Small hurricanes were circling when I left the building at a little over 7 am. The air was foggy and dirty of the dust flown by the wind.
Today’s file is important to me, to the client and the client is important to us, right? The subject-matter is challenge against forced execution. At 7:45 am I arrive in a court which is a few kilometers away from Bucharest.
My turn came after about 10 hours, but I smashed my opponent. I left content and confident for the future, for the path I have chosen. There might be law treaties I say in my mind, when I have to speak in front of the judge/judges I am nervous and I feel I forget every single wonderful idea I had seconds before.
Today I was nervous, too. I felt it was the most important file I have received since in the Litigation Department. I could not fail, not to myself. That would have been probably tragic for me.
The driver was in the court room and said he could not feel I was nervous. That was not the case. My hands were shaking and I decided not to refer to a certain page of the documents as I knew I could not find it. Of course, there was no way I would stop my arguments. There was some aggressiveness and bitterness in my pleading, adrenaline rushed through all my body and I felt like in the boxing ring. I just had to knock the opponent over.
After checking if some arbitration work was urgent, I stopped at the LLM classes (where I found out I have a new deadline for an ICSID arbitration – this Friday) Today’s topic was arbitrators, appointing, number, criteria for certain decisions of the parties regarding arbitrators. At the end, the teacher proposed an relaxing exercise: which famous movie character/cartoon character etc. would pick as an arbitrator? I chose the wise Sensei, the one who has interior calm, who has been through a lot, so he is experience and can easily smooth any imbalances which may occur by using the force of the mind. Other proposals were Legally Blonde (by experienced in arbitration colleague), Popeye (Supreme Court magistrate), The Godfather (“because he will make the parties a proposal they cannot refuse” and because he understands business), the Harvard Law professor etc.
Maybe some of my colleagues might be reading this, but I wondered, from a psychological point of view, what do our choices mean? Is it what we are deep withing or what we know we are not and are seeking/pretending to be? There has to be an answer and I have a supposition…
The advice was to try to meet as many people as possible, to speak with them, keep in touch, see how they think, how they react. She told us that the arbitrators she appointed have been the opposing counsel in other arbitration cases, where she admired how they approached a situation, how they thought. She added that the networking is more intense in the world of arbitration because the roles change often from counsel, to arbitrator, to opposing counsel, to being counsel together or to sitting in the same arbitral tribunal with another colleague.
It has been a long day and now it’s bedtime. I return to the book on the nightstand, The Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger and dive into the world of Richelieu, Roosevelt, Ludovic the XIVth, Wilson, to the principle of the equilibrium of powers and of the interest of the state or raison d’etat.
I have said it before, but I still do not understand the idea of the Bilderberg book I just finished. Actually, what is the problem with it? Why is Kissinger guilty for all the evil in the world, when these principles were born a long time before he was. Didn’t all nations want supremacy and control? Weren’t there in history years of bloody wars just or the religion of power?