Events 
Resources 
News News
Read our latest news, stories and articles
Swiss Arbitration Interview Series: Andrea Meier, ASA President
Mirella Janett, Walder Wyss Ltd. / LL.M. Candidate at UC Berkeley School of Law
Let’s start with an icebreaker: What is your preferred snack to keep you energized throughout a long hearing?
Chocolate.
Quite early in your career, you wrote your doctoral thesis on “Joinder of Third Parties in International Arbitration.” Did you already envisage a career in this field at the time?
Not during my studies. At that stage, I knew very little about international arbitration or its role in resolving commercial disputes. However, in my first year as an associate, I was asked to assist with an international arbitration. I was immediately fascinated by its international dimension and by the prospect of working on disputes involving parties from different jurisdictions. I was equally impressed by the arbitrator’s role in managing the proceedings and the discretion involved in doing so. I found that combination truly fascinating.
Fast forward to today: You have handled countless arbitrations as both counsel and arbitrator. What continues to fascinate you and motivate you to pursue this career?
It never gets boring because every dispute is different. As counsel, you work with different in-house legal teams and, in technical disputes, with technical teams. You also collaborate with a range of external technical experts, so there is always something new to learn. That is what I find most rewarding about international arbitration. If you are naturally curious, that constant opportunity to learn is what keeps you engaged.
Since January 2026, you have served as the 10th President of the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA). What do you see as the most important element of that role?
I think the most important element is serving the ASA community. The role is really about maintaining and enhancing Switzerland’s position as an arbitration hub. In practical terms, this means developing strategic initiatives together with the ASA Board and the ASA Marketing Committee and ensuring that they are implemented. It also involves motivating people and ensuring that we work together to complete these initiatives. I also want to make sure that there is a place within ASA for everyone who wishes to contribute actively.
As ASA President, what is currently at the top of your list of priorities?
Overseeing the many different workstreams we currently have. One of our priorities is our project with Maxwell Chambers, a major international dispute resolution hearing center in Singapore. ASA has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Maxwell Chambers. This is more than just an agreement on paper: Maxwell Chambers provides a physical hub in Southeast Asia, which we intend to use for regular events. This will help to further establish ASA’s presence in the Asian market, which is a key market for us.
Another focus is the Swiss substantive law campaign, which aims to showcase Swiss law as an option for international disputes. We will hold events around the globe to highlight its main features and advantages. The goal is to enable users to make an informed choice about the substantive law governing their contracts.
Another priority is our Africa strategy. We are looking to expand our activities into new markets in Africa and we will start with an event in Ethiopia in December this year.
Finally, we have set up a task force on Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”). We want to put Switzerland on the map for ADR, including by offering training in negotiation and mediation advocacy.
Turning to arbitration in Switzerland, what do you see as the main factors that make Swiss-seated arbitrations attractive to foreign parties?
Swiss arbitration law is ideally suited to international arbitration. It regulates what needs to be regulated while giving the parties a lot of autonomy. Moreover, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court is deeply familiar with, and very supportive of, arbitration. Switzerland’s political and economic stability is another significant advantage.
What can the Swiss arbitration community do to preserve and further strengthen these advantages?
First of all, it is important that we work together and maintain the quality of our pool of arbitration practitioners in Switzerland. Education is key to this. We need to pass on the know-how we have acquired over many years to the next generation. We also have to go out and promote our advantages and expertise. Switzerland is a small country, so we need everyone to contribute to promoting Swiss arbitration.
What do you value most about ASA as a professional community?
We all care deeply about Switzerland’s position as a hub for international arbitration. To that end, we come together and collaborate, regardless of our law firm affiliations. I think this is our unique strength. We have such a broad pool of arbitration practitioners who are willing to get involved and dedicate their time to advancing ASA’s mission.
AI is becoming increasingly relevant in the legal profession. Turning specifically to arbitration, how do you see AI influencing the field?
AI has a huge impact on the entire legal profession, and the challenges it presents also arise in arbitration.
