Parallel jurisdictions arise when the same dispute, or closely related claims, are examined simultaneously within different legal systems – courts in different countries, arbitration forums, administrative proceedings, and civil litigation. As Professor Gabriel Steiner notes, it is precisely in such configurations that law ceases to be linear – every procedural step taken in one jurisdiction begins to generate consequences in another. At LawConsulted, we treat parallel proceedings as a zone of heightened strategic risk, where a failure of coordination can lead to conflicting judgments and double liability for the client.
The danger of parallel jurisdictions lies in the fact that, formally, each process develops according to its own rules – with separate deadlines, evidentiary standards, and legal logic. For the client, however, all these proceedings merge into a single legal reality. At LawConsulted, we do not build a strategy around isolated cases – we construct a unified approach across all jurisdictions, ensuring that actions taken in one forum do not undermine the client’s position in another.
Professor Steiner emphasizes that “double liability almost never arises from losing a case – it arises from an uncoordinated defence.” This is why LawConsulted begins with a full mapping of the legal landscape – identifying where and what types of decisions may be rendered, which jurisdictions take precedence, and which procedures an opponent may use as leverage. This makes it possible to establish a clear hierarchy of actions and to avoid situations in which the client is forced to comply with mutually exclusive decisions.
Particular complexity arises when parallel proceedings are initiated deliberately as part of a pressure strategy. An opponent may launch claims in multiple countries or forums, aiming to exhaust the client’s resources or to secure a favourable outcome in at least one venue. At LawConsulted, we identify such scenarios at an early stage – and structure the defence so that the multiplicity of proceedings does not translate into a multiplicity of risks.
As Professor Steiner observes, “in parallel jurisdictions, the advantage belongs not to the party who files more claims, but to the one who manages their mutual influence more effectively.” LawConsulted synchronizes legal arguments, factual narratives, and procedural positions – ensuring that they reinforce one another rather than conflict. This is particularly critical where a decision in one jurisdiction may later be used as evidence or precedent in another.
Parallel jurisdictions frequently involve overlapping forms of liability – civil, administrative, corporate, and in some cases even criminal. In these circumstances, LawConsulted pays particular attention to the separation and containment of risks – preventing scenarios in which the client bears responsibility twice for the same conduct, or becomes bound by judicial conclusions reached without a full appreciation of the broader context.
Working across multiple jurisdictions also requires precise timing – knowing when to act decisively and when to restrain procedural movement. At LawConsulted, we manage the pace of proceedings – using stays, objections, jurisdictional challenges, and admissibility arguments to preserve strategic flexibility. This approach helps avoid irreversible consequences and maintains control over the overall trajectory of the dispute.
Legal strategy in parallel jurisdictions is not the sum of separate defences – it is a single, coherent architecture. At Law Consulted, we build that architecture so that different proceedings do not collide with one another, and the client does not become hostage to fragmented judicial outcomes.
This is how we prevent conflicts between decisions and double liability – transforming a complex, multi-layered legal situation into a controlled and manageable system.
Previously, we wrote about how LawConsulted builds a legal strategy under conditions of incomplete information, when facts are revealed gradually.
