In focus: Practical perspectives on Dispute Resolution with Irina Obukhova

The pdf version of the interview is available below:

1) Irina, could you please share your professional journey and what led you to specialize in dispute resolution?

I set a goal of becoming a lawyer when I was still at school. My main inspiration was the success of my mother, an attorney who later became my mentor and role model. Ironically, she was also my first opponent in my choice of this profession. To reassure my parents, I completed my studies at the Tashkent Pharmaceutical Institute, handed them my diploma along with a work record proving some experience in pharmacology, and then set off to turn my real dream into reality. I enrolled at the Tashkent State University of Law and took a job as an assistant judge in a civil court. This period ultimately shaped my career path in the legal field.

What drew me to judicial practice:

• Passion for protecting rights: The desire to help individuals and organizations defend their rights and interests.
• Intellectual challenge: Judicial practice requires analytical thinking, the ability to construct strong arguments, and finding creative legal solutions.
• Dynamic and diverse work: Each case is unique, making legal practice exciting and varied.
• Influence on case outcomes: A lawyer can directly impact the results of a case, giving a strong sense of purpose and professional fulfillment.
• Continuous learning: Legal practice demands constant knowledge updates and the acquisition of new skills.

Since lawyers are able to shape judicial practice, I wanted independence and confidence in my career, where I could take full responsibility for my results. To achieve this, I obtained a lawyer’s license in four areas: civil and economic litigation and criminal and administrative proceedings. 

My career began in various law firms specializing in litigation across multiple fields, except for international arbitration. In 2013, I joined GRATA International Uzbekistan and was appointed as a Head of Litigation Practice, expanding my specialization to include international arbitration.

2) What are the specific characteristics of dispute resolution in your area of expertise? Could you describe some of the most interesting and challenging cases you've handled?

Judicial practice in dispute resolution covers a wide range of legal issues and has its own specifics depending on the category of the case, the instance, the region, and the applicable law. It is like a series with many seasons, where the script is written by laws, but the actors (judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, and defendants) play in their own way. Each process is a separate drama, sometimes with elements of thriller, comedy, or even absurdity.

The specifics of judicial practice in dispute resolution lie in a number of key features that determine its role and functions in the legal system:

• Procedural regulation: dispute resolution in court takes place in strict accordance with procedural law, which determines the order of case consideration, the rights and obligations of the parties, and the requirements for evidence. This ensures uniformity and predictability of the judicial process.
• Adversariality of the parties: the judicial process is based on the principle of adversariality, which means that the parties have equal rights and opportunities to present their evidence and arguments. The court acts as an independent arbitrator, evaluating the presented evidence and making a decision.
• Evidentiary activity: one of the key elements of judicial practice is the activity of collecting, presenting, and evaluating evidence. The court determines which evidence is admissible and reliable, and based on it, establishes the factual circumstances of the case.
• Interpretation of legislation: in the process of dispute resolution, courts interpret legislation, applying it to the specific circumstances of the case. This interpretation forms judicial practice, which becomes binding on lower courts.
• Specialization of courts: judicial practice varies depending on the specialization of courts (civil, criminal, administrative, economic, etc.). Each specialization has its own characteristics related to the subject of the dispute, evidence, and procedure.
• Alternative dispute resolution methods: it is worth mentioning that in addition to judicial dispute resolution, there are alternative methods, such as mediation and arbitration. They allow parties to reach a compromise without going to court.

Judicial practice is a mix of strategy, logic, and good endurance. The main thing is not to forget that even the most complex process can be won if you have good arguments... or luck!

In order not to violate the confidentiality of client information, I will talk about the types of interesting and complex cases that I have encountered, without specifying specific company names or details that allow participants to be identified:

