The most expensive part of a dispute is usually the assumption — about forum, about evidence, about counterparties — that no one stopped to test.
We are typically engaged at the point where a commercial disagreement has hardened into a live dispute but proceedings have not yet been issued. Recent matters in this posture include a shareholder dispute and injunction proceedings, an MoU dispute requiring a legal notice and forum analysis before any filing, an international debt-recovery action, and a court-referral matter where the right forum was the first contested question.
Our work in this phase is about choices: jurisdiction, governing law, the right forum given the asset map and the urgency, the evidence to preserve before it disappears, and the tone of correspondence that protects the client's position without escalating the matter before the client is ready.
“Most disputes that go badly went badly in the first thirty days — because no one paused to choose the forum.”
Once a path is chosen, we align strategy across workstreams — court, arbitration, regulatory engagement, settlement — so that the client's message to counterparties, tribunals, and authorities stays coherent.