Legal Questions.
Clear Answers.

A clear agreement to arbitrate, a defined scope of disputes, and — ideally — an express seat, governing law, institutional rules, and language. Vague or contradictory clauses invite jurisdictional fights before the merits are ever reached.

The seat is the legal home of the arbitration — it fixes the supervisory courts and much of the procedural law. The venue is simply where hearings physically take place. They are often different, and the seat matters far more.

If there is a valid arbitration agreement covering the dispute, a court will generally stay its own proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration on the application of one party, under the applicable arbitration legislation.

Yes. The law governing the contract, the law governing the arbitration agreement, and the procedural law of the seat can all differ. Specifying each avoids costly disputes about which law applies to what.

Institutional arbitration is administered by a body such as the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, or ICDR under its own rules. Ad hoc arbitration runs without an administering institution, usually under the UNCITRAL Rules, and depends more heavily on the parties and the tribunal to manage the process.

The choice turns on cost, procedural culture, scrutiny of awards, default seat, and where enforcement is likely. Each institution has distinct strengths, and the right choice depends on the parties, the transaction, and the anticipated dispute.

A widely used set of procedural rules designed for ad hoc arbitration. They provide a complete framework for conducting a proceeding without an administering institution, and are frequently chosen in cross-border and investor-state contexts.

Arbitrators are appointed under the applicable rules — often one by each party and a chair by agreement or by the institution. They can be challenged for lack of independence or impartiality, on grounds and procedures set out in those rules.

Arbitration between a foreign investor and a host state, usually under a bilateral or multilateral investment treaty, addressing claims such as expropriation or unfair treatment of the investor's investment. It is commonly conducted under ICSID or UNCITRAL rules.

ICSID — the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes — is a World Bank institution that administers investment-treaty and investment-contract arbitrations between investors and states, with its own self-contained rules and annulment mechanism.

ICSID awards are enforceable under the ICSID Convention with very limited review: under Article 54, every Contracting State must recognise an ICSID award as binding and enforce its pecuniary obligations as if it were a final judgment of its own courts, while Article 55 leaves the law on state immunity from execution untouched. Non-ICSID treaty awards are generally enforced under the New York Convention, like other foreign arbitral awards.

An emergency arbitrator is appointed on an expedited basis under many institutional rules to grant urgent interim relief before the full tribunal is constituted — for example, to preserve assets or the status quo.

Yes. Courts can grant interim measures in aid of arbitration — including injunctions and freezing orders — where the tribunal is not yet constituted or cannot act effectively, without undermining the parties' agreement to arbitrate.

Depending on the rules and the seat, a tribunal can order measures to preserve evidence or assets, maintain the status quo, provide security for costs, or restrain conduct that would prejudice the arbitration.

The seat determines the procedural law of the arbitration, which courts supervise and support it, the grounds and forum for setting aside an award, and often the enforceability of the eventual award. It is one of the most consequential choices in any arbitration.

Yes. Under the principle of competence-competence, a tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement — subject to later court review at the seat or on enforcement.

The other party can apply to stay the court proceeding and compel arbitration under the arbitration agreement. Courts routinely enforce valid arbitration clauses and refer the parties to arbitration.

Rights of appeal are narrow and are often excluded by the arbitration agreement or the rules. Arbitration is designed to be final, and courts do not re-hear the merits.

Set-aside applications at the seat are limited to defined grounds — such as an invalid arbitration agreement, lack of jurisdiction, a serious procedural irregularity, or conflict with public policy — not disagreement with the tribunal's findings.

A self-contained review mechanism under the ICSID Convention allowing an award to be annulled on limited grounds, such as a manifest excess of powers or a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure — narrower than an appeal.

Call +1 416 923 0003 or email [email protected]. Senior counsel assesses your arbitration agreement and dispute directly and confidentially, and sets out the realistic strategy and paths forward.

Yes. We regularly act as lead or co-counsel alongside in-house legal teams and foreign counsel, coordinating strategy across jurisdictions in cross-border arbitration and enforcement.

Cost depends on the institution, the tribunal, the complexity, and the value at stake, and includes institutional and arbitrator fees in addition to counsel fees. We are direct about likely cost ranges and scope each mandate at the outset.

