Interviews
#10QuestionswithMaxwell Interview Series: Yunsoo Shin, Peter & Kim
Dr Yunsoo Shin is a Partner at Peter & Kim and specialises in international arbitration and cross-border commercial disputes. She serves as a Court Member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration (2024–2027), a member of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR, and the IBA Task Force on Party Representation in International Arbitration.
Dr Shin acts as both counsel and arbitrator in complex international disputes across a wide range of industries, with particular experience in post-M&A disputes, shareholder and joint venture disputes, construction, technology, finance and corporate valuation matters.
She was named “Lawyer of the Year” in the field of international arbitration by Legal Times in 2024 and received the “Woman Lawyer of the Year” award from Asian Legal Business in 2023. She has also been recognised by Chambers and Partners, Global Arbitration Review and Lexology Index as a leading practitioner in the Korean arbitration market.
She is admitted in Korea and New York and holds degrees from Seoul National University, the Wharton School (MBA, Finance and Business Analytics), and Harvard Law School (SJD, Corporate Governance and Finance).
For more information, please refer to Yunsoo Shin | Peter & Kim.
Read the full interview below:
Q: You began your academic life in engineering before pivoting to law and eventually international arbitration. What drove that shift, and looking back, what has that technical foundation given you as a disputes lawyer?
I actually started in fine art, not engineering. After spending most of my teenage years training as an art student, I moved into architecture and eventually law. Looking back, the common thread was a search for work that was intellectually engaging, but also directly useful to others.
As a disputes lawyer, I have come to appreciate how valuable my technical background has been. My engineering training gave me a strong analytical foundation, which has been invaluable when working with experts and navigating complex valuation, quantum and technical issues that often sit at the heart of modern commercial disputes.
Many of my clients today are private equity funds, technology companies and sophisticated investors who expect their lawyers not only to understand the law, but also the business realities underlying a dispute. International arbitration ultimately became the profession where analytical, technical and creative skills all proved useful at the same time.
Q: If you think about the practitioners entering international arbitration today versus when you started, what do you think they are better equipped for, and what do you think they are less prepared for than they realize?
Younger practitioners today are far more international from the beginning than my generation was. Their English is generally excellent, they are more confident about expressing their views early, and they have access to an extraordinary amount of training materials, mentorship opportunities and practical know-how.
What sometimes worries me, however, is that many younger lawyers underestimate how much resilience good writing requires.
Good legal writing is rarely produced in one brilliant sitting. We draft, rethink, rewrite, delete, rebuild, sleep on it, and then criticise our own work again the next morning. That process takes time, humility and emotional durability. Serious writing rarely emerges from comfort.
The same is true of advocacy. Much of what makes someone an effective advocate cannot be learned from a textbook. We learn it through experience: by making judgment calls, making mistakes, receiving feedback and gradually developing a sense of what works and what does not. We need enough resilience to stay with uncertainty and difficulty long enough to become genuinely good at something.
Q: What are some underrated or often-neglected skills young lawyers should develop early if they want to excel in this kind of work?
One underrated skill is learning how to manage yourself.
Most lawyers spend years learning how to manage cases, clients and deadlines. This profession demands enormous amounts of time and effort, and there is no real substitute for that. The challenge is learning how to sustain that commitment over decades.
What keeps us grounded is different for everyone. For some people, it may be quality time with loved ones. For others, music, sports, volunteering, faith or something else entirely. The difficult part is that nobody can figure it out for us. We have to discover what keeps us grounded, protect it even when we are busy, and keep returning to it consistently over time.
I believe lawyers who learn how to sustain themselves through demanding periods often develop better judgment, broader perspectives and greater staying power.
Q: From your experience, how has Korea’s arbitration landscape changed over the past decade?
The biggest change I have seen is that the Korean arbitration market has become much more diverse and sophisticated.
When I started, a significant portion of the market was driven by large conglomerate disputes, post-M&A claims, joint venture disputes and later we saw a boom of major construction disputes. Those cases remain important, but today disputes arise from a much broader range of industries. In recent years, for example, virtual asset service providers have become important users of international arbitration. Ten years ago, I did not fully appreciate how significant that industry would become. Had I known, I might have bought more Bitcoin and retired early.
The clients have also changed. Many of today’s users of arbitration, particularly private equity funds, technology companies and sophisticated in-house legal teams, expect much more from their external counsel. They do not simply ask what the law says. They want to know what the dispute means for the business.
As a result, arbitration lawyers are increasingly expected to understand more than law. Commercial, financial and industry knowledge have become just as important as legal analysis.
