class setting. I really think the UM program is a bit of undiscovered treasure. The program enrollment is still tiny and the exposure is tremendous.

Yes, that is true. But I think it can be argued the same on the other way round: in the Master in International Dispute Settlement of Geneva you have Kaufmann-Kohler, Kohen, Besson, and others around full time... and in adition to them you have Paulsson, Van den Berg, Abi-Saab, Tercier, Gaillard, Park, Pawlyen, Mnooking, etc. Can you please post all the courses and the faculty of this program? Thanks!

I might not be the best person to answer this but I think the core curriculum in the arbitration program is:

Commercial Arbitration Seminar: John Rooney
New York Convention: Albert Jan van den Berg
Arbitral Proceeding Workshop: Jan Paulsson
Investment Arbitration: Lucy Reed, Nassib Ziade
Oral Advocacy Workshop: I didn't take the course but from what I understand it was taught by a group from Freshfields (Paulsson, Reed etc...).

In Paulssons class we had a number of guests come in to talk to the class including
Guillermo Aguilar-Alvarez
Martin Hunter
Judith Freedberg

On top of that the University of Miami has a huge list of international offerings that are open to LL.M. anther highlight is certainly Conflict of laws and law of the sea with Bernard Oxman. I really should just redirect you to the University of Miami website. http://www.law.miami.edu/llm/

Faculty aside, I think what really sets UM apart is the small class size in these upper division courses and how closely we work with the professors. Student professor relationships are much more informal than they are in Europe and over the past year I have gotten to know Paulsson, van den Berg, and Judy Freedberg very well. After both Paulsson's and ven den Berg's class they both took the class out for drinks at a friends bar in Coral Gables and had a chance to get to know them outside the classroom environment. They are also available outside of class to help with moot court competitions, to talk about papers or even just chat about the future of arbitration.

I hope that helps. The program in Geneva also looks incredible but I think that more people should consider Miami, it is a great place and has a lot of exciting things going on in terms of arbitration these days.

Thanks a lot, its very interesting! Lets make a comparison with the MIDS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MIDS has:

General course in international arbitration lectured by:
- Commercial Arbitration: Kaufmann-Kohler & Besson
- Investment Arbitration: Kaufmann-Kohler & Briggite Stern
- WTO: Pauwelyn & Boisson de Chazournes
- ICJ (and other inter-State arbitration): Kohen & Boisson de Chazournes

This general course is complemented by intensive courses lectured by:
- Investment Arbitration: Jan Paulsson / Emmanuelle Gaillard
- New York Convention: Albert Jan van den Berg
- ICC: Tercier (this course is taught IN the ICC in Paris)
- Negotiation: Mnookin
- WTO: Marceau
- There are also intensive courses like Arbitration in the US with William Park, WIPO Arbitration, Sports Arbitration, Jurisdictional Inmunities, Philosophical Aspects of Dispute Settlement, etc.

Special lectures and guests like: Doak Bishop, Yas Banifatemi, Pierre Lalive, Juges of the ICJ and Tribunal of the law of the Sea, etc.

There are also some workshops in arbitration (e.g. examination of witnesses, etc.), mediation, legal writting, calculation of financial damages, moot courts, etc.

I addition to having the ICC class in Paris, you also have visits to other arbitral institutions like the ICJ in The Hague, the CAS in Laussane, etc. and conferences in Switzerland and abroad. All, of course, included in the tution fee.

Finally, you also have some sustantive law classes on almost whatever field of law you want to study: International Trade Law, International Business Law, International IP, Investment Law, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still beleive that the MIDS has a more complete program and a better faculty.

Faculty aside, as you said, UM seems to have a smaller class: UM has 15 students (is this the maximum, or this might change?) while MIDS has the double. I beleive, as you do, that small classes are better for lectures. However, I dont see 30 students as being too much, I think is still reasonable and its also usefull to know more people and do networking.

Regarding the location, there is no doubt that Miami is better than Geneva! =) But the most important arbitration centers of the world are in Europe (Geneva, Paris and London).

Finally, but not least important, the MIDS is cheaper than UM.