Only a treaty in force between the investor's home state and the host state that contains the host state's consent to arbitration — typically a bilateral investment treaty, a free trade agreement with an investment chapter, or a multilateral treaty — and only if the investor and its investment meet the treaty's definitions. Treaty access changes over time: states terminate and renegotiate treaties, some newer agreements leave out investor-state arbitration, and some investment chapters are not yet in force, so the current status of the specific treaty must be checked for every claim. Where a treaty applies, claims are usually brought under the ICSID or UNCITRAL rules.

Commercial arbitration is generally private, and under many institutional rules and national laws it is also confidential — a significant advantage for parties with trade secrets or reputational sensitivity. Confidentiality is not automatic at every seat, however, and investment-treaty arbitration is increasingly transparent, so the point should be addressed expressly in the arbitration agreement.

Litigation is resolved in the public courts; arbitration is a private, contract-based process before a neutral arbitrator. ME Law acts in both, domestically and internationally, and assesses which forum governs your dispute.

Rights of appeal from arbitral awards are narrow and are often excluded by the arbitration agreement. Set-aside applications are limited to specific grounds such as jurisdiction and procedural fairness — which is why the arbitration itself must be run to win.

Through the courts of the country where the debtor has assets. More than 170 States are party to the New York Convention, under which a foreign award is recognised and enforced on the basis of the award and the arbitration agreement (with certified translations where needed), subject only to the Convention's narrow grounds for refusal. Each country applies its own arbitration law and court procedure, so enforcement is planned country by country — with local counsel where the assets are.

The New York Convention sets out limited grounds — such as an invalid arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, an award exceeding the scope of the submission, improper tribunal composition, or conflict with public policy. Courts apply them narrowly.

It depends on where you enforce, so an award creditor should take advice promptly. The New York Convention sets no time limit: each enforcing country applies its own limitation rules, and they vary widely — in some places only a few years, in others a decade or more — running from the date of the award or, in some countries, from the end of set-aside proceedings at the seat. In a federal country the period can differ from one state or province to another. Delay can also give a debtor time to move assets.

Yes. A Mareva or freezing order can be sought to preserve a debtor's assets while recognition-and-enforcement proceedings are underway, preventing dissipation before the award can be enforced.

The New York Convention has more than 170 contracting states, so a properly made award is enforceable in the vast majority of the world's trading jurisdictions — a reach no single domestic court judgment can match. This near-universal enforceability is one of the central reasons parties choose arbitration for cross-border deals.

Yes, in appropriate cases. Courts in many common-law jurisdictions can grant a worldwide freezing (Mareva) order against a defendant within their jurisdiction, and freezing relief can also be sought in the country where the assets are, with foreign counsel. Enforcement against assets abroad ultimately depends on the law of the country where they are located.

Yes. A freezing order can be sought to preserve the debtor's assets while recognition and enforcement proceedings are underway, preventing the debtor from moving them beyond reach before the award or judgment can be enforced.

Yes. We regularly coordinate with foreign counsel on cross-border asset tracing, freezing relief, and enforcement, so that the proceedings in each jurisdiction work toward the same recovery.

Breach of contract, shareholder and governance disputes, business torts, civil fraud, debt recovery and enforcement, commercial arbitration, and proceedings in commercial courts — including disputes with a cross-border dimension.

Boards, CFOs, general counsel, business owners, and lenders — private and closely held companies as well as larger institutional clients facing high-value commercial litigation.

It may. Many jurisdictions have specialised commercial courts or lists for insolvency, receivership, corporate, securities and other complex commercial disputes, with judges experienced in business matters and active case management. Eligibility is usually set by the type of proceeding or the legislation involved, not simply by the amount in dispute. We assess at the outset where your dispute should be brought, since the forum materially affects how the case is managed.

Commercial litigation is billed at senior counsel rates that reflect the stakes and complexity involved. We are transparent about fees from the first consultation and scope each mandate to the matter.

Urgent injunctive relief can often be sought within days; complex commercial disputes may run one to three years or more through discovery, motions, and trial. Early strategy — and, where available, summary judgment — can shorten the path.

In most common-law courts, the unsuccessful party is usually ordered to pay a portion of the successful party's legal costs, though recovery is rarely complete. Some legal systems — the United States is the best-known example — generally leave each side to bear its own legal fees unless a contract or statute provides otherwise. In arbitration, costs follow the applicable rules and the tribunal's discretion.

It depends on the court and on the contract. Some courts require parties to attempt mediation before a case goes further, and many commercial contracts require negotiation or mediation before litigation or arbitration can begin. Even where it is not required, mediation is often strategically worthwhile before trial.