With regard to the limits of AI use, the key question for me is how to ensure the quality of submissions and the accuracy of their content. On the counsel side, we have to ensure proper quality control. For example, if you delegate research to one of your associates and that person uses AI, how do you ensure that the content is correct? This requires internal education on how to use AI correctly, as well as internal guidelines specifying the safeguards that need to be in place when using AI for research. On the arbitrator side, we have to ensure that arbitrators do not delegate their primary task – decision-making – to AI. Decision-making requires in-depth knowledge of the file. Thus, while AI is, of course, capable of summarizing the parties’ submissions for the purpose of drafting the award, I personally feel that summarizing the submissions myself helps me with the decision-making process. It forces me to really think through the arguments, put them in order of relevance, and eliminate those that are, in my view, less relevant. If you delegate that task to AI, I think you lose something in the decision-making process.
Finally, with all the benefits that AI offers in terms of efficiency, we need to ensure that it does not simply lead to counsel producing more information and content. Instead, we have to ensure that submissions are limited to what is relevant to the case.
From your experience as an arbitrator, do you think parties should consider regulating the use of AI, for example, in the Procedural Order No. 1 or through guidelines on the use of AI?
That is also a highly debated question at this stage because we are still learning every day what AI can do. Whatever you regulate might be outdated the next day. I also see a risk that if you adopt detailed regulations or wording, for example in Procedural Order No. 1, it might still not cover everything, either because a specific use of AI has only just emerged or because you did not think of it or were simply unaware of it. In my view, it is more important to use common sense and have a conversation about the use of AI at the outset of the proceedings. For example, the tribunal can make clear to the parties that they remain responsible for the content and accuracy of their submissions and that everything must be supported by authorities. Conversely, the tribunal remains responsible for reviewing the file itself and for the decision-making, which cannot be delegated. This is what should be made clear, rather than defining every detail of how the parties and the tribunal may use AI.
Moving from your role as ASA President to your own practice as arbitration practitioner: You are currently a partner at a large Swiss law firm, but you also have experience working in a boutique. Do you think there is such a thing as an ideal setup for practicing arbitration?
We are taught not to say “it depends,” but it really does depend on your focus. If you primarily work as an arbitrator, you do not need a big firm behind you, with all the conflicts that come with it. However, if you want a mix of counsel and arbitrator work, or if your focus is clearly on counsel work, you need a certain level of manpower, which dictates the setup. Your focus may also shift over the course of your career, which is why we see people moving from big firms to smaller setups or establishing their own boutiques when they decide to focus on arbitrator work.
We also see specialized arbitration boutiques handling large cases, with dedicated teams focused on arbitration. So there is a variety of setups: you can have a large law firm covering a range of practice areas, or a smaller firm specializing in arbitration. It is also a matter of personal preference – whether you prefer a set-up with different practice groups or a specialized environment. It will be interesting to see the impact of AI on these developments. In some cases that would have required large teams in the past, AI might allow you to handle them with smaller teams. This could also impact team setups within law firms.
Drawing on your experience as both counsel and arbitrator, what are the three most important qualities of a good arbitrator?
Integrity, sound judgement, and the ability to listen.
Keeping your cool in high-stakes arbitrations can be challenging. You are known for possessing that quality. Can you share your recipe?
It comes with experience. Once you have been through situations where things became heated, you learn that there is no point in driving everyone else crazy. Important decisions must be made in a calm state of mind. The simple recipe I follow in these situations is: breathe, pause, then think and act.
What advice would you give to your younger self when starting out as arbitration counsel? Would that advice be different for a young practitioner entering the field today?
I would advise myself to be curious, to leave no stone unturned in a case, to dive into the facts, and to take responsibility for the case from an early stage. Cases are often complex, and the person who knows the facts best also knows the case best. This is very often true of associates, and there is so much they can draw from that knowledge. They can really take charge of the case. I would therefore advise myself to be as proactive as possible, to think ahead about the next steps, and to think about how I can contribute and be as active as possible, rather than simply waiting for the next task to be delegated to me.
I would still give the same advice today to a young practitioner entering the field. Even though lawyers now have to navigate the additional layer of using AI, that does not change the basic truth that we, as lawyers, still shape the case. We still have to know all the facts and define the strategy. These skills are therefore just as important today as they were when I started in the field.
Perhaps one final comment to my younger self as an associate: It is important to speak your mind. It would be a shame to have a good idea that is never raised.
Thank you very much for taking the time to answer our questions, Andrea.