• Corporate disputes over control of companies: these are always complex and multifaceted cases, requiring deep knowledge of corporate law, the ability to analyze financial documents, identify abuses, and protect the client's interests in a highly competitive environment. Often include elements of criminal prosecution and pressure.
• Intellectual property disputes related to new technologies: it is especially interesting to represent the interests of innovative companies developing new products and technologies. Such cases require not only knowledge of patent law, but also an understanding of the technical aspects of development. Proving copyright infringement on software or artificial intelligence algorithms is not an easily accomplished task.
• International commercial arbitrations: participation in international arbitrations is always a challenge, requiring knowledge of international private law, fluency in foreign languages, the ability to work with lawyers from different countries, and consideration of cultural characteristics.
• Cases of bankruptcy of large enterprises: participation in bankruptcy cases allows you to gain unique experience in the field of crisis management, financial analysis, debt restructuring, and protection of the interests of creditors or debtors.
• Disputes with government authorities affecting important public interests: protecting the rights of citizens and organizations in disputes with government agencies requires special integrity and the ability to find a balance between the interests of the state and human rights.
• Cases related to the protection of personal data in the era of digitalization: as technology advances and the volume of collected data increases, personal data protection issues become increasingly relevant. Such cases require deep knowledge of personal data legislation, understanding of the technical aspects of data processing, and the ability to find a compromise between business interests and the right to privacy.

The complexity of these cases lay not only in the legal aspects, but also in the need to consider economic, political, and social factors, find compromises, and develop non-standard solutions. They required me to constantly develop, learn, and be able to work in a team with other specialists.

3) What key principles do you adhere to when managing dispute resolution processes?

A lawyer is not just a legal expert, but also a strategist, psychologist, diplomat, and orator rolled into one! Here are the key principles that I, as a lawyer, adhere to when handling court cases:

• Legality: a lawyer is obliged to comply with the law and act within the legal framework. They cannot use illegal methods, even if the client strongly insists.
• Independence: a lawyer must act independently of external influence, guided only by the law and the interests of the principal. 
• Confidentiality: the information provided by the client to the lawyer is of a confidential nature and should stay only between them. Even if the case is closed, disclosure of information is unacceptable.
• Protection of the client's interests: a lawyer is obliged to do everything in their power to protect the client – but only through honest methods. They are not obliged to believe in the client's innocence but must strive for the fairest possible resolution for them.
• Professionalism: knowledge of laws, judicial practice, and the ability to construct arguments competently are mandatory skills. The court does not respond to emotions but will pay attention to strong, well-reasoned arguments.
• Objectivity and honesty: a lawyer should not mislead the client by making impossible promises. They are obliged to give a realistic assessment of the case's prospects.
• Tactics and strategy: in court, it is important not only to know the law, but also to be able to analyze, anticipate the opponents' moves, and choose the best line of defense.
• Ability to work with evidence: a lawyer is a detective who knows how to find, analyze, and use evidence in a way that works for their client.
• Professional ethics: a lawyer is obliged to comply with the norms of professional ethics, including integrity, respect for the court and participants in the process, maintaining composure, etc.
• Ability to negotiate: not all cases end up in court. Sometimes it is more advantageous to agree on a pre-trial settlement, and a lawyer must be able to conduct negotiations competently.

In the end, a court process is like a chess game. Even if you lose, the key is to maintain your reputation—because the next client might be sitting in the courtroom, already choosing their lawyer.

4) In your opinion, what factors contribute to a successful outcome in dispute resolution proceedings?

Success in court proceedings is not just about knowing the legislation, but a whole combination of factors where strategy, psychology, and sometimes even a bit of luck come together. A successful outcome of litigation depends on numerous factors, which can be conditionally divided into several groups:

1. Evidence-related factors:

• Completeness and reliability of evidence: the more convincing evidence a party has, the higher the probability of success. It is important that the evidence is obtained legally and does not raise doubts about its authenticity.
• Proper presentation of evidence: even strong evidence must be presented effectively in court. This includes the ability to argue one’s position and refute the opposing side’s claims.

2. Factors related to the legal position:

• Clear and well-founded legal position: a lawyer must be able to correctly classify legal relations and choose the most appropriate legal norms. It is important that the legal position is supported by references to legislation and judicial practice. 
• Competent argumentation: a lawyer must be able to convincingly argue their position using logic and facts. It is important to be able to answer the court's questions and refute the arguments of the opposing party. 

3. Factors related to the professionalism of the lawyer:

• Knowledge of legislation and judicial practice: a lawyer must stay updated on the latest legal changes and court rulings.
• Experience in conducting court cases: an experienced lawyer knows how to conduct themselves in court, how to present evidence properly, and how to structure arguments effectively.
• Communication skills: a lawyer must be able to express their thoughts clearly and succinctly while also understanding and responding to other participants in the proceedings.
• Ethical integrity: a lawyer must follow professional ethical norms, acting honestly and conscientiously.

