Editor Team
Paul Cohen, a London-based lawyer known for representing the Sulu claimants in their high-profile arbitration case against Malaysia, was seen attending the trial of Spanish arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa.
Manila, Philippine – London-based lawyer Paul Cohen, counsel for the Sulu claimants in their $14.9 billion arbitration against Malaysia, was recently seen attending the Madrid trial of Spanish arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa—whose conviction for defying Spain’s courts has reignited global debate over impartiality in international arbitration.
Earlier this month, Spain’s National Court rejected Stampa’s appeal against a six-month prison sentence for contempt of court. The ruling stems from Stampa’s decision to continue the Sulu arbitration after Spanish judges had annulled his appointment and ordered proceedings to halt. Instead, Stampa transferred the arbitral seat from Madrid to Paris, enabling continuation of the case and ultimately producing the controversial $14.9 billion award against Malaysia in 2022.
Cohen’s attendance at the hearing, while not improper, renewed focus on the professional relationships surrounding the arbitration. Stampa previously worked for B. Cremades & Asociados, the Spanish law firm that represented the Sulu claimants in Spain, and is believed to have remained close to its founder, Bernardo Cremades Sr. Observers say that long-standing connection raises legitimate questions about whether Stampa’s independence was compromised.
Adding to the controversy, a YouTube video posted on 11 May 2022 shows Bernardo Cremades Jr. describing how his firm convinced Stampa to continue the arbitration despite Spanish court orders—and even claiming credit for persuading him to shift the seat of arbitration to France. Legal experts note that this admission effectively confirms outside influence on Stampa’s procedural decisions.
The episode has become emblematic of deeper concerns within international arbitration: the overlap of roles among a small circle of practitioners who alternately act as arbitrators, counsel, and experts in billion-dollar disputes. Analysts argue that such entanglements threaten confidence in the neutrality of a system that already operates largely outside public oversight.
“Ethical lines in arbitration have blurred,” said one Madrid-based academic. “When professional loyalty outweighs judicial authority, the credibility of the entire process comes into question.”
While Stampa has been held legally accountable, the broader network of individuals and financiers who helped drive the Sulu arbitration has not faced formal scrutiny. Governments and industry observers alike are now calling for tighter safeguards against conflicts of interest in cross-border disputes involving sovereign states.
As the controversy widens, the Sulu case may prove to be a watershed moment—testing whether the global arbitration community can uphold transparency and independence amid growing public and judicial pressure.
