by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorCORPORATE DEADLOCK IN POLAND. REALITY IN 2026
Corporate deadlock is one of the most dangerous situations in a privately held company. When two shareholders hold equal power, even simple decisions may become impossible. As a result, the business can stop functioning while the conflict escalates.
This problem often arises in companies with a 50/50 ownership structure. At first, the structure seems fair. However, when a serious disagreement appears, neither side can impose a solution.
For foreign investors operating in Poland, understanding how corporate deadlocks arise and how they can be resolved is essential. Otherwise, a profitable investment may turn into a long and costly dispute.
Key Takeaways
- A corporate deadlock arises when shareholders cannot adopt key decisions because their voting power is equal.
- Deadlocks most often occur in companies with a 50/50 ownership structure or poorly drafted shareholder agreements.
- When a deadlock appears, the company may be unable to appoint management, approve budgets, or distribute profits.
- Under Polish law, several legal mechanisms may help resolve a shareholder deadlock, including even shareholder exclusion or company dissolution.
- However, an important question arises: what is the best solution? Should litigation be the first option? Or can strategic negotiation or mediation resolve the conflict faster while protecting the value of the business?
- For foreign investors, early legal strategy is essential. Otherwise, a corporate deadlock may lead to years of costly litigation in Poland. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the psychological dynamics of negotiations and the basic principles of behavioral analysis.
What Is a Corporate Deadlock?
A corporate deadlock occurs when shareholders cannot adopt key decisions because their voting power is equal. As a result, neither side can control the company or move it forward.
Deadlocks most often appear in companies with a 50/50 ownership structure. At first, such a structure may seem balanced and fair. However, once a serious disagreement arises, decision-making can stop completely.
In practice, a corporate deadlock may block essential actions in the company. For example, shareholders may be unable to appoint management, approve budgets, distribute profits, or adopt strategic decisions.
This situation creates serious risks for investors. Even a profitable company may stop operating effectively if its owners cannot reach agreement.
For this reason, corporate deadlocks often escalate into shareholder disputes. If the conflict continues, the parties may eventually seek legal solutions under Polish corporate law.
Typical Deadlock Situations in Polish Companies
Corporate deadlocks rarely appear suddenly. In most cases, they arise when a serious disagreement develops between partners who hold equal power in the company.
Many investors associate deadlocks only with a 50/50 ownership structure. However, the problem may also arise at the level of the management board.
In many Polish companies, the same individuals act both as shareholders and board members. As a result, a personal conflict between partners may spread across the entire governance structure of the company.
Deadlock at the Shareholder Level
Deadlocks often arise when two shareholders each hold 50% of the voting rights. In this situation, neither side can adopt key resolutions without the consent of the other.
As a result, the shareholders’ meeting may become unable to approve budgets, appoint management, distribute profits, or adopt strategic decisions.
Although this situation can paralyze the company’s long-term strategy, its immediate operational impact is often limited to the lack of resolutions.
Deadlock at the Management Board Level
Conflicts become more dangerous when the same partners also serve on the management board.
In such cases, the dispute may quickly spread from the shareholders’ level into the daily operations of the company.
Unlike the shareholders’ meeting, the management board makes operational decisions on an ongoing basis. Because of this, conflicting board members may block each other’s actions more directly.
For example, one board member may reverse a partner’s decision, issue contradictory instructions, or formally prohibit a particular action.
In some cases, internal rules may require the consent of the entire board before certain actions can be taken. A conflict between board members may therefore stop those actions completely.
Operational Consequences of a Board-Level Conflict
A conflict within the management board is also much more visible to employees and business partners.
Its effects often appear immediately in the company’s day-to-day functioning. Employees may receive contradictory instructions, while key decisions remain unresolved.
Such situations can seriously damage internal morale and weaken the company’s credibility in the eyes of contractors and clients.
In extreme cases, the conflict may also disrupt the company’s ability to act in court, administrative, or tax proceedings, where clear representation and consistent decisions are required.
Since the beginning of my professional career, I have specialized in resolving shareholder conflicts and preventing corporate deadlocks. I have guided numerous international investors through complex disputes, protecting their capital and ensuring business continuity. In this article, I share a real-life scenario illustrating how communication breakdowns between partners can escalate, along with the tangible consequences for the company: Escalation of Disputes Between Partners – A Real Scenario.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Litigation in Resolving Corporate Deadlocks
Litigation is a formal and legally binding method to resolve shareholder disputes in Poland. It provides certainty about the outcome and allows a court to impose a partner’s will when negotiation fails.