4. Court-related factors:

• Judicial independence and impartiality: the court must make decisions based on the law and evidence rather than personal preferences or external influences.
• Qualification of the judge: a competent judge can correctly assess evidence and make well-reasoned decisions.
• Compliance with procedural rules: the court must comply with procedural rules, ensuring equality of the parties and fairness of the process.

5. Other factors:

• Timely filing of a lawsuit: it is crucial not to miss the statute of limitations and other procedural deadlines.
• Proper choice of jurisdiction: in some cases, the choice of jurisdiction can influence the case outcome.
• Financial capabilities: litigation can be costly, so it is important to have sufficient funds to pay for legal services and other expenses.

Indeed, sometimes luck also plays a role. There are cases when everything is perfectly prepared, yet the verdict remains unpredictable.

Thus, successful litigation is a combination of professionalism, strong evidence, competent strategy, and a bit of luck. Even with the most thorough preparation, a 100% guarantee of success is impossible, but one can significantly increase their chances of winning. It is essential to consider both controllable and uncontrollable factors to develop the most effective strategy.

5) How do you assess the role of dispute resolution in a company's legal operations? What does it entail?

Judicial practice in a company's legal work is not just a collection of stories about other people's disputes; I view judicial practice as a compass and a map in the legal landscape, helping the company navigate the legal field, make informed decisions, and minimize risks. 

Here are the main points:

1. Risk forecasting and decision-making:

• Precedent analysis: studying court decisions in similar cases allows the company to assess the probability of success or failure in potential litigation.
• Legal risk assessment: understanding how courts interpret legislation helps the company identify and minimize legal risks.
• Strategic decision-making: judicial practice influences strategic decisions regarding contract work, investments, labor relations, and other areas of activity.

2. Contract development and analysis:

• Consideration of judicial interpretations: when drafting contracts, the company's lawyers consider how courts interpret certain provisions to avoid ambiguity and disputes.
• Analysis of litigation: studying litigation related to contract performance allows us to identify weaknesses in contract work and make necessary changes.

3. Representation of the company's interests in court:

• Preparation for court hearings: company lawyers use judicial practice to prepare arguments, gather evidence, and choose a defense strategy.
• Argumentation of position: references to judicial precedents strengthen the arguments of lawyers and increase the probability of success in court.
• Assessment of case prospects: analysis of judicial practice allows you to assess the prospects of a case and make a decision on the advisability of litigation.

4. Compliance with legislation:

• Interpretation of legislative norms: judicial practice helps companies understand how courts interpret legislative norms and ensure that their activities comply with the requirements of the law.
• Changes in legislation: judicial practice may indicate the need to make changes to legislation or the company's local regulations.

5. Dispute resolution:

• Amicable settlement: knowledge of judicial practice can help resolve disputes without going to court, as parties can assess their chances of success.
• Claim work: using examples from judicial practice increases the effectiveness of the company's claim work.

Judicial practice is like a weather forecast for business: you can ignore it, but then there is a high probability of getting caught in a storm. Companies that carefully study court cases are less likely to find themselves in the defendant's seat and are more successful in protecting their interests.

6) How do you address client concerns when dispute resolution extends beyond the usual context?

When litigation steps outside the typical framework, it can present a series of challenges for both the lawyer and the client, requiring decisions tailored to the specifics of the case.

The first step is to clearly identify what makes the situation unusual. This could include:

• Unconventional industries or subject matter: cases involving emerging technologies, crypto-assets, environmental law, space law, etc.
• Complex factual matrices: cases with extensive data, technical expertise, multiple parties, and intricate timelines.
• Unique legal questions: precedent-setting issues, atypical applications of existing laws, legal conflicts, or international law considerations.
• High risk or public exposure: cases attracting media attention, affecting large groups, or setting industry-wide precedents.
• Unconventional opposition strategies: aggressive tactics, procedural maneuvers, or attempts to exert media pressure.
• Unexpected developments: legislative changes, bankruptcy of a party, or emergence of new evidence during litigation.

In such situations, I strive to adhere to the following principles: 

1. A thorough analysis of the situation, which includes studying all circumstances, analyzing legislation and case law, analysing the opponent's strategy, and assessing risks.

2. Communication and collaboration, which include open communication with the client, cooperation with other lawyers, and constructive dialogue with opponents. 

3. The use of unconventional approaches, which may include searching for precedents in other jurisdictions, engaging experts, developing innovative procedural tactics, and using alternative dispute resolution methods.

