Lord Peter Goldsmith is currently Co-Managing Partner of the London office of Debevoise & Plimpton and Chair of the firm’s European and Asian litigation practice.

He served as the UK’s Attorney General from 2001 to 2007, prior to which he was in private practice as one of the leading barristers in London. He practised from Fountain Court Chambers from 1972–2001. He returns to Fountain Court in January 2026 after his retirement from Debevoise.

In this interview with Bar & Bench's Pallavi Saluja, Lord Goldsmith speaks about the BCI Rules allowing the entry of foreign lawyers, the lack of clarity around the Rules, the UK Arbitration Act and more.

Edited excerpts follow.

Pallavi Saluja (PS): The Bar Council of India has released Rules for opening up the Indian legal market. What are the plans of Debevoise & Plimpton?

Lord Peter Goldsmith: I have been dealing with this problem for many years, because I was the Chairman of the English Bar. Back in 1995-96, I visited India to discuss the possibility of specialist English advocates appearing (in Indian courts) as happens in many common law countries, but it didn’t go very far. So, it’s been on the radar for a very long time.

Regarding the entry of foreign lawyers in India, I think it has been too long with a lack of clarity and it's better to clarify the situation so people know where they stand. Otherwise, it leads to uncertainty and there's a pervasive feeling that the Indian legal profession has been too protectionist, which is why things haven't happened.

As for our firm, we will not try to open an office in India, in any event. That’s not what interests us; that’s not the way we operate. What we prefer to do is work with lawyers whom we trust, and we believe we will do a great job for our clients. We don’t even do “best friends” arrangements. We have great friends, but we don’t have a formal or exclusive relationship. We collaborate with law firms that specialise in areas where we believe our clients will benefit the most. We have a number of very good friends in India on that basis and I don't think the change in Rules will affect that.

Personally, I would have loved to appear in the Indian Supreme Court just because it would be a wonderful experience to appear in that wonderful court, but that's not going to happen. I was born the wrong nationality! (laughs). There are so many similarities between the legal systems that I think we can learn a lot from each other. I sit in arbitrations, I work with Indian lawyers and it's a wonderful privilege. I just hope that continues on whatever basis the Bar Council and the government permit.

PS: What do you think of the BCI rules, specifically in the context of international arbitration?

Lord Goldsmith: I have to be careful about what I say, as this is a matter that is currently active and controversial at the moment. I've always said that India has a good prospect of becoming a hub for international arbitration, and I think it would be a very good thing. I think that Indian lawyers and courts are very strong and robust. But it needs to have some clear guidance in relation to foreign lawyers.

This is not really a question of whether foreign lawyers can establish practices in India. That's a separate question from the question of whether or not they should be able to participate in international commercial arbitration. And I've seen the Bar Council of India saying they want to encourage that. It's important to encourage it, and I think for this reason, many clients really want to have their own lawyers - the people that they trust - arguing their cases for them.

That's not to say they don't think other lawyers are good, but they've got that relationship with their own lawyers. That's why I think it's very important to find the best way possible to allow them to do that. And it's difficult if you hedge it about with rules which are very focused, particularly on whether something is foreign law or international law. I think that objection - the question of limiting it to foreign law or international law - is a potential problem. Allowing people to come in and do the arbitration on a fly-in, fly-out basis - which is what I thought the position was - is acceptable. But I think if you limit that to only allow them to argue foreign law, it makes it much less acceptable and much less useful from the point of view of clients. I think the consequence of that is people will say, I don't want to have India as my seat because it's going to come with these restrictions.

Can it really be made welcoming so that people can come in and do it? Not to set up a practice, not to start a law firm. But to be able to advance their clients' cases and their interests.

PS: So you think there should be no restriction to say whether it's Indian law or foreign law/international law?

Lord Goldsmith: There isn't any restriction in England, for example. I think that any tribunal - if it is someone who's not an Indian lawyer arguing Indian law - they will be a little bit suspicious about whether they're being told what the right position is. But that's a question for the tribunal to be able to determine. I don't see why it has to be restricted to foreign law...

...In many cases, the actual law doesn't matter that much, because it's about fact. Of course, there are points at which the law can be relevant, and I always recommend co-counselling with local counsel. But if you're too restrictive, people will be nervous that they actually won't be allowed to come and argue the cases. They won't be allowed to have their own lawyers come and do it. And so they will not choose India as a seat.

If you want to encourage people to choose India as a seat in their contracts, they have to feel confident that when the time comes and there's a dispute, they'll be able to argue it in a way that they think is appropriate, which normally means with their own lawyers. Almost certainly with Indian lawyers as well. That wouldn't be, I think, a problem to co-counsel because I would never argue a case in a country that isn't one of my countries without having local lawyers there as well. So that's acceptable.

PS: The UK Arbitration Act introduces a range of reforms, from strengthening arbitrator immunity and clarifying the law governing arbitration agreements to codifying summary disposal powers, etc. Do you see these changes as a necessary modernisation to keep pace with global arbitration norms?

Lord Goldsmith: They're good reforms, they're modest reforms. It's not like they're overturning the whole system or anything like that. They were looked at very carefully, successively, by our Law Commission and by experts. I think they make sense. For example, clarifying how you identify the law of the arbitration agreement - that was a subject of conflicting court decisions at a high level. I think this would be helpful. I don't think it will damage London's appeal as a centre for arbitration at all.

PS: Do you think that Singapore now has an edge over London or is it the other way around?