Advantages of Litigation:
- A clear, formal procedure with defined legal rules.
- Legally enforceable decisions that all parties must follow.
- The ability to resolve disputes when other methods, such as negotiation or mediation, have failed.
However, litigation also carries significant risks and challenges, especially in the context of corporate deadlocks:
Disadvantages of Litigation:
- Time-consuming: Court proceedings can last months or even years, delaying strategic decisions.
- Delayed impact: Rulings often arrive when the conflict has already shifted to new areas, reducing the decision’s practical effect.
- Conflict escalation: Litigation can transform the original dispute into a secondary conflict, far removed from the initial cause.
- High costs: Legal fees, court costs, and expert valuations accumulate rapidly.
- Growing involvement: More parties are drawn in, complicating communication and coordination.
- Reputational damage: Public court cases can harm the company’s image with clients, investors, and partners.
- Morale and culture: Employee confidence drops when internal conflicts become visible and prolonged.
- Long-term uncertainty: Investors, contractors, and banks perceive heightened risk, potentially affecting financing and partnerships.
- Revenge and retaliation: Even after a judgment, parties often seek to retaliate, transferring the dispute to new areas.
- Loss of flexibility: Shareholders become bound by formally stated positions, fearing loss of face and further escalation.
While litigation can enforce a decision, it rarely resolves the underlying issues. In corporate deadlocks, relying solely on courts may preserve legality but often sacrifices speed, efficiency, and long-term business stability.
Why Negotiation, Mediation, and Arbitration Often Outperform Litigation
| Feature | Mediation | Arbitration | Court Litigation |
| Duration | Very Fast (weeks to few months) | Moderate (6–12 months) | Slow (24–36+ months) |
| Cost | Low (negotiated fees) | Moderate/High | High (legal fees over years) |
| Confidentiality | Full (private & closed) | High (private) | None (public records) |
| Decision Maker | Parties (with a Mediator) | Expert Arbitrator | State Judge |
| Control over Outcome | Total (voluntary agreement) | Limited (binding award) | None (imposed judgment) |
| Relationship Impact | Preserves business ties | Neutral | Destructive (adversarial) |
| Enforceability | Binding (after court approval) | Binding (NY Convention) | Binding (state execution) |
In my professional career, my greatest successes have been achieved on the field of negotiation and mediation. These methods allow investors to resolve corporate deadlocks more efficiently, protect business value, and preserve relationships between partners.
The Advantages of Negotiation and Mediation
Negotiation and mediation offer a range of benefits that litigation cannot match:
- Speed: Mediation settlements can be reached in weeks or months, compared to years in Polish courts.
- Lower costs: Avoid expensive court fees, expert valuations, and prolonged legal proceedings.
- Confidentiality: Discussions remain private, protecting the company’s reputation and sensitive information.
- Focus on underlying causes: Unlike litigation, mediation aims to resolve the root issues of the conflict, not just declare a winner.
- Reduced risk of retaliation: Parties are less likely to seek revenge or escalate the conflict after a mediated settlement.
- Positive impact on company culture: Preserves employee morale and confidence, avoiding visible tension and operational disruption.
- Better for the company’s image: Partners, clients, contractors, and investors see proactive conflict management rather than public disputes.
In shareholder deadlocks, these methods often prevent escalation and protect both the business and its people. They allow partners to regain control without being “consumed” by formalized positions or fear of losing face.
Arbitration: A Strategic Middle Ground
Arbitration offers a hybrid approach between mediation and litigation:
- It provides a binding, enforceable resolution like litigation.
- It is faster and more flexible than traditional court proceedings.
- Arbitration proceedings remain private and confidential, limiting reputational risks.
- While slightly more formal and costly than mediation, it still avoids the inefficiencies and absurd delays of the Polish court system.
In practice, arbitration often serves as the most pragmatic solution when parties cannot reach an amicable agreement through negotiation but wish to avoid the long, unpredictable timelines of court litigation. You can read more about one the best polish arbitration here. And here you have a link to a website of one of the best mediation center in Poland.
