An economist, Daniela Bambaci provides expert testimony in matters involving valuation, damages and regulatory opinions. She has been involved in over 25 international arbitration treaty and commercial cases, including various prominent arbitrations involving treaty claims against Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Kenya, Hungary, Senegal, Trinidad & Tobago, the US and Venezuela.

What challenges do you face with the increased volume of data being used in disputes?

I would say that it presents an opportunity rather than a challenge. The increased volume of data allows us to make more accurate and better-supported assessments!

How do you effectively prepare for a cross-examination and/or hot-tubbing during arbitration proceedings?

In preparation for cross-examination and hot-tubbing I focus on the best ways to convey our assessment to the tribunal in the most intuitive way. To do this I review the full case record and practice explaining how the documents and evidence fit into our assessment.

What challenges and opportunities does virtual working present to networking and training arbitration experts?

As you say, virtual working has brought both opportunities and challenges.

In a way, because our immediate team is spread out geographically between Buenos Aires, New York, San Diego, Chicago and Boston, and as we work closely with colleagues across EMEA and Asia-Pacific too, we were already used to working virtually. However, moving to an exclusively virtual environment has required further adjustments to replace the interactions that occurred naturally face to face. We began to hold more virtual meetings, both social and related to specific topics, conversations and projects so that the team could share their knowledge as well as their experiences. On the positive side, virtual meetings have allowed for more interaction between offices.

The same applies to our clients, who, as with our team, are spread across many regions. I would say that virtual working allows for more frequent client interaction because it is less costly in time and money than travelling, however, interactions are shorter and more targeted to specific issues.

I look forward to maintaining the advantages of more simple and frequent virtual interaction but recovering the valuable face-to-face contact too.

What further steps can be taken to ensure that arbitration professionals are more comfortable using arbitration hosting platforms and other technology increasingly used in proceedings?

I believe this will happen naturally as their use becomes more frequent and we all get more comfortable with the technology. I find it necessary to have support in real time and some guidance on which is the best software to use.

What has been your most interesting case to date, and why?

This is a hard one! What I love about arbitration is that each case is different and therefore interesting in its own way: they all have something that makes them unique and appealing. Even the different stages of each case are fascinating. For example, in cases where we act as the claimant’s experts, in the initial stage we think of the case as a puzzle to solve, understanding what the claims are, how have they impacted the asset and how that impact can be quantified. In the second instance we carefully analyse the arguments from the respondent’s experts to understand where we need to make adjustments to our assessment or where we need to explain why no adjustment is necessary. Finally, the hearing is where we get the opportunity to explain our assessment to the tribunal. In all instances, besides doing the complex analysis, we also need to explain it in a compelling way and support it with the evidence.

What do you most enjoy about your role as a testifying expert?

I mostly enjoy thinking about, and crafting, my arguments. As I explained previously, all instances and cases are interesting and there is always something new to learn and explore.