In February 2026, a Lyon manufacturer of bottling machinery and its Texan distributor fell out over the termination of an exclusive distribution agreement. The manufacturer claimed 1,150,000 dollars of unpaid orders and unreturned stock. The clause referred to the ICDR rules, seat in New York, sole arbitrator. The distributor did not seriously contest the debt; it contested the termination. The manufacturer asked his counsel what the proceedings would cost. Counsel could answer for the administrative fees, 18,600 dollars in two instalments, and could say nothing about the arbitrator fees, which would be known only when the administrator proposed a name and a rate. The prospective arbitrator billed 750 dollars an hour. The manufacturer then asked how many hours. Nobody knew.
This page deals with the three generalist institutions that pay the tribunal for time spent rather than in proportion to the amount in dispute: the LCIA in London, the ICDR of the American Arbitration Association and the HKIAC in Hong Kong, which offers a choice between the two systems. It explains what that billing method changes for the client, sets out each institution schedule for a dispute of roughly one million euros before a sole arbitrator, then identifies the stipulations that keep a hand on the meter and the cases where hourly billing works out cheaper. The figures were checked on 20 September 2026 against the official schedules and converted at European Central Bank rates of 18 September 2026.
1. What time billing changes for the client
An ad valorem schedule sells a price. Hourly billing sells a rate. The difference is one of kind, not of degree: in the first case the client knows, to within a few thousand euros, what the institution and the tribunal will cost before filing a request; in the second he knows the price of an hour and has no idea how many hours, which is to say he knows nothing. The number of hours depends on the complexity of the case, the number of submissions, the length of the hearings, the discipline of counsel and the working methods of the arbitrator, five variables none of which is fixed when the contract is signed.
The system also changes incentives. Under a schedule, an arbitrator who renders an award in eight months earns as much as one who takes twenty; he is paid to decide. By the hour, the arbitrator is paid to work, and nothing in the mechanism rewards brevity. Serious practitioners have a reputation to protect and do not drag their feet. But the client who chooses hourly billing funds every procedural skirmish the other side raises, every document production request, every objection to a witness, at the full rate. A party acting in bad faith knows this. It is the one holding the tap.
There are nonetheless cases where hourly billing costs less. A large amount turning on a simple point of law is the clearest example: a ten million dollar payment default on an invoice not disputed in principle generates, under a schedule, arbitrator fees calculated on ten million, whereas an arbitrator paid by the hour will spend a few dozen hours on it. Conversely, a construction case worth 800,000 euros with three experts and fifteen witnesses will cost far more by the hour than under a schedule. An hourly rate cannot therefore be judged in the abstract; it is judged by the ratio between the amount at stake and the work required, which is known in order of magnitude when the contract is signed.
2. LCIA: the meter runs on everything, and the medians that measure it
The LCIA applies its 2020 Rules and the Schedule of Arbitration Costs in force since 1 December 2023. The registration fee is 1,950 pounds, that is 2,271 euros, non refundable and not credited against later costs. The secretariat then bills its time in units of six minutes: the Registrar at 300 pounds an hour, Counsel at 285, case administrators at 220, the accounts team at 190, with VAT possible on top. The institution also takes 5 per cent of the tribunal fees. Arbitrators are paid between 250 and 650 pounds an hour, that is 291 to 757 euros, any excess requiring an exceptional case and the express agreement of all parties; a tribunal secretary costs 100 to 250 pounds an hour. The LCIA publishes no calculator, and with reason: nothing can be calculated before the end.
What the LCIA does publish, nobody else does. Its Costs and Duration report 2017-2024, dated 30 December 2024, analyses 616 cases closed between 1 January 2017 and 12 May 2024. The overall median cost comes to 117,653 dollars, for a median duration of twenty months. Below one million dollars in dispute, the median total is 26,000 dollars, that is 22,700 euros, over twelve months. Between one and ten million dollars, the band of our hypothesis, the median administrative cost is 22,000 dollars, the median tribunal fees 98,000 dollars, and the median total 119,000 dollars, that is 103,800 euros, over twenty months. Between ten and one hundred million, the median total reaches 209,000 dollars; above that, 393,000 dollars. A sole arbitrator decided half the cases. The medians of the components do not add up; each figure is read on its own.