Q: You have acted both as counsel and arbitrator across ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LCIA and KCAB proceedings. How has sitting as an arbitrator influenced the way you approach advocacy as counsel?
The biggest lesson is that arbitrators eventually have to write an award. That sounds obvious, but I do not think I fully appreciated it until I started sitting as an arbitrator myself.
One of the most common mistakes is trying to win every point. As an arbitrator, however, I found myself constantly asking a different question: what facts, evidence and legal analysis will I actually need when I sit down to draft the award?
That perspective was reinforced by my experience reviewing arbitral awards as a member of the ICC Court. Looking at cases from the tribunal’s side makes it easier to see which issues ultimately drive the outcome, which arguments matter, and which ones simply make the record longer.
Today, I spend more time thinking about how the tribunal might structure the award, what findings will ultimately determine the outcome, and what arguments are truly material to those findings. I have also realized that understanding why a tribunal is asking a particular question—and what concern may lie behind it—is often far more important than the question itself.
Q: You are involved with several international arbitration institutions and initiatives, including the ICC Court and the IBA Task Force on Party Representation. Which developments in international arbitration are you watching most closely at the moment?
Two developments stand out.
The first is the growing focus on efficiency, flexibility and transparency. Over the past few years, we have seen significant rule revisions across major institutions, including HKIAC, SIAC, KCAB and now ICC. While the details differ, many of these reforms reflect a similar objective: making arbitration more responsive to users and more adaptable to the needs of a particular dispute.
The second development is AI. Not because the technology itself is new, but because much of the discussion around it remains surprisingly abstract. We have all attended conference panels discussing how AI will transform arbitration. What is often missing is a more practical discussion. While much of the current discussion still focuses on ethics, I am more interested in hearing from practitioners about how they are actually integrating AI into their work, what has worked, what has not, and what lessons they have learned along the way.
Q: The conversation around gender diversity and inclusion in arbitration has been going on for years, but progress still feels uneven across different regions and institutions. From your perspective, what actually helps create meaningful change, and why do some efforts struggle to last or create impact?
Gender diversity remains an important issue, but I do not think meaningful change comes from focusing on numbers alone. Many initiatives struggle because they focus on short-term visibility rather than demonstrating how gender diversity can strengthen the profession as a whole.
What matters is whether talented professionals are able to develop, advance and remain in the profession throughout their careers. If capable women are disproportionately leaving at certain stages of their careers, that is not simply a diversity issue. It means organisations are losing talent.
Meaningful change requires more than good intentions. It requires mentorship, leadership development, honest feedback and meaningful opportunities. Law firms and institutions need to think carefully about how they identify, support and develop future leaders.
Q: What advice would you give to young lawyers in Asia who hope to build an international arbitration practice?
My advice would be simple: before becoming an arbitration lawyer, become a good lawyer.
Many young practitioners become so focused on international arbitration that they treat it as a destination rather than a profession. In reality, the skills that make someone successful in arbitration are the same skills that make someone successful in any legal practice: understanding clients, identifying what really matters, analysing facts, writing clearly, developing strategy and working effectively with colleagues.
I also think young lawyers sometimes place too much emphasis on following a predetermined career plan. Careers rarely unfold exactly as expected. The lawyers who thrive tend to be those who remain curious, adaptable and open to opportunities they did not originally anticipate.
If you focus on becoming genuinely useful to clients and colleagues, opportunities have a habit of finding you.
Q: If you weren’t in your current profession, what profession would you be in?
If I could choose any profession regardless of talent, I would like to become a concert pianist. Unfortunately, I know enough professional musicians to understand that this is not a realistic option.
Talking about professions I might actually have been capable of, I suspect I would have become a medical doctor. Looking back, I was always drawn to work that combines intellectual challenge with direct and practical service to others. In some ways, that motivation is not very different from what eventually led me to law.
That said, my husband and I often joke about opening a highly impractical academy together. I could teach piano, mathematics, economics, and law. He could teach painting, electric guitar, weight training, swimming, and cycling. We have not yet found a market for this business model.
Q: To get to know you more on a personal level, tell us 3 fun facts about yourself.
- Former economics and statistics fellow. Unexpectedly competent.
- Golden retriever grooming enthusiast. Surprisingly competent.
- K-pop dance enthusiast. Consistently incompetent.
From left to right:
- Hiking with my Golden Retriever. He provides companionship; I provide grooming services.
- Some arbitration problems become much easier after a bicycle ride.
- With my husband, eighteen years and counting.
