Greener Arbitrations | Electronic signatures and notification of awards – a greener alternative?

In the latest episode of our Greener Arbitrations podcast series, Alison Eslick and Vanessa Thieffry moderate a spirited debate between Michelle Nelson (Dubai) and Clément Fouchard (Paris) as they explore the pros and cons of electronic signatures and notification of awards, including discussion on recognition and enforcement, cost savings, technology challenges, convenience, security risks and resistance to change.

Transcript:

Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, global head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers.

Welcome to our Greener Arbitrations podcast miniseries where Reed Smith's International Arbitration lawyers will be exploring the legal and technical issues involved in reducing the environmental footprint of arbitrations. I'm Alison Eslick, an International Arbitration lawyer at Reed Smith's Dubai office and I am Vanessa Thieffry, an International Arbitration lawyer at Reed Smith's Paris office. In these episodes, we will hear from leading arbitration practitioners and external speakers and discuss insights, news and trends relevant to greening arbitration and the challenges that are entailed. We hope you enjoy this episode.

Vanessa: Welcome back to another exciting episode of Reed Smith's Arbitral Insights. I am Vanessa Thieffry and together with Alison Eslick, we are delighted to host the sixth and final episode of our Greener Arbitrations miniseries in which lawyers of Reed Smith debate, how to reduce the environmental footprint of arbitrations. In 2022 Reed Smith launched an initiative to reduce the environmental footprint of our arbitrations. We quickly identified the need to raise awareness both internally and externally and organizing a podcast miniseries on greener arbitrations appeared as an obvious tool to do that. In the five first episodes, we addressed arbitration agreements and whether they should include sustainability measures, the campaign for greener arbitrations model procedural order and whether it was unavoidable. The topic of hard copied submissions in which we wondered if they were a thing of the past witness and expert preparation and whether video conferencing can match in person meetings and in person hearings and whether they are still worthwhile. If you haven't listened to them yet, they are available on Reed Smith's podcast channel, Arbitral Insights.

Alison: Thank you, Vanessa. Now, in this episode, we focus on the entire points of going to arbitration and that is of course obtaining an enforceable award. So recently we see more and more institutions notifying awards by email and arbitrators signing awards electronically. Now this may well be greener, but when it comes to something as important as the final award, is green always better? So that is the question that our debaters will tackle today. I do have a short disclaimer as we always do with these debates, our debaters have been assigned the positions that they are advocating and this is so they can fully advocate for or against the proposition. The debate is of course role playing and none of the views expressed during the debates should be attributed to Reed Smith, the debaters themselves or of course any of our clients. So joining us today for this challenging topic, uh Reed Smith partners Michelle Nelson and Clément Fouchard who will present their primary positions and then each will have a chance for rebuttal.

Vanessa: Thanks Alison. Let's see what our first speaker has to say. Clément Fouchard is up. Clément is a partner in Reed Smith's Paris office in the Energy and Natural Resources Group, focusing on international commercial and investment arbitration. He has over 16 years experience advising on major litigation and arbitration proceedings in particular in complex disputes in construction, energy and infrastructure, mining defense and distribution sectors. As well as considerable experience with joint ventures, imposed acquisition disputes. In addition to acting as counsel Clément acts as an arbitrator in domestic and international arbitration. Clément, the floor is yours.

Clément: Thank you, Vanessa and Alison. I'm very happy to be with you today and to argue in favor of green arbitration, electronic signature and notification of rewards. Is green always better? So yes, green, that is the use of electronic signature and electronic notification of rewards is always better. And I will explain why. First a definition, an electronic award or e-award is an arbitral award that is signed digitally by the arbitral tribunal and emailed to the parties directly or if an institution is involved for transmission to the parties by the institution.

First, I will start by saying that the appeal and desirability of electronic awards cannot be denied. In a survey published last year in the Journal of International Arbitration, questions were asked to leading arbitration institutions regarding the use of and practice of electronic awards. The participants overwhelmingly agreed that electronic awards are faster, 95% of the response. Cheaper, 85% and better for the environment, 80%. So let's look at those three criterias. First of all speed, while it is true that in some jurisdictions, it may take time to obtain a detailed signature for the first time. It cannot be denied that an award can be signed by the three arbitrators and sent to the parties by email in a manner of minutes. The same cannot obviously be said for hard copies awards that need to be printed out, circulated among tribunal members for signature and hard copy original notified by courier service.