4. Adaptation to changing circumstances, which includes monitoring changes in legislation and case law and being prepared for unforeseen situations.

Let me present you one example:

Suppose you represent a company engaged in artificial intelligence development in a dispute over patent infringement. The opponent claims that your AI uses their patented technology.

The unconventional context: the AI industry is rapidly evolving, patent law in this area is still forming, and it is difficult to prove or disprove patent infringement in AI algorithms. 

Analysis: engaging AI experts to analyse algorithms, studying patent documentation, searching for analogs in open sources, and researching case law on patent disputes in AI. 

Strategy: challenging the validity of the opponent’s patent, proving that your AI uses a different approach, and proposing an alternative dispute resolution method (e.g., a licensing agreement).

7) What changes have you observed in dispute resolution practices recently, and how do they impact your work?

I will describe the general trends I observe in judicial practice in different countries, as well as how these changes may affect the work of a lawyer:

• Digitalization of the judicial process: electronic filing of documents, online hearings, electronic document management, use of platforms for case management.
• Expansion of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods: active promotion of mediation, arbitration, and other ADR mechanisms as ways to resolve disputes outside of court.
• Increased focus on data and analytics: use of data analysis to predict case outcomes, identify patterns in judicial practice, assess risks, etc.
• Strengthening the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms: greater attention to ensuring human rights in judicial proceedings, including the right to a fair trial, the right to defense, the right to privacy, etc.
• More active use of precedent (in common law countries) or an enhanced role of higher court clarifications (in civil law countries): courts increasingly refer to previous decisions in similar cases to ensure uniform application of the law. Higher judicial bodies (Supreme Courts, Constitutional Courts) issue clarifications that become mandatory or recommended for lower courts.
• Increasing transparency of the judicial process: open access to court decisions, online broadcasting of court hearings, publication of information about judges and their rulings.
• Development of court specialization: establishment of specialized courts (e.g., intellectual property courts, bankruptcy courts, administrative courts) for more efficient case consideration in specific areas.

How do changes in judicial practice affect legal work?

There are both positive and negative aspects.

Positive aspects:

• The introduction of information technologies and the optimization of judicial procedures simplify access to information and speed up case resolution. This saves time and resources for lawyers.
• The specialization of judges improves the quality of case consideration, contributing to fairer and more predictable judicial outcomes.
• Expanding access to justice and strengthening guarantees of judicial independence enhance a lawyer’s ability to protect clients’ rights.
• Improvements in mechanisms for protecting entrepreneurs’ rights create more favorable conditions for legal business support.
• Changes in legislation and judicial practice require lawyers to constantly improve their qualifications and acquire new skills.
• The development of mediation opens new opportunities for lawyers in the field of alternative dispute resolution.

Negative aspects:

• Changes in legislation and judicial practice require lawyers to continuously update their knowledge and adapt to new conditions.
• The introduction of new technologies may require lawyers to master new programs and platforms.
• The abolition of the supervisory review system may make it more difficult to correct errors made in courts of first instance.
• Despite procedural simplifications, some changes may initially cause confusion until lawyers become accustomed to the new rules.
• Increased transparency and accessibility of information may intensify competition among lawyers.

Conclusion: judicial practice is changing, but lawyers continue to find solutions even in the most absurd situations. The key is not to lose composure (or an internet connection!).

8) What are some of the most complex or unconventional cases you've encountered in your dispute resolution practice?

The work of a litigation lawyer is work in the sphere of conflict—that is, a difficult-to-resolve contradiction of interests. Legal disputes themselves are often complex and unpredictable, but business conflicts most frequently take on an unconventional character.  

Here are several real or real-based stories from legal practice that demonstrate the complexity and uniqueness of legal situations.  

A case with fabricated evidence. 

A food supplier filed a claim for payment for goods delivered to an affiliate of the buyer, asserting that the buyer had accepted the goods by presenting an invoice, which was acknowledged in the buyer’s electronic system but not recognized by the latter. Additionally, the supplier provided contracts with logistics companies that allegedly delivered the goods to sites controlled by the buyer.  For the dispute to be resolved in favor of the buyer, emphasis was placed on the contract terms, the actual circumstances of the delivery, and the principle of separate liability of companies.  

As a result, the court denied the supplier’s claims and referred the materials to law enforcement authorities for consideration of initiating a criminal case. The losing party in this case did not appeal the court's decision.  

