Home / People / Lorenz Oetiker
Portrait of Lorenz Oetiker

Lorenz Oetiker, LL.M.

Associate

CMS von Erlach Partners Ltd
Dreikönigstrasse 7
P.O. Box
8022 Zurich
Switzerland
Languages German, English, French

Lorenz Oetiker advises clients on and handles proceedings in the fields of general contract and commercial matters.

He studied business economics at the University of St. Gallen (graduating 2010, B.A., summa cum laude) and law at the University of Zurich (graduating 2014, MLaw, summa cum laude). In 2019 and 2020, Lorenz Oetiker pursued a Master of Law degree in Comparative and International Dispute Resolution at the Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), from which he graduated 2020 with distinction. 

Lorenz Oetiker worked at the Uster District Court as a trainee from 2014 to 2015. He was admitted to the Zurich bar in 2016 and started working as an independent lawyer at a law firm in Baden.

He joined our firm in 2017.

more less

Memberships & Roles

  • Zurich Bar Association (ZAV)
more less

Education

  • 2020 – Master of Law (with distinction), Queen Mary University of London (QMUL)
  • 2016 – Bar admission, Zürich
  • 2014 – Master of Law (summa cum laude), University of Zurich
  • 2010 – Bachelor of Arts in Economics (summa cum laude), University of St. Gallen
more less

Feed

09/2021
The Case for Less Re­strict­ive Form Re­quire­ments
Did Switzer­land Miss a Chance to Lib­er­al­ize Its Form Re­quire­ment for the Ar­bit­ra­tion Agree­ment?  Switzer­land’s na­tion­al ar­bit­ra­tion law has re­cently re­ceived a soft makeover. However, the Swiss gov­ern­ment ini­tially pro­posed a more pro­found change and sug­ges­ted that Switzer­land’s strict form re­quire­ments for the agree­ment to ar­bit­rate should be fun­da­ment­ally re­laxed. This proved too con­tro­ver­sial and was sub­sequently un­ce­re­mo­ni­ously aban­doned. Pro­ponents of the cur­rent form re­quire­ment stressed its be­ne­fits, such as its warn­ing func­tion re­gard­ing the waiver of one’s ac­cess to court, its evid­en­tiary func­tion in prov­ing con­sent to ar­bit­rate, and its cla­ri­fy­ing func­tion in es­tab­lish­ing the terms of the ar­bit­ra­tion.  However, strict form re­quire­ments are prone to ex­clude con­sen­su­al agree­ments to ar­bit­rate and are widely con­sidered to be out of step with mod­ern busi­ness prac­tices.Giv­en that form­al valid­ity is cru­cial to the re­cog­ni­tion of an agree­ment to ar­bit­rate and to the en­force­ment of awards in­ter­na­tion­ally, the is­sue clearly de­serves a second look. This art­icle eval­u­ates the be­ne­fits of form re­quire­ments against their costs and ar­gues that a mod­ern na­tion­al ar­bit­ra­tion law should either aban­don form re­quire­ments al­to­geth­er or fol­low the lib­er­al ap­proach pro­posed in Op­tion I of the UN­CIT­RAL Mod­el Law 2006.