As to cost, now again, there is little doubt that an electronic awards are most certainly cheaper since they can often be prepared at no cost at all given that one, e-signature software are often for free and two, the sending being done by email, there is no additional cost and this is to be compared with courier service costs for all the back and forth required to have the award being signed by all members of the tribunal and then harm to the environment when electronic awards save paper because they do not need to be printed. This is abuse and reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses because they do not require physical transportation. Of course, electronic rewards are not entirely without carbon footprint, either data storage and related energy consumption have a certain, albeit, I submit a very small impact on the environment, however, the data storage needs of a paper award are in practice greater than those of electronic award. As to the COVID-19 crisis, put the world on hold. The legal community, and international arbitration in particular had to adapt and they actually adapt in a new way of working where online meetings and online hearings, it became the norm.

So looking at e-signature of arbitral awards, there is clearly a growing trend amongst the major arbitration legal system, the vast majority of arbitration laws and institutional rules require the award to be in writing and to be signed. These requirements have primarily evidentiary functions and they have therefore little to do with the written text in digital or tangible formats. And this is the same situation regarding e-signature awards which will depend upon the electronic signature law, which in most cases would in principle allow the e-signature of arbitral awards. The New York Convention does not prohibit the electronic signature of awards and therefore most reductions should permit the arbitral award to be signed with any signature of awards. The issue of e-signature should be assessed, therefore, as the applicable at the applicable law level in this respect, we note that there is a growing number of jurisdictions allowing the signature of arbitral awards electronically. Looking first at France, Article 1366 of the French civil code provides that an electronic document has the same evidential value as a paper document provided that the person from whom it originates can be duly identified and that it is drawn up and stored in conditions that guarantee its integrity. So as we can see, the focus is made on the originality and the integrity of the electronic documents. Once this requirement is satisfied, French law grants the electronic document the same evidential value than a paper document. The legal framework dealing with the authentication of e-signatories has been based in France on the requirements of the EU regulation which deals with electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market. So we have actually a legal framework in place and I could continue with the United States with the Uniform Act of 2000 which requires that an award must be signed or otherwise authenticated by an arbitrator. An arbitrator can therefore sign an award with an electronic signature. In the UK, the draft reform of the English Arbitration act explicitly unfazed that there was no need for an explicit reference to electronic signature and notification of words as these are already authorized and I can continue on and on.

As to e-notification, the arbitral award uh is also on the rise. Taking again the example of France Article 1519 paragraph three of the French Code of Civil Procedure states that notification of international arbitral awards shall be made by service,  meaning by bailiff, unless the parties agree otherwise. This means that the parties can agree to another means of notification such as in the context of ICC arbitration, the electronic notification of awards by ICC Secretariat. So in conclusion, I submit that those solutions in e-notification and e-signature of rewards are more and more used and should be the preferred way in the international arbitration practice.

Alison: Thank you very much Clément, some excellent points made there. And I do remember printing those thousands of pages back in the day. So let's see what our second speaker Michelle Nelson has to reply. Michelle Nelson is a partner in Reed Smith's Dubai office. She sits in our global Energy and Natural Resources Group. Michelle is a specialist arbitration lawyer with 27 years of experience advising a variety of clients on oil and gas and construction disputes. She is a qualified solicitor advocate. She sits as arbitrator on regional disputes and also has rights of audience before the DIFC courts. And I do have to mention that she is the only female in the Legal 500 Hall of Fame for Construction and has been ranked in the 2024 edition of  Who's Who Legal for the Arbitration category. So Michelle take it away.

Michelle: Thank you very much, everyone and I'm delighted to participate in this Greener Arbitration podcast series and particularly on the topic of e-signatures and e-notifications of arbitral awards. I've been tasked today with arguing against the proposition that my colleague Clément put forward and specifically why in the case of e-signatures and e-awards, a greener approach is not always best. So my colleague Clément made some interesting points but there are fundamental reasons why parties should cautiously approach e-signatures and e-notifications of awards, even if they are better for the environment. A point which certainly from my side is itself is debatable, but there's specifically three points against the proposition that I'm going to be considering in some detail.

First, the end goal of any claimant in arbitration is to have an enforceable award. And I think Clément agrees with that proposition. Whilst e-signatures and e-notifications of awards may well be a greener option, they will not necessarily be valid and enforceable in every jurisdiction and this requires a cautious case by case approach. If the award is unenforceable, then greener clearly is not better.

