Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
In advance on the ICC/YAF Seminar ‘paper, paper everywhere…..’ we would like to collate your views on this hot topic.
This is a much-heard complaint in international arbitration – submissions are too long, witness statements are too long and don’t focus on the crux of the case, disclosure is getting out of hand, parties focus on quantity not quality in order to ‘flood’ their opponent etc etc.
But is it true?
Is the volume of ‘paper’ (physical or electronic) any worse than in previous decades?
Is it an unavoidable facet of modern dispute resolution? Is the volume justifiable in the name of reaching the right outcome and, ultimately (and hopefully!) justice?
Does the volume of paper in arbitration need reigning-back with Jackson-style regulation?
Please vote in our poll and add your comments to the debate:
0330 161 1234