Hmmm... you know what you may be right that MIDS is better, for you. Saying anything more than that is just silly because the decision as to which LL.M. you pursue depends on a lot of things relating to your individual needs and profile.

As for course offerings, LL.M. Students can take courses offered by the University in any area you can think of. University of Miami is one of the Largest law schools in the United States with the most extensive international law offerings. Of course there are classes on the WTO, Negotiation, Mediation, Sports, Tax, (international tax is consistently ranked one of the top five in the US), Legal writing,Project Finance, Corporate law... . Really check the curriculum on the UM website if you are really interested in making a serious comparison of course offerings. I am absolutely sure that University of Miami has many more courses to choose from than MIDS.

As for travel (also included in tuition) LLM Students can participate in Moots in Vienna, Madrid, The Hague, New York DC... the moot court opportunities are quickly expanding particularly with an eye to the Investment moot in Frankfurt. Additionally the university has a number of international law exchange seminars with the University of Zurich in and the University of Leipzig.

Furthermore Miami has attracted important international law conferences, this past year the ABA spring meeting was held at the Eden Roc Hotel on Miami beach and was followed by an ICC meeting. The goes out of its way to help make tickets available to students (which can cost more than $1000 for practitioners). If you want a one shot chance to hear the biggest names speak, undoubtedly you will have that. I saw Yves Derains speak, but honestly - a single lecture matters a lot less to me than committed faculty members.

The small classes in arbitration is not going to change in the foreseeable future. For me it is also clear that the networking value with classmates will not outweigh the value of consistent exposure to the greatest legal minds in the field. (Especially if your classmates are in a tight-nit program with great placement opportunities.)

As for location you are right that Europe is particularly important with arbitration, but New York City and Washington DC are also incredibly important. In fact ICSID is located in Washington D.C. (hence our ability to have the deputy secretary general teach our ICSID course). Another think I want to point out is that as a student without a JD (i.e. foreign trained lawyer) an LL.M at Miami gives you the opportunity to take the New York bar and provides a credential that is particularly valuable in an international legal market.

As for cost it is true that UM is very expensive. Two caveats though: 1) you get what you pay for. At UM this certainly holds true with the small classes and top notch faculty. 2) It is one of the most costly but also one of the most generous for merit based financial aid (they have a lot of money to give). A huge number of students (myself included) are on merit scholarships and do not pay full tuition. If you are a top notch candidate you will go to the University of Miami for free.

See so in the end it really matters who you are and where you want to go. For a top notch European student who is interested in the ability to take the bar in the US and have actually get to know the leaders in the field at a personal level you really cant compare with UM.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Sorry, I didnt want to upset you with my comment. Sorry if I did so, but I dont think its fair to say that I didnt make a serious comparison.

Regarding the courses, of course that you can take courses offered by UM in any area, but what I was trying to point out is that, except for the optional courses in substantive law that I mentioned at the end (that would be the equivalent to the courses of UM that you mentioned), all the other courses (almost 90%) are strictly related to arbitration.

As for travel, I didnt mentioned the moot courts because it is obvious that moot courts are paid by universities. The MIDS also has that options. I just wanted to say that, in addition to that, the MIDS also pays you visits to some of the most important arbitration institutios or courts of the world, where you can meet the people running those places, have lectures, etc. I think its invaluable to visit the ICC and have a lecture on ICC Arbitration in the very same place where all happens, by Pierre Tercier and the people running that place; or going to the ICJ and speak with the judges of the Wolrd Court.

I agree that NYC and WDC are very important. I didnt want to "devalue" them, but I think there is no dobut they are not at the same level than Europe. Besides ICSID, there is almost nothing... in Europe you have the ICC, the CAS, the ICJ, the Iran-US Tribunal, the ITLOS, the WIPO Arbitration Center, etc.

You made a very good point regarding the New York Bar! Thats a good difference, but still you can work in NYC, WDC or Houston (the most important cities for arbitration in the US) as a foreign associate wihtout being accepted to a US Bar, as far as you ar accepted in some Bar of the world.