Two features set the LCIA apart. It has no expedited procedure: its articles 9A and 9B provide for expedited formation of the tribunal and an emergency arbitrator billed at 10,000 pounds of institutional fees and 25,000 pounds of remuneration, but no lighter regime for small disputes. And its article 5.8 appoints a sole arbitrator by default, unless the parties agree otherwise or the Court decides otherwise. One uncertainty attaches to the medians: almost all the cases in the report were billed under the schedules in force before 1 December 2023, so the median of 103,800 euros does not yet reflect current rates. The only direction in which it can move is up.
3. ICDR: administrative fees in two stages, an arbitrator at his own rate
The ICDR, the international division of the American Arbitration Association, applies its International Dispute Resolution Procedures of 1 March 2021 and an International Arbitration and Mediation Fee Schedule whose arbitration section has been in force since 1 September 2025. That schedule ends an eight year peculiarity: the Standard and Flexible schedules of 2017, between which the claimant had to choose depending on whether it preferred to pay at once or spread the cost, no longer exist. There is now a single schedule, with two payment dates.
For the band of one to ten million dollars, the Initial Filing Fee is 8,925 dollars, that is 7,788 euros, payable with the request. The Final Fee, 9,675 dollars or 8,442 euros, falls due when the first hearing is scheduled; if the parties settle before, half of it is refunded. The administrative total comes to 18,600 dollars, that is 16,230 euros. The smallest band, below 75,000 dollars, calls for 1,450 then 1,150 dollars. Each additional separately represented party increases the fees by 10 per cent, up to 50 per cent. Hearing rooms are charged separately. The official calculator, at feecalculator.adrapps.org, covers only these administrative fees, and that is where costing stops.
For the schedule says nothing about arbitrator fees. Article 38 of the Procedures leaves it to the administrator to set a daily or hourly rate “in consultation with the parties and the arbitrators”, within the framework of the Arbitrator Billing Guidelines of June 2016, which set a billable day at seven hours. In practice the prospective arbitrator states his rate, and the parties either accept it or object to the name. The AAA-ICDR mentions, in guidance to law firms that carries no force as a schedule, rates of 300 to 600 dollars an hour for straightforward cases and 800 dollars or more for complex ones. The Lyon manufacturer in our introduction, with his arbitrator at 750 dollars, was paying the complex case rate for a file that was half uncontested. The international expedited procedure of article 1(4) applies automatically below 500,000 dollars, with a sole arbitrator, a documents only procedure below 100,000 dollars and an award within thirty days of the close, but no fee reduction; at 1,146,000 dollars it does not reach our hypothesis.
4. HKIAC: capped hourly billing or the schedule, to be chosen in the clause
The HKIAC applies its Administered Arbitration Rules of 1 June 2024 and a Schedule of Fees in force since 1 January 2026, announced on 17 December 2025. The registration fee, raised from 8,000 to 10,000 Hong Kong dollars, that is 1,112 euros, is not refundable. Administrative fees follow an ad valorem schedule: for 8,990,000 Hong Kong dollars, our one million euros, they come to 89,566 Hong Kong dollars, that is 9,963 euros (band of 8 to 16 million: 86,680 plus 0.2915 per cent above 8 million). So far, nothing unpredictable.