Expectation damages — the amount needed to put the business in the position performance would have achieved — plus consequential losses that were reasonably foreseeable. A duty to mitigate applies, and the contract itself may limit or liquidate damages.

Sometimes. Specific performance is available where damages would be an inadequate remedy — typically where the subject matter is unique, such as particular land or shares in a private company. It is a discretionary, equitable remedy that turns on the circumstances.

Common-law courts read the words of the contract as a whole, in light of the surrounding circumstances the parties knew when they contracted (the factual matrix), the commercial context and commercial common sense — without letting that context overwhelm the words the parties actually chose.

Civil fraud is a claim for loss caused by deliberate deceit — a false representation made knowingly or recklessly and relied upon. Remedies include damages, tracing, and urgent preservation orders such as Mareva injunctions.

Move quickly. Courts can freeze assets through Mareva injunctions, compel third parties such as banks to disclose information through Norwich orders, appoint receivers, and trace funds through corporate structures — including across borders.

Demand letters, summary judgment where the debt is undisputed, default judgment where there is no defence, and — once judgment is obtained — seizure and sale of the debtor's property, garnishment, and examinations of the debtor about their assets.

Through examinations of the debtor about their assets, execution against real and personal property, garnishment of debts owed to the debtor, and, where assets are being concealed or moved, receivership and Mareva relief.

Often, yes — but appeals are limited to specific grounds and strict deadlines, and are not a re-argument of the facts. We assess prospects candidly before recommending an appeal.

It depends on the court and the jurisdiction, and appeal periods are short — in many courts a matter of weeks from the order or judgment — with different timelines where permission (leave) to appeal is required. Appellate deadlines are strict, so advice should be obtained immediately.

A Mareva injunction is a court order freezing a defendant's assets before judgment, preventing them from being dissipated, hidden, or moved beyond the court's reach while a claim is pursued. Its purpose is to preserve recoverability — not to secure payment of the debt itself.

A sufficiently strong case on the merits — described in different courts as a strong prima facie case or a good arguable case; evidence that the defendant has assets within the jurisdiction (or, for worldwide relief, elsewhere); a real risk that those assets will be removed or dissipated to avoid judgment; full and frank disclosure; and an undertaking as to damages — with the balance of convenience favouring the order.

No. It is typically limited to the value of the claim and can carve out ordinary living and business expenses and legal fees. It is a preservation order, not a general seizure of assets.

A plaintiff seeking a Mareva injunction must undertake to compensate the defendant for losses caused by the order if it turns out to have been wrongly granted. Courts scrutinize this undertaking closely, and the applicant's ability to honour it can affect whether relief is granted.

A civil search order — sometimes described as a private search warrant — permitting the entry, search, copying, and preservation of evidence at a defendant's premises before they have notice of the claim, used where there is a real risk that evidence will be destroyed or hidden.

Courts generally require four conditions, derived from the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd. (1975): an extremely strong prima facie case; very serious actual or potential damage to the applicant from the respondent's alleged misconduct; clear evidence that the respondent has incriminating documents or things in its possession; and a real possibility that the respondent may destroy that material before the ordinary disclosure process can do its work.

Under strict procedural safeguards — typically execution by an independent supervising solicitor, detailed evidence logs, and prompt return to court. Privilege and confidentiality must be protected throughout, and any overreach can undermine the order and the evidence it produced.

An order compelling a non-party — often a bank, internet service provider, or other institution holding relevant information — to disclose records identifying a wrongdoer or tracing assets, even though that party is not itself accused of wrongdoing.

Generally where the applicant has a bona fide or arguable claim, the third party is involved in the acts complained of (even innocently), the third party is the only practicable source of the information, the third party can be indemnified for its costs, and the interests of justice favour disclosure. The order takes its name from Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (House of Lords, 1973).

The party seeking disclosure generally bears the reasonable costs the third party incurs in complying, though the allocation can be addressed in the order itself.

An ex parte, or without-notice, application is heard without the other side present or informed in advance — used only where advance notice would defeat the purpose of the relief sought, such as tipping off a defendant about to move assets or destroy evidence.

Only for a short time. Courts generally grant without-notice relief for a limited period — often days rather than weeks — and fix a prompt return date on notice to the parties affected, where the order can be continued, varied, or set aside.