The Reality of Polish Courts
Poland’s legal system is often unable to handle complex shareholder disputes efficiently:
- Court cases can take years, sometimes 12–36 months or longer for first-instance rulings.
- Decisions may arrive when the conflict has already shifted or escalated to other areas of the business.
- Litigation rarely addresses the root cause of the dispute, creating secondary conflicts and frustration.
In this context, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are not just alternatives—they are strategic tools that protect business value, relationships, and long-term stability.
Our Expertise in Corporate Conflict Resolution
For over a decade, we have helped companies resolve complex corporate disputes, including family businesses and conflicts between family-owned firms and foreign investors.
- Academic foundation: I earned my PhD in Commercial Law in 2014 with a dissertation on Options as Capital Market Instruments: A Civil Law Analysis. I worked for 12 years at the Department of Commercial and Business Law at the University of Łódź.
- Teaching experience: I lecture corporate law to aspiring advocates and have taught postgraduate courses on Company Law at the University of Łódź.
- Specialized training in negotiation and dispute resolution: I completed postgraduate studies in Negotiation, Mediation, and ADR at the University of Warsaw and postgraduate studies in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Łódź. I am currently deepening my expertise in Behavioral Analysis at the School of Emotional Intelligence in Wrocław.
- Practical experience: Negotiation is my passion, realized daily in complex shareholder disputes, cross-border M&A transactions, and corporate mediation. I have successfully guided family businesses and their investors through high-stakes conflicts, protecting both business value and relationships.
Our multidisciplinary approach combines law, psychology, and strategic negotiation to deliver efficient, lasting solutions for corporate deadlocks and shareholder disputes. I wrote about shareholders disputes resolving here.
Frequently Asked Questions (Q&A)
Q: What is a corporate deadlock in Poland?
A: A deadlock occurs when shareholders or board members cannot reach decisions, paralyzing company operations.
Q: Can a 50/50 shareholder deadlock be resolved?
A: Yes. Common solutions include:
- Buy-sell agreements
- Shotgun clauses
- Structured share buyouts
These allow one partner to buy the other’s shares at fair market value.
Q: How long does litigation usually take?
A: Court proceedings in Poland may last 12–36 months. Deadlocks often escalate, making early intervention essential.
Q: Is mediation faster than litigation?
A: Almost always. Mediation:
- Resolves disputes in weeks or months
- Reduces costs significantly
- Preserves confidentiality
- Minimizes risk of revenge or escalation
Q: What about arbitration?
A: Arbitration is a middle ground between mediation and court litigation. It is faster, less costly, and more flexible than court trials.
Q: Can a minority shareholder block key decisions?
A: Yes. Certain resolutions require qualified majorities (2/3 or 3/4), allowing minority shareholders to veto.
Q: Are mediation or arbitration settlements legally binding in Poland?
A: Yes. Approved settlements have the same legal force as court judgments and can be enforced by a bailiff.
Q: How should foreign investors act when deadlock emerges?
A: Early consultation is critical. Consider:
- Strategic negotiation
- Mediation
- Arbitration
- Only then, litigation if necessary
Q: Can conflict affect company operations?
A: Absolutely. Deadlocks often:
- Impact board and management decisions
- Reduce morale
- Harm client and investor confidence
- Delay legal or tax proceedings
Q: Do you provide services in languages other than English?
A: Yes. We deliver legal advice and documentation in:
- English
- French
- Russian
Facing a deadlock in your Polish subsidiary? Contact us for a strategic consultation to protect your investment:
📩 kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl
📞 536 270 935
by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorSHAREHOLDERS DISPUTES IN POLAND
Conflict between business partners is one of the most serious risks to any investment. In Poland, shareholders disputes can quickly escalate into a corporate deadlock, blocking key decisions and paralysing operations for months or even years. For foreign investors, understanding the legal tools available under Polish corporate law is essential. Whether you are a majority investor from the United States or a minority shareholder from Switzerland, legal clarity protects your capital. At Jakubiec & Partners, we support international investors in resolving shareholder conflicts through negotiation, mediation and litigation.
Shareholders Disputes: Key Takeaways for International Investors
- Shareholder disputes in Poland often arise from poorly drafted Articles of Association.
- A 50/50 ownership structure may lead to a corporate deadlock.
- Polish law allows mechanisms such as shareholder exclusion or share buyouts.