What is singular about the HKIAC is the remuneration of the tribunal, for which the rules offer two regimes. The first, applicable by default, is Schedule 2: the arbitrator bills his time, subject to an hourly cap of 7,500 Hong Kong dollars, that is 834 euros, raised from 6,500 dollars on 1 January 2026, the first adjustment since 2013; a tribunal secretary is capped at 2,500 Hong Kong dollars an hour. The second, Schedule 3, is an ad valorem schedule that gives only a maximum: for our hypothesis, 464,120 Hong Kong dollars, that is 51,625 euros (445,280 plus 1.903 per cent above 8 million). Under the ad valorem option, the institution and arbitrator total can therefore reach 553,686 Hong Kong dollars, that is 61,587 euros, registration included.
The choice between the two regimes belongs to the parties, and it is made in the clause. Whoever says nothing gets hourly billing. Take a Hong Kong trading house and a Bordeaux wine exporter arbitrating before the HKIAC in September 2025 a dispute over nine million Hong Kong dollars of lots rejected for defective labelling; their clause, copied from an earlier contract, says nothing about the remuneration regime, and the exporter, who was counting on the 51,625 euro ceiling of the schedule, finds that it does not apply to him. The HKIAC also has two advantages that have nothing to do with price. Its expedited procedure under article 42, available on application up to 50 million Hong Kong dollars since 1 January 2026, against 25 million previously, requires a sole arbitrator but offers no reduced schedule. And its awards are enforced in mainland China under a specific arrangement, which, for a creditor whose debtor keeps its assets in Shenzhen, is worth more than any saving on a schedule.
5. Containing the meter: four stipulations that hold
The meter cannot be negotiated while it is running. Once the arbitrator is appointed, a party asking for a rate reduction or a budget puts itself in a weak position towards both the other side and the arbitrator. Everything that follows is therefore written into the clause, when neither side yet knows whether it will be claimant or respondent. The first stipulation caps the rate. At the HKIAC the rules themselves fix a cap of 7,500 Hong Kong dollars an hour, which the clause may lower; at the LCIA the clause can set, below the band of 250 to 650 pounds, a maximum that will bind the tribunal; at the ICDR, where article 38 refers to consultation of the parties, a clause fixing a maximum rate in advance gives that consultation a content the administrator cannot ignore. The institution model clause, with one sentence added, is enough.
The second stipulation requires a budget. None of the three sets of rules obliges the tribunal to give the parties, at the first procedural conference, an estimate of the hours expected for each phase. The clause can impose one, and provide that any significant overrun will be announced before it is billed. An arbitrator who refuses that principle is not an arbitrator one wants. The third stipulation limits hearings: a merits hearing of two or three days at most for a one million euro dispute, and a documents only procedure for anything that does not require a witness to be heard. By the hour, each hearing day is paid for three times over, in preparation, in attendance and in deliberation; it is the item on which the clause has most effect.
The fourth stipulation requires a sole arbitrator. At the LCIA article 5.8 already provides for one by default, but the Court may decide otherwise and the other side may ask for three; at the HKIAC and the ICDR the question stays open absent stipulation. Three arbitrators billing by the hour do not cost three times a single one: they cost three times as much, plus the hours they spend coordinating with each other, plus the delays their diaries impose. On a one million euro dispute, a three member tribunal billed for time spent makes the dispute disappear behind the costs. It takes a case worth several tens of millions before three meters are better than one.
6. When hourly billing beats ad valorem
The first case is the document heavy file on a modest amount, and it runs against intuition. Hourly billing is assumed to be dangerous as soon as the file is bulky; but a schedule calculated on 800,000 euros pays poorly for an arbitrator who has to read four thousand pages, and the institution corrects by pushing the fees towards the maximum. At the ICC that maximum is 60,551 euros for our hypothesis, and it will be reached. Hourly billing, in that situation, costs what the work is worth, and an arbitrator paid for his time is readier to take a case the schedule would discourage. What the client gains is a tribunal that reads.