The applicant owes a duty of full and frank disclosure — to bring forward the strongest points against their own case, not just the points in their favour. Failing to disclose material facts can result in the order being set aside, regardless of the underlying merits.

Yes. The defendant can move to set aside or vary the order on the return date, and often does. That is why the initial materials must be built to withstand contest from the outset, not just to secure the order in the first instance.

In genuinely urgent cases, interim relief can be sought — and, where the evidence justifies it, granted — within days, sometimes hours, on an ex parte basis. Speed depends on how quickly the evidentiary record can be assembled and the strength of the case for urgency.

Most common-law courts ask three questions: whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm — harm that damages could not adequately remedy — without the injunction, and whether the balance of convenience favours granting relief.

Mandatory injunctions — which require a party to take positive action rather than refrain from something — are held to a higher standard: the applicant must usually show a strong case, meaning a strong likelihood of success at trial, rather than merely a serious issue to be tried.

Costs vary with the complexity of the evidentiary record and the urgency involved, but emergency relief is billed at senior counsel rates that reflect the compressed timeline and the stakes. We are direct about likely cost ranges at the outset.

Relief sought alongside or in support of a receivership application — often to preserve assets or restrain conduct pending appointment of a receiver, protecting creditor and stakeholder recovery while the insolvency process proceeds.

A lis pendens — in some jurisdictions a certificate of pending litigation — is a notice registered against real property to show that a claim affecting its title is before the court. It warns anyone dealing with the property and, in practice, freezes dealings with it. It is often sought alongside or instead of an injunction in real estate and fraud-related disputes.

Call +1 416 923 0003 or email [email protected]. Because timing often matters, we assess urgent matters directly and quickly, and can move to prepare materials the same day where warranted.

Yes. We regularly act as emergency motion counsel alongside general counsel and in-house legal teams, stepping in specifically for the urgent relief while existing counsel continues to manage the broader file.

The order is served and, where applicable, executed. On the return date, the other side can respond, and the order may be continued, varied, or set aside. The underlying dispute then proceeds — the injunction preserves the status quo; it does not resolve the case.

Conduct by those in control of a corporation that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregards a shareholder's interests. Courts have broad power to remedy it, including ordering a buyout.

Yes. Shareholders may bring oppression claims, derivative actions, and other remedies where their interests have been unfairly disregarded or the company has been harmed.

A claim brought by a shareholder on behalf of the corporation itself, generally requiring leave of the court, to pursue a wrong done to the company that the company itself has failed to pursue.

Directors and officers owe fiduciary duties to the corporation itself. Shareholders generally do not owe fiduciary duties to one another, though duties can arise in partnerships, joint ventures, and closely held arrangements — and oppressive conduct by those in control is separately remediable.

Yes. Courts can grant urgent injunctive relief to halt an imminent, prejudicial transaction — such as an undisclosed asset sale, improper share issuance, or removal of a director — pending a full hearing on the underlying dispute.

Civil litigation is the resolution of non-criminal disputes — between individuals, businesses, corporations, estates and property owners — through the courts. Claims may seek damages, the enforcement of contractual or property rights, declarations, injunctions and other remedies. Most commercial claims are heard in the superior or commercial courts of the jurisdiction concerned, under that court’s rules of procedure, and are started by a claim or, where appropriate, an application. Unlike a criminal prosecution, civil litigation concerns private legal rights.

Among others: contract disputes (breach, repudiation, non-performance, disputed payments, warranties, guarantees and indemnities); shareholder, partnership and corporate disputes (oppression, deadlock, contested control, derivative claims and fiduciary misconduct); fraud and business torts (misrepresentation, diversion of funds, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and asset tracing); real estate and property disputes (ownership and title, joint ownership, mortgage enforcement, commercial leases and fraud); and urgent injunction and asset-preservation matters where assets, evidence, confidential information, property or corporate rights are threatened.

No. Many matters resolve before trial through negotiation, mediation, settlement or a dispositive motion — before proceedings start, after pleadings, during or after disclosure, at mediation or at the pre-trial stage. A summary judgment motion can decide some or all issues without a trial, and some courts require the parties to attempt mediation before a case goes further. Settlement remains possible throughout, and thorough trial preparation strengthens your negotiating position.