- Mediation frequently resolves conflicts faster and at lower cost than litigation.
- Early legal advice significantly increases the chances of protecting the investment.
Common Causes of Shareholders Disputes in Poland
Many conflicts and shareholders disputes originate from weaknesses in the company’s Articles of Association (Umowa Spółki / Statut). Poorly drafted clauses often leave partners without a clear exit strategy. As a result, even minor disagreements may escalate into serious disputes.
Typical triggers of shareholder disputes
- Dividend disputes — disagreements over profit distribution versus reinvestment.
- Management obstruction — 50/50 ownership structures often lead to decision-making deadlocks.
- Information rights violations — minority shareholders may be denied access to financial or operational data.
- Competing activities — a shareholder may start a business that competes with the company.
Legal Tools for Resolving Shareholders Disputes in Poland
Polish corporate law offers several mechanisms to resolve shareholder disputes. Many investors, however, only learn about these tools once the conflict has already escalated.
The most common mechanisms include:
- shareholder exclusion lawsuits,
- negotiated share buyouts,
- mediation settlements,
- amendments to the Articles of Association,
- company dissolution in extreme cases.
Each mechanism requires a tailored legal strategy. Early legal analysis is therefore crucial.
Deadlock Resolution: Protecting the Company’s Future
A corporate deadlock is one of the most serious threats to a company’s stability. When shareholders cannot adopt resolutions, the company may lose strategic direction and operational continuity.
Can a shareholder be expelled from a Polish company?
Yes. Under the Polish Commercial Companies Code (KSH), shareholders may seek court exclusion of another partner in specific circumstances. Courts apply this remedy only when important reasons exist, and proceedings typically last 12–24 months.
For this reason, exclusion is considered a last resort.
How can a 50/50 deadlock be resolved?
Several contractual mechanisms may prevent or resolve deadlock situations, including:
- buy-sell agreements,
- shotgun clauses,
- structured share buyouts.
These tools allow one partner to buy the other’s shares at a fair market price, enabling the company to continue operating without disruption.
Why Mediation Often Outperforms Litigation
In shareholder conflicts, mediation frequently produces faster and more predictable outcomes than court proceedings.
Key advantages of mediation
- Cost efficiency — mediation avoids court fees, expert opinions and lengthy procedural costs.
- Confidentiality — unlike court proceedings, mediation remains private and protects the company’s reputation.
- Speed — while litigation may last years, mediation often results in a binding settlement within weeks or months.
Once approved by a court, a mediation settlement becomes legally enforceable.
When Should Investors Contact a Shareholders Disputes Lawyer?
Many investors seek legal advice too late. Early intervention often prevents long and expensive litigation.
You should consult a lawyer if:
- communication between shareholders breaks down,
- key decisions become blocked,
- financial transparency disappears,
- a partner begins competing with the company.
Strategic negotiation may resolve the dispute before it escalates. You should also seek legal advice if you are planning to end cooperation with a business partner and want to understand your options.
Expertise Beyond the Statutes: The Science of High‑Stakes Negotiation
In complex shareholder disputes, mastery of the law is only half the battle. Effective resolution also requires understanding human psychology and negotiation dynamics. This combination is what distinguishes my approach from that of many commercial lawyers.
I hold a PhD in Commercial Law and serve as a lecturer for the Advocates’ Bar Association. I have also lectured at the Faculty of Law at the University of Łódź. Yet legal expertise is only one dimension of my work.
Many disputes escalate due to psychological dynamics between partners. To address this, I expanded my professional education into behavioural fields.
I completed postgraduate studies in:
- Negotiations, Mediations and ADR at the University of Warsaw,
- Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Łódź.
I am currently continuing my studies in Behavioural Analysis at the School of Emotional Intelligence in Wrocław.
This multidisciplinary background allows me to identify emotional and strategic drivers behind shareholder conflicts. As a result, disputes that appear chaotic often become structured, manageable negotiations.
Enhanced Security for International Investors
Having worked with foreign clients for many years, I understand that cross‑border investors require more than legal advice. They expect certainty, transparency and risk control.
To meet these expectations, Jakubiec & Partners introduced safeguards that exceed typical market standards.
Personal Accountability and €2.5M Professional Insurance
Our firm maintains €2.5 million in professional liability insurance.
