In Camera

LIKE so many of his peers, Bruce Harris’s entry into the world of maritime law was entirely accidental. With great plans to head off to France for a year teaching English, Bruce took a vacation job as a messenger at Richards Butler’s London office in the summer of 1963 following a tip-off from his sister-in-law, who worked there. When his plans for France fell through and, the very same day, he was offered an assistant position in the firm’s shipping department, Bruce decided to give it a go.

After ten years assisting a litigation partner in shipping-related disputes, he jumped ship to Thomas Miller, where for the next seven years he dealt with defence club matters. Early in his stay there, someone suggested arbitration to him. “I thought I was too young, but I soon received my first appointments,” recalls Bruce. Five years later, under pressure from his employers and an ever-increasing arbitration workload, he became a full-time arbitrator. That was 1980 and he has never looked back.

Today, Bruce has many more strings to his bow. When he’s not busy arbitrating, he is chairman of the LMAA’s sub-committee responsible for organising ICMA. When I ask if this takes up much of his time, he opens the bottom drawer of his filing cabinet, which is full to overflowing with ICMA-related correspondence. “It is a huge task,” says Bruce, although one he is proud to be a part of. “ICMA is a unique event as, rather than the topics being dictated by a committee, it is the delegates themselves that decide on the agenda. This makes for a congress that is both current and geographically diverse.”

This year’s event is even more unique as not only does it mark 25 years since ICMA was last held in London, it will also play host to a joint ICMA and LMAA dinner. “The social side of ICMA is very important. Many friendships have been made at these congresses over the years,” says Bruce. And when they’re not busy wining and dining, the delegates will have a whole host of topics to debate and mull over. One topic that is almost certain to rear its head this year is the publication of awards.

There has been little written or spoken about the LMAA for some time now without the question of publication coming up. As it has done in the past, in 2003 the LMAA circulated a questionnaire to users of London maritime arbitration to explore possible changes to the current practice under the LMAA Terms. Despite extensively publicising the questionnaire and even extending the deadline for replies, of the 1,000 or more questionnaires circulated only 144 responses were received. “This was hugely disappointing, especially considering that probably around 20,000 people heard of the survey,” says Bruce. “Even more significant was that more than half of the responses came from the UK, whereas most of the parties to London arbitration are from overseas.”

Among those who did reply, there was no clear majority in favour of the publication of awards. What was clear, says Bruce, is that those who were in favour only wanted to know the arbitrator’s name, possibly so they could appoint them in a similar case in the future.

There was also, says the LMAA, a marked reluctance among those who answered to ‘pay any meaningful amount towards the fairly heavy costs of sifting through, summarising and thereafter publishing the substantial volume of awards that might be available for publication (more than 400 awards were made by LMAA arbitrators last year)’. Based on these findings, the LMAA has decided to take no further action regarding publication, although the committee is encouraging arbitrators to increasingly seek consent to publication of anonymous summaries, as has been the case for years.

One area in which Bruce would like to see further action is the obtaining of leave to appeal against arbitration awards. “Since the 1996 Act, judges have taken a very strict approach to this. As a result almost no cases are going to appeal, leaving the courts with little opportunity to tell us what the law is. In some areas almost no law is being made at all,” says Bruce. It is all a question of satisfaction. “The Act states that judges need to be ‘satisfied’ but satisfaction is a very subjective concept. What satisfies one man is different to what satisfies another,” he says. “Judges need to allow themselves to be satisfied a little more often and give the market some help, especially in significant cases.”

Bruce would also like to see change a little closer to home. He feels that the legal profession has such a grip on arbitration, it often ends up resembling litigation. In other fields of arbitration, arbitrators take control of cases in the very early stages – something Bruce believes those in the maritime field increasingly need to do. “If arbitrators are to provide a cost- and time-effective dispute resolution service, they need to drive the machine rather than being driven by it,” he says.

But he is quick to point out that the parties have a role to play too. Traditionally, maritime lawyers have been left to get on with a case, with relatively little input from their clients. According to Bruce, this often leads to procedural arguments that come to nothing. “Parties should get more involved in what their lawyers are doing and question them at every stage to help avoid unnecessary work and cost,” he says.

One thing that doesn’t help is that lawyers today are much younger than they were twenty years ago and much less supervised. “The regime of the time-sheet and pressure on fees means a younger person ends up handling the case. This often costs the client even more as the lawyer’s lack of experience means everything takes that much longer,” says Bruce.

Offering a more cost-effective route, mediation has had a slow but steady courtship with the maritime industry to date. Bruce, who is also a trained mediator, believes that this is due to the fact that maritime cases, by nature, don’t always lend themselves to mediation. “When dealing with tramp shipping, it is not always easy to find a commercial, as distinct from a purely monetary, solution, and proper mediation requires fully authorised people from the parties to be present, otherwise it simply won’t work,” he explains. “In the future, mediation will probably increase in use in the maritime sector, but it is unlikely to reach a significant level.”

Juggling full-time arbitration, the odd sprinkling of mediation and planning ICMA doesn’t leave Bruce with much free time, but when it does his first love is the arts. In fact, if Bruce had had his way it would have been his career too. Despite great aspirations to become an actor, he was turned down by RADA and LAMDA, so today he indulges his passion with trips to the opera, theatre and concerts.

If it’s amateur dramatics he’s after, some would say law wasn’t such a bad choice after all.