Secondly, parties and tribunals who accept e-signatures and e-notification of awards open themselves up to a host of potential cybersecurity and data integrity risks. Even the largest law firms and the most prominent barristers chambers have been victims of hacking and data leaks. And as the world becomes increasingly more reliant on digital technology, these risks are expected to increase. This is the downside or perhaps I should say the dark side of opting for e-signatures and e-notification of awards.

Thirdly, I have to question whether my opponent's claims that e-awards are demonstrably better for the environment at all. I suggest that in practice, the positive environmental impact of signing an award with an e-signature or notifying an award by email has perhaps been grossly exaggerated by my opponent. Whilst one could argue that every little bit counts, there are several other areas of arbitration and we've, we've, we've heard about those in terms of the printing of bundles and thousands of pages of submissions and issues of virtual hearing e-bundles and the like which certainly I would suggest should be prioritized. So taking down each one of these points.

Firstly, the issue of enforcement now arbitration, in contrast to other ADR mechanisms has the advantage of a binding decision at the end, making it a viable and well established alternative to traditional litigation. Any doubts about enforceability of an award puts at risk, the whole purpose of the arbitration itself. The use of e-awards and e-signatures is particularly risky in the context of international arbitration. Each jurisdiction has its own different requirements as to the validity of enforceability of awards ranging from the need for a wet ink signature to an originality requirement where it will be expected that a hard copy original award will be provided. Awards with e-signatures, or that have notified by email only, will not suffice and are likely to lead to increased costs and prolonged legal battles around enforcement.

Now, my opponent Clément gave a shopping list of examples of countries which theoretically allow for e-awards. Yet the countries mentioned only included Western European countries and the U.S. So I do have to ask, what about the rest of the world? e-Awards may not be enforceable in a number of countries. So care must be taken. Whilst I accept my friend's argument that national courts of some countries are moving towards acceptance of digital methods, we simply aren't there yet. The suggestion that scholars may argue that e-awards cannot be challenged will not give clients much comfort when a court says no. Here in the UAE for example, there are currently a number of cases in the courts and have been sent to the courts where nullification proceedings have been put on hold. Whilst the tribunals have actually been told to go away and reissue awards and sign them in wet ink, which not only of course, is increased time, it causes increased cost as well. And the risk the award will not be enforceable in any event. I should note that the Chartered Institution of Arbitrators has also given some reluctance in its guidance and said that even though digital technology is rapidly becoming a widely accepted business and legal tool, it's advisable to keep key procedural documents in both soft and hard copies containing signatures of participants where necessary. So again, this is suggesting a cautious approach.

So the bottom line, I would say any party considering use of an e-award or e-signature perhaps should obtain an opinion from local council first to make sure that there is not a risk in that individual jurisdiction. Clearly greener is not better if the award is unenforceable.

Secondly, although data security risks are inherent in any form of electronic communications, the stakes are higher when it comes to e-awards due to their commercially sensitive and confidential nature. Confidentiality is one of the many factors that makes arbitration more attractive than litigation. Yet, a cybersecurity threat puts this at risk. Big businesses may well have excellent firewalls but many arbitration parties are smaller businesses without top class IT support. When it comes to a final award there are good reasons why it's worth having a hard copy in your office safe. And doubts could also be raised as to the authenticity of e-signatures used and the award itself.

For example, courts may question whether the integrity of the e-award has been preserved and whether or not the award was safeguarded against later modification. One can imagine an enforcement scenario where a fraud has been committed and local courts do not have the means to authenticate thee-award, even if the local law ordinarily permits its enforcement. Now, I accept my friends point that some jurisdictions including the EU and specific EU countries like France have taken regulatory steps towards developing a framework to protect against forgery and other mischief involving e-signatures. But again, this does not include the majority of the world's countries. And in fact, underscores the very real risks that e-signatures present. And statistically, I think it's right to say that much of the world's users of arbitration is not necessarily in the EU.

As for e-notifications, email does not provide the same level of certainty as a courier delivered and signed for paper award, a standard email will not inform the sender as to whether or not the recipient had received it, the email might be shown as sent however, there's no certainty as to whether it has in fact been delivered and given the sheer volume of email traffic, one could even imagine a scenario where a party misses that all important email. And if the award needs to be annulled time will be ticking to file those proceedings with irreversible consequences if a time bar is missed.