As the lead partner, I also assume personal liability for the firm’s obligations, including the actions of every team member.
This provides clients with an additional layer of security.
The “Gold Standard” Conflict of Interest Audit
International clients often worry about hidden conflicts of interest.
We therefore conduct a rigorous verification procedure before accepting a case.
The process includes:
- signing a Non‑Disclosure Agreement (NDA),
- signing a Conflict Verification Agreement,
- performing a detailed internal audit of professional, business and social links with the opposing party.
After the audit, we issue a Declaration of No Conflict of Interest, secured by contractual penalties.
Proven Experience in Cross‑Border Transactions
International disputes require not only legal knowledge but also cultural understanding.
Our firm has represented investors from:
- the United States,
- the United Kingdom,
- France,
- Germany,
- Switzerland,
- Turkey,
- Ukraine.
One of our landmark projects involved managing the share acquisition in the Oscar‑winning Se‑ma‑for animation studio, representing investors from Switzerland and the UK. The project required complex coordination across multiple jurisdictions.
Shareholders Disputes: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Can a minority shareholder block key decisions in Poland?
Yes. Certain corporate decisions require a qualified majority (two‑thirds or three‑quarters). Minority shareholders may therefore block important resolutions. It happens commonly in shareholders disputes.
Are mediation settlements legally binding in Poland?
Yes. Once approved by a court, a mediation settlement has the same legal force as a judgment and may be enforced by a bailiff.
How long do shareholder disputes last in Poland?
Court proceedings typically last 12–36 months, sometimes longer.
Mediation or negotiated buyouts often resolve disputes much faster.
Does Jakubiec & Partners provide services in languages other than English?
Yes. We provide legal services and documentation in:
- English,
- French,
- Russian.
What are the typical legal fees in shareholder disputes?
Our standard fee is €250 net per hour. This covers consultations, document analysis and meetings.
For negotiations, mediations or litigation, we conclude a clear written agreement specifying the main fee and a success fee, depending on the complexity and value of the case.
Considering a Shareholder Dispute in Poland?
If you are facing a conflict with a business partner in Poland, early legal analysis may protect your investment. A short consultation often clarifies risks, negotiation options and the most effective strategy.
At Jakubiec & Partners, we provide strategic advice for international investors involved in shareholder disputes, focusing on practical solutions that protect both the company and the investor.
Resources and Legal Ethics
Polish legal professionals operate under strict ethical standards.
You may review the relevant regulations:
You may also read our guide on litigation costs in Poland and transparent fee structures:
You may also read my text linking Maerscheimer’s theory with shareholders disputes practice. If you’re curious, just click the link and read:
The Frontier of Modern Disputes: AI & Coupled Confirmation Bias
I actively monitor how Artificial Intelligence reshapes shareholder negotiations. I am the author of the concept of ‘Coupled Confirmation Bias‘—a phenomenon where AI-driven tools, if misused, can reinforce the existing biases of both parties, deepening corporate deadlocks. You can also explore my other article concerning tunnel vision and the role of LLM in shareholders disputes.
by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorLEGAL FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS IN POLAND
The financial predictability of litigation costs in Poland is a decisive factor for foreign investors evaluating whether to pursue a commercial dispute. Understanding court fees, legal costs, and procedural risks is essential for making informed, ROI‑driven decisions.
See 3 Key Commercial Litigation costs in Poland:
- In the majority of commercial and civil cases, the court entry fee is 5% of the claim value, capped at PLN 200,000 (approx. EUR 45,000). Are there additional costs during the trial? Yes. Apart from the entry fee, you should budget mainly for:
- Expert Witness Fees: If the case requires technical knowledge, the court will appoint an expert. You will be required to pay an advance (zaliczka) for their remuneration.
- Sworn Translators: Since the official language of the court is Polish, all foreign documents and testimonies must be translated by certified professionals.
The “Loser Pays” Principle: Risks of Litigation Cost in Poland
What happens if I lose the case?
Litigation costs in Poland follow the “loser pays” principle. If you lose, you are generally required to reimburse the winning party for their court fees and a portion of their legal representation costs, as defined by statutory rates.
Example: Estimated Cost of a €700,000 Commercial Dispute in Poland
To illustrate the typical cost structure of litigation in Poland, consider a commercial dispute with a claim value of €700,000.
