A ‘withdrawal’ syndrome: counsel resignations in international arbitrations

Abstract The Russia–Ukraine conflict has grabbed the world’s attention as a grave breach of a state’s sovereignty. Among the several implications of the conflict, it has opened a Pandora’s box with counsel and law firms resigning from representing Russia and Russian entities in international legal proceedings including arbitrations. Counsel resignation, once completely within the decision-making of clients and counsel, has grown into an issue that requires third-party deliberations and adjudication. Though trite in law that a counsel and a client have mutual rights to end professional ties between each other, a counsel’s voluntary resignation in arbitration remains unexplored. This necessitates a global discussion as it directly encroaches upon the fundamental rule of law that every person has the right to be represented and defended. Thus, counsel resignation has been elevated to a moral quandary of professional obligations. The aim of this article is to draw a broad outline of the present legal position on counsel resignations, the conundrums surrounding it, and the scope of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to interfere in these matters.