From several months to several years, depending on the complexity of the case, its procedural path and the court. A dispute resolved early by negotiation or mediation, with clear facts and documents, can take months; contested litigation with disclosure and mediation takes longer; complex, multi-party cases with expert evidence can take several years through pre-trial and trial. Courts also expect cases to move: an action left dormant for too long can be dismissed for delay. The number of parties, the volume of documents, discovery, expert evidence, motions and court scheduling all affect the timeline.

It depends on the law that governs the claim and on the kind of claim. Limitation periods for contract and other civil claims commonly run from two to six years, and many jurisdictions start the clock when the claim was discovered — when you knew, or reasonably ought to have known, of the loss, what caused it and who was responsible — rather than on the day of the underlying event. Many also set an ultimate limit that applies regardless of discovery, and special rules can apply to particular claims (such as those concerning land or fraud) and to minors and persons without capacity. A missed limitation period usually ends the claim, so take advice on the applicable period as soon as a dispute arises.

Yes, but being left out, or receiving less than you expected, is not enough on its own: a valid will cannot be rewritten because a beneficiary considers the result unfair. A challenge needs evidence of a recognised legal defect, and the core question is whether the document truly reflects the deceased’s valid testamentary intentions. The main grounds are lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, lack of knowledge and approval, improper execution, fraud or forgery, and suspicious circumstances.

Lack of testamentary capacity: the testator must have understood the nature of making a will, the general extent of their property and the people they would be expected to provide for — medical records, the drafting lawyer’s notes and witness evidence are typical proof, and age or a diagnosis alone does not establish incapacity. Undue influence: coercion that overpowered the testator’s independent decision-making, which the person alleging it must prove; ordinary persuasion or family pressure is not enough. Improper execution: most jurisdictions require the will to be signed by the testator and witnessed — commonly by two witnesses — and some courts can validate a document that does not meet the formal requirements if it sets out the deceased’s testamentary intentions. Fraud or forgery, which is highly evidence-dependent. Ambiguities or errors, which may raise questions of interpretation rather than validity.

Both go to whether a will genuinely reflects the deceased’s independent intentions, but they are different issues: capacity asks whether the testator had the mental ability to make a will, and undue influence asks whether someone improperly displaced their free decision-making. The evidence often overlaps — cognitive decline can raise a capacity question while also making the testator dependent on a caregiver or relative involved in changing the estate plan. A substantial last-minute change, the exclusion of earlier beneficiaries, growing dependency or a beneficiary’s unusual involvement may justify investigation, but vulnerability alone proves neither ground: the surrounding circumstances decide.

There are five stages. A complimentary intake call with an intake specialist establishes the general nature of the matter and whether it falls within ME Law’s practice. A conflict check, required by the rules of professional conduct, confirms that the firm can act. A formal consultation follows, in which a lawyer reviews the matter in depth and discusses options and strategy. If you decide to proceed and ME Law accepts the mandate, a written Retainer Agreement sets out the scope of work, estimated costs and billing structure. The file is opened once the agreement is signed and any required retainer is received. Making an enquiry, completing the intake call or booking a consultation does not by itself make you a client.

First contact leads to a complimentary intake call, then a conflict check, then a consultation with a lawyer (in person or remote), then a written Retainer Agreement and, finally, file opening. The engagement can be a limited-scope retainer for defined work or broader ongoing representation, depending on the record, the complexity and the procedural stage. The lawyer–client relationship begins under the signed Retainer Agreement — not simply because you have made an enquiry or had a consultation. Once the file is open, the work may include developing the litigation strategy, reviewing evidence, drafting pleadings, negotiating or preparing for proceedings in court or in arbitration.

The names of the parties involved in the dispute or the proposed engagement — enough identifying information for ME Law to check its records. Under the rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers, the firm must confirm that it does not represent, has not represented and holds no confidential information about anyone whose interests conflict with yours before it receives detailed confidential information. Please do not send large volumes of documents or a detailed account of the dispute at this stage. Once the conflict check is cleared, the matter moves to a substantive consultation. Completing the conflict check does not create a retainer or mean that ME Law has agreed to act.

It is a complimentary, preliminary conversation with an ME Law intake specialist — not a legal consultation. You may be asked about the general nature of the dispute, who the parties are, whether a proceeding has already started, any immediate deadlines or urgent circumstances, and the help you are looking for. Identifying the parties matters because the next step is a conflict check under the rules of professional conduct. The intake call, the conflict check, the consultation and the Retainer Agreement are separate stages: completing the intake call does not mean ME Law has agreed to act.