Finally, discussing about money it make no sense because it really depends on the particular economic situation of each one. Some people can pay more, others cannot. Almost alll the universities of the world grant scholarships, so thats nothing new, and as you can imagine in Switzerland they have a lot of money because all the banks and financial companies of the world are located there. What I wanted to point out is that it is a fact that the MIDS is cheaper, and in my opinion, offers more options and a more complete program. But as you said, and I completly agree, at the end it depends on whatever each person is looking for...

Greetings - permit me to join in on this lively debate. (A quick disclaimer - I'm getting my JD at UM.)

Both institutions - MIDS and UM - have important qualities. MIDS obviously is an important institution and benefits from name recognition, a long establishment, and proximity to important centers of international arbitration. However, I think the final decision on which confers greater advantages depends on where you want to practice.

For example, my interest is in Latin American arbitration, and for this branch of arbitration in particular, UM is a superior choice to MIDS. First, because UM is in Miami which is arguably a city that is at least as international as Geneva, although there is a difference in the scope of the international flavor - Geneva for instance has more African and Middle Eastern presence than Miami, but Miami has a much stronger Latin American presence the Geneva, where it is practically non-existent.

Then there is exposure to the practice of International Arbitration. No one will dispute that Geneva is an important center for arbitration and international justice. Also, there is value in MIDS proximity to ICC, the CAS, the ICJ, the Iran-US Tribunal, the ITLOS, the WIPO Arbitration Center, etc. But this is only if you're interested in practicing IA in Geneva or Europe with a focus on the countries that are likely to arbitrate there. For someone interested in Latin American IA, all of those qualities are of little practical value. And what Geneva provides in terms of exposure to the practice with focus in Europe, Miami provides with respect to Latin American IA. This is especially true since Florida adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law of Arbitration. Neither NY State nor DC have adopted the Model law, although Texas has. In terms of support for Latin American clients, Miami provides an option that is equally as good if not better than NY or DC, and certainly better than Houston or Geneva.

First because it's much easier to engage legal assistance from an Spanish speaking lawyer in Miami to litigate the arbitration. Secondly, this same lawyer can engage the assistance of US courts. This is particularly important with respect to the two most important elements in an arbitral process - the enforcements of the arbitration clause and the arbitral award - and which require invocation of the power of US courts. Assuming a foreign lawyer who is not a member of the American bar could stand before a court pro hac vice, a lack of familiarity with US procedure would seriously impair that lawyer's ability to competently litigate in US court on behalf of his or her client. This is particularly true for a lawyer whose background is in civil law and has no practical experience with American common law jurisprudence. UM provides a foreign lawyer with an opportunity for course work in US Federal common law practice and procedure, something MIDS does not provide. Also, UM offers Latin American IA and Civil Law courses in Spanish and English. MIDS provides no such focus and offers courses only in English and French - very Continental.

All these factors combine to make UM a superior institution for exposure to the practice of Latin American IA than MIDS for that area in particular. Of course, for topics like International Justice and arbitration in Europe, MIDS is superior. With respect to general coursework in IA, having Paulsson and van der Berg as faculty at UM gives an LLM from UM in IA at least as much credibility as one from MIDS, particularly if one is likely to practice arbitration in contracts where US courts are likely to be involved.

Cheers.

I'm also interested in an LLM in International Arbitration, but I still have some doubts. Some lawyers in my home country (Panama) have told me that a specialization in arbitration does not grant you a reputation as an arbitrator/lawyer, because clients look for arbitrators with experience in a specific substantive law (i. e., in a maritime law dispute, a client will seek an attorney or arbitrator who is knowlegeable in maritime law, not necessarily in international arbitration). Thus, I have some concerns if a specialized program of this kind is the best option for me (I will recieve my LLB in a month or so). I know international arbitration is a vastly complex subject, but in the end is procedural law, which is accesory to the subtantial law. What are your thoughts on this matter? By the way, I wrote a thesis on investment arbitration and besides these doubts i'm rooting strongly for an LLM in this field in MIDS, UM, KCL or QMUL.

Thanks!