The second case is the commonest in practice and the worst served by schedules: a large amount and a simple question. A first demand guarantee of fifteen million dollars called by a beneficiary, or a balance of a sale price where only the interest calculation is disputed. Under an ad valorem schedule, the institution and the arbitrator are paid on fifteen million however short the proceedings, and the ICC expedited procedure, capped at 4 million dollars, changes nothing. At the LCIA, or at the HKIAC on the hourly option, the same case is decided in a few dozen arbitrator hours; the Costs and Duration report gives, between ten and one hundred million dollars, a median total of 209,000 dollars. For these cases, hourly billing is not a gamble; it is the obvious answer.
The third case is the early settlement. A party that starts an arbitration to force the other to negotiate, expecting to settle before the hearing, pays under a schedule administrative fees calculated on the full amount, of which the institution returns only a fraction. At the LCIA it pays 1,950 pounds, then the hours actually spent; at the ICDR it pays 8,925 dollars, then recovers half of the 9,675 dollar Final Fee if the settlement precedes the scheduling of the hearing. This is the trap of the headline rate, taken the other way round: one looks at the rate, fears the hours, and forgets that hours not spent are not paid for. In all three cases the condition is the same: a clause that has provided for a sole arbitrator, a rate cap and a budget. Without it, hourly billing becomes once again a bill discovered at the end.
The full document, with the table of twelve institutions, the detailed calculations in the original currencies and the list of primary sources, is freely available: download the full table as a PDF. The firm drafts arbitration clauses and acts before these institutions; the international trade law page describes that practice, and the contact form allows a clause or a pending dispute to be submitted.
Frequently asked questions
How long does an LCIA arbitration take?
The LCIA Costs and Duration report 2017-2024, covering 616 cases closed between 2017 and May 2024, gives a median duration of twenty months from request to final award: twelve months below one million dollars, twenty months between one and ten million. Since the tribunal and the secretariat are billed for time spent, duration is the first driver of cost, and a clause that contains the number of submissions and the length of hearings acts on both at once.
What happens to the ICDR Final Fee if the parties settle before the hearing?
The ICDR schedule in force since 1 September 2025 splits administrative fees into two payments. The Initial Filing Fee, 8,925 dollars between one and ten million dollars in dispute, is due with the request and is not returned. The Final Fee, 9,675 dollars for the same band, falls due only when the first hearing is scheduled; if the parties settle before, half of it is refunded. A party starting an arbitration with the intention of negotiating therefore has an interest in concluding before the hearing timetable is fixed.
Does the number of parties change the ICDR administrative fees?
Yes. The ICDR schedule increases administrative fees by 10 per cent for each additional separately represented party, up to 50 per cent. An arbitration between a supplier and three companies of the same group defended by the same firm attracts no increase; with three respondents each having its own counsel, administrative fees rise by 30 per cent. The rule targets the extra work of the secretariat, but a multiplicity of counsel also weighs on the arbitrator hours. The clause in a group contract does well to provide for common representation.
What does an emergency arbitrator cost at the LCIA and the HKIAC?
At the LCIA, article 9B of the 2020 Rules allows an emergency arbitrator to be sought before the tribunal is constituted, for 10,000 pounds of institutional fees and 25,000 pounds of remuneration, whatever the amount in dispute. At the HKIAC, the application calls for a deposit of 250,000 Hong Kong dollars, against which the fees and expenses incurred are set off. In both cases these sums are additional to those of the main arbitration. An emergency arbitrator serves to preserve an asset or a piece of evidence; it is never a way of obtaining a faster decision on the merits.
Is an award made under HKIAC auspices enforceable in mainland China?
Yes, and more simply than an award made in Paris or London. Awards made in Hong Kong benefit from a specific arrangement between the Special Administrative Region and mainland China, separate from the New York Convention, which organises their enforcement by the people courts. Arbitrations administered by the HKIAC also allow interim measures to be sought from mainland courts during the proceedings. For a creditor whose debtor keeps its assets on the mainland, that advantage weighs more than the difference in schedule with a European institution.