A consultation is a paid meeting, usually 60 to 90 minutes, with a civil litigation lawyer. It gives you a clear and candid initial assessment before any further engagement. Because the lawyer reviews your key documents in advance, the time goes to analysis and strategy: the facts, your legal position, the risks, the evidence that matters, the procedural steps ahead, litigation or alternative dispute resolution, likely costs and how to approach the other side. It is a preliminary assessment rather than a review of an extensive litigation record, and it does not by itself mean ME Law has been retained — the scope of any further engagement is confirmed separately.

As soon as you are involved in, or can reasonably foresee, a civil, commercial, real estate or estate dispute — not when a deadline forces the issue. Limitation periods run, evidence deteriorates and assets can move. Typical triggers include a contract, property, estate or business relationship in dispute; a shareholder or partnership falling-out; a demand letter, a statement of claim or other originating process; threatened proceedings; a loss you believe you have suffered; or an existing case approaching discovery, mediation, a motion, pre-trial or trial. Timing matters most where money, property, confidential information or assets need protection, for example through an interlocutory injunction. Booking a consultation does not mean litigation has to start.

After the conflict check, the consultation centres on the documents and factual summary you provide in advance: contracts, wills, leases or governing documents; any pleadings, affidavits or court material; key correspondence and demand letters; expert or financial records; and a short chronology of the parties, dates and events. The lawyer clarifies the material facts, identifies the principal legal issues and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of your position, the evidence, settlement or mediation, procedural risks and the stages ahead — from pleadings and document production through discovery, motions and mediation to trial or the arbitral hearing. Immediate deadlines and any further evidence or research needed are identified. Where the record is very large, ME Law may recommend a limited-scope review before giving developed strategic advice.

Yes — the better prepared you are, the more of the meeting goes to analysis, strategy and risk. Send a clear written chronology (the parties, your relationship, the key dates and events, and the issue that brings you to counsel) with the documents most relevant to the dispute. For a contained matter, that is usually enough for a meaningful initial assessment. If the file runs to hundreds or thousands of pages of pleadings, affidavits, productions, transcripts or expert reports, tell us before the consultation: ME Law may recommend a limited-scope retainer or a defined document review first, because a large record cannot responsibly be absorbed shortly before a meeting. Flag any urgency when you first contact us — an imminent court date, a threatened injunction, an approaching deadline, a pending real estate closing or a risk to assets.

Yes. ME Law holds consultations in person at the office or remotely by phone or video, with your documents provided in advance; where appropriate, counsel can also meet you at another location. The format does not change the substance: the same review of the available information, legal and procedural issues, risk, strategy and next steps. After the first meeting, much of the day-to-day communication runs by phone, video and email. If further work is needed, it proceeds under a defined limited-scope retainer or a broader litigation retainer, depending on the matter.

As a baseline, you can expect a meaningful update each month, and more frequent contact during active stages — pleadings, documentary production, examinations for discovery, motions, mediation, the pre-trial conference and the approach to trial. Updates come by email, with phone calls for direct discussion, video conferences for detailed strategy and in-person meetings for complex issues. While the matter waits on court timetables or the other side, contact is less frequent. ME Law aims to respond within one business day, except when counsel is in court or otherwise committed, and avoids communication that adds fees without adding value.

Transparency is central: you receive a candid assessment based on the available facts, not a promised outcome. Understand at the outset the proposed scope of work, the anticipated costs and billing — retainer funds may be required, and fees and disbursements arise as the matter proceeds — how we will communicate, and your own role. Litigation is collaborative: you will be asked to provide documents, explain the history, identify evidence, answer questions and give instructions at key stages, and ME Law will help you prepare for steps such as pleadings, documentary production, examinations for discovery and mediation. The work is kept proportionate to what the dispute requires.

Contact the firm directly and explain the concern — ME Law takes feedback seriously. It helps to identify the exact source of the dissatisfaction: communication, the direction of the litigation strategy, how a procedural step was handled, or expectations. Resolution may involve clarifying facts or developments, explaining the reasoning behind the strategy, adjusting how and how often we communicate, reviewing the scope of the engagement or considering alternative approaches — litigation strategy is often reassessed as the evidence develops.

Yes. We regularly act as lead trial and motion counsel alongside general counsel and in-house legal teams, and can step in as replacement counsel mid-file where a change in representation is needed.

Yes. We handle cross-border enforcement involving foreign counterparties and appear in domestic and international commercial arbitration.