Mihaela Apostol is an independent counsel and arbitrator based in London. Mihaela is a civil (Avocat of the Bar of Bucharest, Romania) and common law (Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales) qualified lawyer with 11 years of practice having worked as counsel, tribunal secretary and arbitrator.
She has experience in investment and commercial arbitrations as well as adjudications in various industries such as construction, technology, intellectual property.
She has an LL.M. degree in International and European Business Law from Panthéon-Sorbonne and an LL.M. degree in International Commercial Arbitration from Stockholm University. She also completed the King’s College Programme on Coding for Lawyers.
Mihaela is a co-founder and moderator at ArbTech, a discussion forum that fosters dialogue about the use of technology in arbitration and tech-related disputes.
Young EFILA: What attracted you to a career in arbitration?
Mihaela Apostol: My interest in arbitration began during my bachelor’s degree, despite not being a standalone topic in our curriculum. I first came across it in the Civil Procedure course, where professors mentioned it only briefly. After reading those chapters independently, I realised that arbitration offers an effective solution for international disputes. What stood out to me the most was its procedural flexibility. At the time, I was studying in a civil law country where procedural steps were strictly detailed in the legal code. In contrast, arbitration’s adaptability fascinated me, making me eager to explore it further.
On a personal level, I have always been passionate about learning foreign languages, exploring different cultures, and travelling. International arbitration aligns perfectly with these interests, making it an ideal field for me.
YE: What was the most challenging moment of your career, and how did you overcome it?
MA: One of the biggest challenges I faced was realising that people tend to assess your expertise based on what is familiar to them. They naturally gravitate towards recognisable patterns and may struggle to evaluate something they were not exposed to before. If they lack exposure to a particular background or experience, they might not immediately see its relevance.
To overcome this, I focus on making my experience more translatable by providing context whenever possible.
YE: What is an arbitration case to watch or a trend to follow for 2025?
MA: As the arbitration market evolves, we expect to see more specialised and decentralised practices. For a long time, international arbitration was predominantly handled by large, international Western law firms. However, more and more practitioners are choosing to establish boutique firms or work independently.
In addition, we are likely to see more consistent practices regarding digital asset arbitrations. The number of cases in this area has been steadily rising, and it is hoped that arbitration institutions will begin to create separate categories in their statistics to highlight disputes related to new technologies, to have a better grasp of where things stand.
YE: What do you think about being a specialist versus being a generalist?
MA: I am in favour of being a specialist, ideally in no more than three areas of expertise. True added value comes from mastering your field. As counsel, specialisation allows you to provide strategic advice that is not only legally sound but also considers the commercial aspects of a case, ensuring a well-rounded approach to your client’s needs. As an arbitrator, deep expertise enables you to grasp the core of a dispute more efficiently and uncover the underlying issues driving the conflict.
YE: Do you have any tips for good legal drafting?
MA: Through my work, I have encountered legal drafts from around the world, and I have noticed that drafting styles often reflect cultural practices. What is considered excellent drafting in the U.S. may not have the same impact in the U.K. or France, for example. Similarly, my writing style and structure vary depending on whether I draft in English, French, or Romanian.
My key advice is to adapt to your audience and context. When in doubt, keep it simple – use short sentences and avoid excessive adjectives and adverbs. In terms of structure, start with the main idea (e.g., “Party A breached the Contract”), followed by the relevant facts (e.g., “Party A failed to make payment by DD/MM/YYYY”), and then cite the applicable legal basis (e.g., “According to Clause (…) / Article (…) of Regulation (…), Party A was required to pay by DD/MM/YYYY”). Readers often have limited time and context, so the first sentence of each paragraph should convey the main point.
YE: What is the best professional advice you have ever received?
MA: One of my mentors once told me: “Everything is advocacy.” Your emails, your introduction at a networking event, your speech on a panel – they all serve as a form of advocacy, shaping the story you present about yourself. That is why it is essential to maintain a consistent and coherent approach that aligns with your professional persona.
YE: What would you do if you were not working as an arbitration practitioner?
MA: I would probably be working in business. I have quite an entrepreneurial mindset and enjoy exploring new ideas. Whenever I set a goal, I focus on creating the necessary infrastructure to turn that idea into reality.
YE: Please recommend to our readers a movie that you’ve enjoyed and tell them why they should watch it.
MA: I enjoyed watching Mad Men, a series about an advertising company in the 1960s -1970s, in New York. While the series has many captivating aspects, I found the marketing pitches particularly inspiring from a professional perspective. In a way, arbitration lawyers are also marketers – they “advertise” their client’s story to the arbitrators, shaping narratives to persuade and influence.
YE: Thank you for your time, Mihaela!
**** This interview was conducted by Ioana Maria Bratu and forms part of Young EFILA’s Interview Series with Arbitration Practitioners ****