International Litigation Lawyers Worldwide.

These lawyers act as strategic commanders for disputes that cross borders. Unlike domestic litigators, they must master the interplay between conflicting legal systems to decide where to fight (jurisdiction) and which laws apply. Their primary role is to coordinate global strategy—managing local counsel in multiple countries to ensure that a victory in a London court isn’t undermined by a contradictory ruling in New York or Tokyo, preventing a chaotic legal war on multiple fronts.

This is a powerful defense doctrine meaning “inconvenient forum,” allowing a court to dismiss a case even if it technically has jurisdiction because another court is more appropriate. A lawyer uses this to argue that the case should be moved to a country where the witnesses reside or the accident occurred, effectively stopping a plaintiff from “forum shopping” for a favorable US jury when the dispute really belongs in France or Brazil.

You cannot simply mail a lawsuit to a foreigner; that violates their national sovereignty. The Hague Service Convention provides the mandatory legal channel, where you send the documents to a “Central Authority” in the defendant’s government, which then serves them according to local law. A lawyer ensures this process is flawless because if you skip a step or translate the papers incorrectly, the foreign court will ignore your lawsuit entirely, rendering any future judgment unenforceable.

Yes, but it is a slow, diplomatic process used when no treaty like the Hague Evidence Convention exists. A Letter Rogatory is a formal request from one judge to a foreign judge asking them to compel a witness to testify or produce documents. A lawyer drafts this request with extreme care to ensure it meets the foreign country’s strict standards—avoiding broad “fishing expeditions”—because foreign courts often view American-style discovery as an invasion of privacy and will reject vague requests.

An anti-suit injunction is an aggressive court order that legally forbids a party from commencing or continuing a lawsuit in a foreign jurisdiction. It doesn’t technically bind the foreign court (which would be an act of war), but it acts in personam against the litigant: if they disobey the order and continue the foreign suit, they face contempt of court charges, fines, or even imprisonment in the issuing country, effectively forcing them to drop the parallel case.

There is no global treaty for enforcing court judgments, so you must file a new legal action to “domesticate” the foreign ruling in your home courts. A lawyer must prove that the original trial was fair, that the foreign court had proper jurisdiction, and that the judgment doesn’t violate local public policy. Once the local judge approves it, the foreign piece of paper transforms into a local judgment, allowing you to send sheriffs to seize assets just as if the trial had happened there.

Generally, sovereign nations are immune from lawsuits, but State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) often lose this protection under the “Commercial Activity Exception”. If a government-owned airline or oil company acts like a private business player in the market, a lawyer can argue they should be treated like one in court. This allows you to sue them for breach of contract, provided you can prove their actions were commercial in nature rather than governmental or political acts.

These cases are notoriously expensive, often involving “shadow teams” of lawyers in multiple time zones. Lead counsel acts as the project manager, consolidating billing to prevent duplication of work (e.g., ensuring two firms aren’t researching the same issue). They also frequently use “litigation funding”—third-party investors who pay the legal fees in exchange for a cut of the eventual settlement—to manage the massive cash flow required to sustain a multi-year global battle.