A dispute over intellectual property protection related to new technologies.

A licensee filed a claim for the return of license fees paid for the right to use software acquired from an innovative company developing new products and technologies, arguing that, having refused to fulfil the software implementation contract with the same company, the acquired right could no longer be used.  

For the dispute to be resolved in favour of the licensor, emphasis was placed on the difference between the legal nature of a license agreement and a software implementation contract, copyright issues, the actual circumstances of rights transfer, the terms of the license agreement, and compliance with the conditions for contract termination.  

As a result, the court of review denied the claims due to the absence of violations of the license agreement by the licensor and the expiration of the contract term, making its termination inadmissible.

9) In your view, what are the main mistakes companies can make during dispute resolution proceedings?

Companies involved in litigation can make several mistakes that negatively affect the outcome of the case, leading to financial losses, reputational damage, and other negative consequences. Here are the main ones:

1. Insufficient preparation:

• Lack of a clear strategy: uncertainty about goals and defence methods can lead to chaotic actions and missing important details.
• Incomplete evidence collection: insufficient attention to gathering and analysing evidence can weaken the company's position in court.
• Underestimation of risks: ignoring potential negative consequences of litigation may result in unexpected and unpleasant surprises.

2. Errors in documentation:

• Incorrect document preparation: mistakes in drafting claims, contracts, and other documents may lead to their rejection by the court.
• Lack of necessary documents: a shortage of documents proving the company's position can weaken its case in court.
• Late submission of documents: failure to meet deadlines for submitting documents may result in their dismissal by the court.

3. Mistakes in choosing a lawyer:

• Insufficient lawyer qualification: choosing a lawyer without enough experience and knowledge in the relevant field of law can lead to ineffective defence.
• Conflict of interest: a lawyer’s conflict of interest may negatively impact their objectivity and effectiveness.
• Poor communication with the lawyer: insufficient interaction with the lawyer can lead to misunderstandings and mistakes in the defence process.

4. Courtroom behaviour mistakes:

• Disrespectful attitude toward the court: lack of respect for the court may negatively influence the judge's perception of the company.
• Inappropriate witness behaviour: unprepared or dishonest witnesses can harm the company’s reputation and weaken its position.
• Emotional reactions: excessive emotionality can lead to rash actions and statements that may be used against the company.

5. Ignoring alternative dispute resolution methods:

• Refusal of mediation or arbitration: ignoring the possibility of peaceful dispute resolution may lead to prolonged and costly litigation.
• Underestimation of pre-trial settlement opportunities: in some cases, pre-trial settlement can save significant resources and preserve business relationships.

6. Public discussion of the case: public statements, especially on social media, can be used against the company in court.

The key thing to remember is that court is not a battlefield but a means of civilized dispute resolution.

10) How important are teamwork and collaboration with other lawyers within the company in your approach?

Teamwork and collaboration with other lawyers within the law firm GRATA International play a key role in my approach to litigation. This is due to several factors: 

• Comprehensive analysis of complex cases: many legal issues require in-depth analysis and expertise in various areas of law. Teamwork allows us to combine the knowledge and experience of different lawyers, ensuring a more complete and thorough examination of the case. Different lawyers may have different perspectives on the same issue, which helps identify potential risks and opportunities.
• Effective task distribution: the law firm GRATA International organizes its work based on specialization in different areas of law, referred to as "practices." Teamwork allows for an efficient distribution of tasks among the "practices," considering their specialization and experience. This optimizes workflow and ensures timely task completion.
• Sharing of knowledge and experience: collaboration with colleagues facilitates the exchange of knowledge and experience. This helps enhance the qualifications of all team members and maintain a high level of professionalism.
• Support and mutual assistance: teamwork creates an atmosphere of support and cooperation. We, as colleagues, can turn to each other for advice and assistance in various situations, sometimes even those unrelated to our professional activities. This helps reduce stress levels and improve work efficiency.
• Improved client communication: teamwork ensures more effective communication with clients. Clients can receive consultations from different lawyers, allowing them to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their situation. This increases clients' trust in the legal department.
• Joint strategy development: in litigation, especially in complex cases, teamwork allows us to develop the most effective strategy. Collective discussions help consider all possible scenarios.

Thus, teamwork and collaboration with other lawyers at GRATA International are an integral part of my approach to legal practice.

“I'm not sure I can say there is a clean line between me as an individual and me as a lawyer”.