P&K Interview: Introducing Saemee Kim

Saemee Kim joined Peter & Kim partnership, based in Seoul, in April 2026. Welcome to the firm, Saemee.

What attracted you to this opportunity?

I was drawn to Peter & Kim by something that is difficult to quantify but impossible to miss: its energy. From my first interactions with the team, there was a distinctive dynamism — an atmosphere created by people who are genuinely passionate about what they do and bring that passion to every matter they handle. Since joining the firm, I have come to appreciate that this energy is also one of the reasons clients are drawn to Peter & Kim. 

The firm’s singular focus on international disputes was the natural starting point. International arbitration is a highly specialised discipline, and there is a meaningful difference between practising it within a broader litigation practice and being part of a team where it is the sole focus. The depth of experience and institutional knowledge that comes from that focus is something clients value. 

What struck me equally was the calibre and composition of the team – truly international team with lawyers from diverse jurisdictions and backgrounds, spanning both commercial and investment arbitration, with a healthy mix of seniorities where experience and ambition reinforce one another. 

I look forward to contributing to this exciting place from which to help clients navigate increasingly complex international disputes. 

What are some of the most common misconceptions businesses have about international arbitration?

One of the most common misconceptions is that the tribunal will simply “split-the-baby”, reaching a compromise outcome rather than rigorously applying the law. This tends to reflect a confusion with mediation. In reality, disputes in arbitration are resolved under the governing law, which means that expertise in that law is just as important in arbitration as it is in litigation. 

A related misconception is that arbitration is simply litigation in a different forum. While arbitration and litigation share certain features, arbitration offers parties considerably greater flexibility in areas such as procedure, the selection of decision-makers, and in case management. Parties that approach arbitration strategically, rather than defaulting to litigation instincts, can often make far better use of those advantages. 

I would also add that enforcement tends to be underestimated. Many clients feel they have won the dispute once they get a favorable award, but an award is only as valuable as your ability to enforce it. Unless the opposing party voluntarily complies, the award is little more than a piece of paper. Understanding where a counterparty holds assets, how to preserve them, and whether the relevant jurisdictions will give effect to an award are questions that should inform strategy well before a dispute crystallises.

At what stage of a commercial relationship should businesses begin thinking about dispute resolution strategy?

Ideally, from the very beginning, which is far earlier than most clients do. Dispute resolution strategy is too often treated as something to think about once a dispute has already emerged — by which point the parties are locked into whatever contractual framework they agreed to without much thought. 

The arbitration clause, in particular, deserves serious attention at the contracting stage. A poorly drafted clause can create jurisdictional complications, limit the parties’ procedural options, or produce uncertainty about the seat, the rules, or the scope of disputes covered. These are not abstract concerns — they have real consequences when a dispute arises. 

Effective dispute resolution strategy extends beyond the contract itself. Clients should think carefully about how key decisions are documented, how internal communications are managed, and how they preserve relevant records — long before any dispute is on the horizon. The same applies to external communications: the words chosen in a letter or email to a counterparty can later take on a significance that no one anticipated at the time.

How do cultural and jurisdictional differences impact the management of international disputes?

Cultural and jurisdictional differences can influence virtually every aspect of a dispute, from how parties communicate and negotiate to how evidence is gathered and presented. 

The jurisdictional dimension is well understood — the differences between common law and civil law approaches to disclosure, witness evidence, and advocacy are widely discussed and most experienced practitioners navigate them without difficulty. The cultural dimension is more nuanced and, in my view, more consequential. 

What I mean by that is the less tangible things: how parties from different backgrounds communicate, what they expect from the process, how they approach negotiation and settlement. A party that appears to be stonewalling may simply be operating within a different framework for how concessions are made. A witness who seems evasive may be responding to cross-examination in a way that is entirely normal in their home jurisdiction. Misreading those signals can affect strategy, credibility and ultimately the outcome of the dispute.  

Successful management of international disputes therefore requires more than legal expertise. It requires understanding the perspectives of all stakeholders involved and anticipating potential misunderstandings before they become obstacles. In many cases, bridging those differences is as important as advancing the legal arguments themselves.

What qualities do you believe distinguish the most effective arbitration counsel?

Technical legal expertise is the baseline—clients rightly expect that. What distinguishes truly effective arbitration counsel is strategic judgment, adaptability, and the ability to understand the client’s needs. 

First, effective counsel identifies early what the dispute is really about, what evidence will matter most, and how to present a coherent and persuasive case. That requires judgment, not just knowledge. 

Second, they adapt to the circumstances of each case. Every arbitration is different—the tribunal, procedural rules, cultural dynamics, and counterparties all vary—and successful counsel tailor their approach accordingly. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, effective counsel understands the client’s broader objectives. Winning a legal argument is not always the same as achieving the best outcome. The best arbitration counsel keeps the client’s commercial interests in view throughout the case.