What that lawyers told you is right! No one will hire you as an arbitration only because you know "arbitration". However, the fact that arbitration is a procedure "accessory" to subtantial law doesnt mean that it is not important! It is acutally much more important and complex, in my view, than normal procedural law. I dont beleive is something you can really learn just by taking a few courses in an LL.M. (unless you wnat something superficial)

I would recommend you to go to the MIDS... its for sure the best! Just check out the courses and the professors and you will see... the fact that you are from Latin America doesnt change this fact, despite the argument you can find above... in Miami you will find a lot of Latins living there, but that does not mean that you will find more latin american arbitration there... people choose the seat of the arbitration according to the characteristics of the seat, and not according to the people that live in that place... that idea is crazy! Whatever they can say there is a fact: the most important seats of arbitration in the world are Paris, London and Geneva.. all the law firms there have a latin american section group.. so thats tell you a lot! In the US you will also find law firms with a Latin America speciality, but usually is in corporate law and not in arbitration... moreover, lot of US law firms have their main team of arbitration in Europe... I wonder why???? The US is great in a lot of things, but it is not as "pro-arbitration" as Europe, so people usually prefers Europe to arbitrate, because they know that local courts are more open to help them with the arbitration if something happens!

It's not necessarily true.

There are many arbitrators and litigators that never practiced in a specific substantive field of law. But sure, you get your reputation not by doing an LL.M. in that field. I know that many arbitrators did work in litigation and arbitration from the beginning. This is mainly because the procedural rules should be trained again and again. Of
ten it's way more important to know the procedural rules than the substantial law. But, as a matter of fact it is essential that both know the substantial laws and are willing to study them over and over.

And I strongly disagree regarding the complexity: complex litigation, as arbitration is all about knowing the procedural rules, the tactics and so on...but complex litigation is not less complex than arbitration.

Lastly, I think arbitration is not depending on the seat. As a matter of fact the seat of a company might influence the jurisdiction. But arbitration is chosen whenever parties want to have a fast procedure, discretion and various other, rather business related, reasons. The characteristics of the seat are certainly not the main reason why parties chose arbitration in a contract.

However, there is one thing you need to know: Arbitration is a highly competitive area of practice with many great specialists. It's hard to get into the circle. Unless you really want to do this because it's your passion...think twice...

I agree. A lot of the ideals that arbitration is supposed to represent are not necessarily true in the field. For instance, international arbitration is extremely expensive. And does not necessarily guarantee a quick resolution - Paulsson mentioned one arbitration that lasted 15 years. Here's an interesting article that talks about arbitration losing it's appeal for international corporations and that some are actually resorting to national courts rather than arbitration -->http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202423321977.

However, if you take courses in arbitration you'll see that the arbitration process itself has comparatively few procedural rules - that's part of the reason why some favor arbitration, to get rid of the complex procedural requirements of litigation in national courts. Where arbitration becomes complex is where the arbitral process intersects with the national laws at the site of arbitration, national laws where the arbitration agreement is sought to be enforced, and national laws where the arbitral award is sought to be enforced. You need to keep all these rules in mind not just when you arbitrate, but right from the very beginning, when you're drafting the contract and choosing the site of arbitration.

I think the person above misread what I wrote earlier. I did not write that Miami was a good choice for Latin American arbitration because there are a lot of Latins living here - I completely agree that it's not a good basis for choosing the site for arbitration. What I wrote was that Miami was a good site for Latin American arbitration - better than any place in Europe in my opinion - because it's the only place where you can find a Spanish speaking lawyer who is well versed in arbitral procedure and procedure in US courts, and because US courts are reliable. I have no doubt that Paris, London, and Geneva are important seats of arbitration. However, to call them THE most important is a bit broad, and doesn't take account of the perspective of the litigants. I'm pretty sure most Asian litigants would prefer to to arbitrate in Hong Kong, and not Paris, Geneva, or London. I've spent may years doing in business in Latin America and I'm pretty sure that given the choice between Miami and any seat in Europe, Latin American litigants would prefer Miami. This is especially true now since Florida adopted the UNCITRAL Model Laws for international arbitration.

I also have no doubt that law firms in Paris, Geneva, and London have Latin American sections, but that does not make it a necessarily a better choice for Latin American arbitration. There are also many firms in Miami that specialize in international arbitration. You can also look up the Miami International Arbitration Society to see what events related to just International Arbitration happen here (just type "international arbitration miami" into Google and see what comes up). I'm sure some law firms have their main arbitration teams in Europe, but it would make little sense to have the Latin American arbitration section there, unless of course they're a European law firm. But who knows, law firms have their own reasons for doing things.