So lastly, even if one were to disregard all of the things that I've said so far, we need to consider whether or not e-awards make a significant difference for sustainability. My friend was keen to point out the benefits of online hearings, general correspondence and so forth. But this debate is focused on e-signatures and e-awards. Now I accept that it is not ideal to fly several copies, an arbitration award around the world to be signed by three arbitrators and then delivered to the parties. Yet in the grand scheme of an arbitration carbon footprint, it is a relatively small package being carried on a large airplane that was making the trip anyway. While arbitrations do have a significant carbon footprint, studies show that energy use powering law firm offices and air travel for in-person hearings are the top two biggest causes of CO2 emissions in arbitrations. Apparently 92.7% of carbon emissions for hearings come from flights alone that if we really want to make arbitrations greener, our priority should be on those areas instead.

So in closing, it comes down to a cost benefit exercise. Parties should ask themselves whether the benefit of a small reduction in paper waste and CO2 emissions is worth the risk of an unenforceable award. Indeed, a recent Queen Mary International Arbitration survey confirmed that participants are generally not overly enthusiastic about receiving an e-award. Only 14% stated that they wanted awards to be signed electronically. It seems that people have spoken and would agree with me that when it comes to e-awards, greener is not always better. Thank you.

Vanessa: Thank you, Michelle. There are some very compelling arguments here. Both sides have made extremely strong arguments but how do we tell them apart? Well, it's time for rebuttal starting with Clément. Clément, what do you have to answer to Michelle?

Clément: In response to Michelle's very interesting points I will limit myself to the following three remarks. First, as to enforcement of awards. As I said earlier, the question of enforcement must be resolved by looking at the applicable law and national solutions may vary from one region to another. That said, I also note that one, the New York Convention is silent on the delivery of the awards to the parties and two, although the risk regarding enforcement of e-awards has been expressed in relation to the formal requirements of an award, question of due process or international public policy, the reality is that e-awards cannot in fact be seriously challenged on those grounds. As mentioned earlier, formal requirements have in reality very little to do with the format digital or tangible of the substantive text of the award.

As to due process requirements, a party must be given proper notice of an arbitral proceedings. And nowadays, emails are an accepted mode of giving notice while there are issues such as being unable to prove when a party receives an email. Email software has made it simpler for a sender to be notified if the receiver of the email opens a particular email by creating provisions of read receipts. And for instance, in another instance, the High Court in India has held that a notice sent on WhatsApp was actually good service. And finally, the rendering of e-awards does not breach international public policy as we actually failed to see what would be the valid ground in this respect.

Two on cyber security and online arbitration, I've listened to the legitimate concerns raised by my learned colleague. While these concerns should not be ignored, I submit the risk is that link, again I would say, to the form of the original award electronic or paper because in either case, the arbitrators can be hacked and the award tampered with. The reality is that both wet ink and e-signatures can be forged. And the difference lies in reality in the way in which the fraud is proven or discovered for a paper signature with the help of an expert, a graphologist expert, and for the electronic signature with the help of an IT specialist. The real issue is how to ensure that the signature on the award is not forged. As to online signatures are used additional requirements may be imposed. In application of the EU regulation mentioned earlier, French law, for instance, has created four different levels of security in which signatures can be categorized. The two highest levels are recommended to companies for their contracts and agreements where e-signatures are certified as having the same value of a paper hand signature. And there are numerous specialized IT platforms, and I will mention for instance, DocuSign, which has been certified by the French government to ensure the integrity of e-signatures.

Last points, e-signatures and notification of awards in arbitration constitute a means to tackle the climate change problem. As it allows to reduce, reducing the impact of arbitration on the environment. They have a direct effect on paper consumption. And two, they have also an impact in reducing the need for air travel. As we know every step count and as international arbitration is taking the green transition turn e-signature and e-notification of rewards must be adopted on a wider scope. Thank you very much.

Alison: Ok. Our time is up for this episode and we would like to thank warmly Michelle and Clément for their time and precious insights on this topic.

Vanessa: This was our last episode for this miniseries on how to reduce the environmental impact of arbitration. But we will revert soon with a new topic. Until then, thank you for listening to our Arbitral Insights Greener Arbitrations podcast series. We hope you enjoyed it.

Outro: Arbitral Insights is a Reed Smith production. Our producer is Ali McCardell. For more information about Reed Smith's Global International Arbitration practice, email arbitralinsights@reedsmith.com. To learn about the Reed Smith Arbitration Pricing Calculator, a first of its kind mobile app that forecasts the cost of arbitration around the world, search Arbitration Pricing Calculator on reedsmith.com or download for free through the Apple and Google Play app stores. You can find our podcast on Spotify, Apple, Google Play, Stitcher, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts at Reed Smith LLP on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.

Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship,  nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers.

All rights reserved.

Transcript is auto-generated.