Lord Goldsmith: Singapore has done really well, fantastically well and I congratulate them for that. The two arbitration centres in Asia - the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, with which I was associated, and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre - are both very, very good indeed. They appeal to slightly different markets, but they provide excellent, independent, neutral, successful and speedy arbitration.

London has its own advantages. London has a judiciary that you can trust to deal with the supervision of arbitration. I think that's an important element. Several years ago, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators had its centenary conference in London. I worked with the then-President of the Chartered Institute to produce a list of the things that an arbitration seat should have. We came up with ten items to be an excellent arbitration seat. Those included the training of lawyers, the availability of judges, neutrality, independence, as well as physical access…

In addition, clients like to have the lawyers they trust dealing with them and they've perhaps known them for many, many years. Being able to use them in the jurisdiction where the arbitration is based is quite important to clients. I think that's one of the features of accessibility to make a centre of arbitration. London has no sort of restrictions on who can appear in arbitration. That's one of the things that gives London its pre-eminence.

PS: Do you see the UAE emerging as an arbitration hub?

Lord Goldsmith: I sit on the Court of Arbitration of Abu Dhabi. It's starting to get work outside the Gulf area, but it'll be a long time before it really takes off.

PS: Since you have seen India so closely, what does India need to do to become a hub of international arbitration?

Lord Goldsmith: Make itself accessible. Courts must stick to being pro-arbitration. There are some wonderful decisions that come out of the Indian courts, but then there is another one which is less pro-arbitration and which rather spoils it. So there's a lack of predictability as to whether the judges are going to interfere with the arbitration. 

I think having a centre where the arbitration can take place is also helpful. Singapore has got Maxwell Chambers, London has got two arbitration centres. So having a centre where people can hold the arbitration is quite important. When I've done arbitrations in India, we've tended to go to hotels. That's fine, but it's not as useful as having a dedicated centre which can not only provide facilities for hearing, but also other things like ease of translation, copying facilities, all that you may need in arbitrations. Because in a heavy arbitration, you need a lot of things around the arbitration itself.

One of the main problems with Indian arbitration is delay. If you get caught up in the courts, the delay can be terrible, but they're not unique. I've had English cases where we have had similar problems. Applying court processes too much to arbitration can be a danger. I have done Indian arbitration cases where one or more members of the panel have been former judges and they've immediately thought of Indian processes...Being over-technical, being over-committed to the court processes as if they apply to arbitration, that is one of the major issues.

PS: I assumed that you would have seen the Indian Supreme Court's Gayatri Balaswamy judgment, where a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that courts have the power to modify arbitral awards, although no express provision for such modification exists in law. How do you think such judicial interventions affect international perceptions of India as an arbitration centre?

Lord Goldsmith: It may worry people because they will worry what will happen to their awards. It's unusual to find that a court can modify an award. Yes, they may set it aside or affirm it, but modifying it is different. At the end of the day, some people will say, we signed up to have our case decided by arbitrators - people that we actually chose to be the arbitrators. If they go very wrong, we accept that a court may set aside what they've done, but we didn't sign up to have the decisions made by the court.

That's the whole point about arbitration, moving away from the court. That's the worry that people will have in the light of that judgment.

PS: We see Indian arbitrators, where there's an Indian party involved. There are a few judges and lawyers who have international experience, and are of international standards. From your point of view, what can some of these judges and lawyers do to be seen in the international market?

Lord Goldsmith: There are some very fine judges who do have international experience and international stature already. I'm not going to name names, but I can think of several who I’d be delighted to see as an arbitrator in my case or to sit with me. What can they do to make themselves more accessible? Travel. Perhaps if they attended some of the international arbitration conferences, not just those in India, that would be a good way of getting exposure. The more that they are involved, the more they sit; and some of them have chambers or places of work in other countries, including in England. That's a great method of exposure too.

PS: The Singapore Court of Appeal in the Singapore International Commercial Court set aside awards issued by 3 retired Indian judges after finding that the substantial portions of the awards were copy-pasted from related cases. How do such incidents impact the international perception of Indian arbitrators?

Lord Goldsmith: I think it reminds us all that the job of the arbitrator is to exercise his or her own judgment in relation to the case and not to take the shortcut of copying someone else's judgment. They may be quite right in the decision they made. I don't know, I haven't looked at the detail of it. We all take inspiration from other cases, but obviously copying and pasting was going a bit too far. 

We do see some great awards by Indian arbitrators; and there's no reason why that shouldn't continue.

PS: The increasing use of AI in arbitration, what are your thoughts on that?

Lord Goldsmith: Dangerous. We are looking at it, but we'll make sure it's done in the proper way. There are too many stories about AI fabrications. I've heard instances where cases have been invented by AI and then just passed on by the lawyers without checking them. That worries us, because if you can't rely upon it, then what do you use it for? There are things it can do. I myself have used it a little bit...It's inevitable that we use it more and more. We use it already for things like discovery.

It is dangerous to think of AI writing arbitral awards. It's human reasoning. You're supposed to digest the material. Process it, analyse it, reach a judgment on it. You've got to do that yourself. The human mind has got to do that. You could use the AI for some bits of it - writing the procedural history, for example...Using it for the key parts of the judgment - that would worry me a lot more. It's not what I would do, in any event.

PS: Do you have any advice for the younger members of the Bar?

Lord Goldsmith: My first bit of advice is that you've chosen a wonderful profession. Exciting, intellectually stimulating and also rewarding. Keep an open mind. If we’re talking about litigation and arbitration, which is my specialty, you need to prepare. Think it through, understand the psychology of the parties. That, for me, is the most important thing.