It's true that Europe has a longer history with arbitration than the US, but that is for reason's particular to Europe. The NY Convention was drafted in 1957, but trade had been going on between European countries for a long time before then, and before the existence of the EU. I'm not sure it's accurate to say that local European courts are more open to help in the arbitration process than American courts. There is a lot of precedent from US courts, including the US Supreme Court, enforcing arbitration agreements and arbitration awards from foreign courts and in favor of foreign litigants.

Lastly, to say that MIDS is for sure the best is painting with a very broad stroke. The best how? It's a questionable assertion - at least with respect to Latin American arbitration. The fact that you can take courses from Paulsson and van den Berg means that going to UM is the same as going to MIDS. Where UM is different, and I believe superior to MIDS, is the breadth of scope in substantive law that's offered aside from the core curriculum in IA. I checked out the curriculum at MIDS and I saw only one course offered that deals with Latin America; UM offers four courses, including doing Business in Latin America. Beyond arbitration, UM offeres a much broader scope of substantive law than MIDS, including over twenty courses dealing with international trade and dispute resolution (you can see the curriculum here --> http://www.law.miami.edu/iglp/international_arbitration/program_requirements.php?op=3). There are also eight courses in ocean and coastal law, including maritime law.

It seems that the take away from this debate is that you need to do your due diligence and make sure you go to a program that's right for you. Where to get your LLM is too important a decision to base just on what a few anonymous posts on a website. Both programs have their strengths and weaknesses depending on your perspective. Look the all over, decide which one offeres you the most exposure to the practice that intersts you, and then choose. When someone says that MIDS is the best, that statement is an opinion, not a fact. And it's an opinion that substantially rebuttable. MIDS may be the best with respect to EU arbitration, or Human Rights Law, or arbitration in Asia, or course work on the International Court of Justice. But with respect to Latin American arbitration, my own opinion is that UM is superior. But again, it's just an opinion. And I can't speak with respect to GW and any other places you might be considering.

Nevertheless, I hope I've been able to contribute to your making an informed decision. But whereever you decide to go, best of luck. Cheers.

What I wrote was that Miami was a good site for Latin American arbitration - better than any place in Europe in my opinion - because it's the only place where you can find a Spanish speaking lawyer who is well versed in arbitral procedure and procedure in US courts, and because US courts are reliable.

I have no doubt that Paris, London, and Geneva are important seats of arbitration. However, to call them THE most important is a bit broad, and doesn't take account of the perspective of the litigants. I'm pretty sure most Asian litigants would prefer to to arbitrate in Hong Kong, and not Paris, Geneva, or London. I've spent may years doing in business in Latin America and I'm pretty sure that given the choice between Miami and any seat in Europe, Latin American litigants would prefer Miami. This is especially true now since Florida adopted the UNCITRAL Model Laws for international arbitration.

There are also many firms in Miami that specialize in international arbitration. . I'm sure some law firms have their main arbitration teams in Europe, but it would make little sense to have the Latin American arbitration section there, unless of course they're a European law firm. But who knows, law firms have their own reasons for doing things.

Lastly, to say that MIDS is for sure the best is painting with a very broad stroke. The best how? It's a questionable assertion - at least with respect to Latin American arbitration. The fact that you can take courses from Paulsson and van den Berg means that going to UM is the same as going to MIDS..

Where UM is different, and I believe superior to MIDS, is the breadth of scope in substantive law that's offered aside from the core curriculum in IA.

Hey guys. ...I did apply yesterday for the uni of Arizona. ...do u guys have any info about their international trade and business LLM Program. ........

Diana, I didn't know you could take other courses different from the ones posted in the MIDS website. Is there a list of these courses available somewhere? Can you post it? Thanks in advance!

Thats what they told me when I applied. I know that the courses of the Graduate Institute are the ones of the masters they offer, so you can enter to their site and check the courses of every master. Regarding the University of Geneva I have no idea where you can look for the courses, I am sorry, but I am sure you can find them in its website as well.