Court fee.
In most commercial cases, the court entry fee amounts to 5% of the claim value, which in this example would be approximately €35,000 (subject to the statutory cap).
Expert witness fees.
If the case requires technical or financial expertise, the court will appoint an expert. Depending on the complexity of the dispute and the number of expert opinions required, the advance for expert fees may range from approximately €2,000 to €10,000.
Legal representation.
The statutory minimum fee for legal representation in a case of this value is approximately PLN 15,000. In practice, the actual cost of legal services is usually higher and depends on the nature and complexity of the dispute, as statutory tariffs rarely reflect the real cost of complex commercial litigation.
Additional costs in our Firm typically include:
- court hearing attendance, for example approximately PLN 1,500 per hearing,
- hourly legal work, which in our firm’s case is €250 per hour for cross-border legal services delivered in English.
Other procedural costs.
Minor procedural expenses, such as travel reimbursement for witnesses, are usually relatively small (often around €50 per witness).
Risk of losing the case.
If the claim is unsuccessful, the losing party is generally required to reimburse the opposing party for their court costs and a portion of their legal representation expenses, according to statutory tariffs.
Alternative dispute resolution.
An alternative to court litigation is ADR, such as mediation. Mediation is usually significantly less expensive than a full court trial. In a dispute of this scale, a mediator’s fee may be approximately PLN 10,000 (around €2,400), although legal assistance costs should also be taken into account.
In our firm, legal services in mediation would typically be billed at the hourly rate of €250, potentially combined with a success fee ranging between 5% and 15% of the recovered amount, reduced by the fees already paid for hourly legal work.
In disputes other than monetary claims, success fees are determined using different criteria, depending on the economic value and strategic importance of the outcome.
Legal Fees: Why Predictability is Our Priority
For many international companies, litigation is not merely a legal procedure but a strategic instrument for enforcing contracts and protecting their investments.
At Jakubiec & Partners, we understand that foreign business clients need a fixed framework to operate. We compete on the quality of our work and our deep experience in commercial disputes and partnership mediations. Our pricing reflects a balance between senior-level expertise and operational efficiency, allowing us to provide high-quality representation without the cost structure typical of large international firms.
Transparent Remuneration Models
Our fee structure is always individually tailored to the specific case. However, the one thing that never changes is transparency. All rules regarding our remuneration are detailed in the initial contract. We guarantee that you will not be surprised by hidden costs mid-litigation.
Unrivaled Security and Professional Liability
We provide a level of security that goes beyond standard market practice:
- Insurance: Our firm is backed by a professional liability insurance (OC) of €2.5 million.
- Personal Accountability: As the lead partner, I am personally and fully liable with my entire private assets for the Firm’s obligations.
- Conflict of Interest & NDA: Before we start, we sign a strict NDA and a Conflict of Interest Verification Agreement. Both are secured by contractual penalties (liquidated damages) payable to the Client. We provide a written statement of the conflict check result, also secured by a penalty.
How much does a good lawyer in Poland charge per hour?
In addition to court fees and procedural costs, companies involved in cross-border disputes must also consider the cost of legal representation.
For cross‑border legal services delivered in English, our standard hourly rate is EUR 250 (net). Services provided in French or Russian are billed at EUR 300 (net). These rates apply to consultations and document drafting.
In the case of mediations, negotiations, and court litigation, fees are determined individually. They depend on the specific nature of the case, its complexity, and the total value of the dispute. If you would like to receive a quote for a specific matter, please feel free to contact us directly.
Experience Across Borders: Who Have We Helped?
We have successfully represented and advised clients from:
- North America: USA
- Europe: France, Germany, Switzerland, UK, Ukraine
- Asia/Middle East: Turkey
Our landmark projects include the legal management of the share acquisition in the Se-ma-for studio (Oscar winner). I worked for investors from Switzerland and the UK in this case. Then I applied this experience in many other M&A transactions. This experience allows us to understand both the legal and cultural aspects of international business disputes.
Frequently Asked Questions (main FAQ):
- Can I recover my legal fees in Poland? Yes, the court can award the reimbursement of legal representation costs from the losing party. They are often based on official state tariffs which may differ from your actual contract.
- Is mediation cheaper than a court trial? Almost always. Mediation avoids high Litigation costs in Poland. We actively encourage negotiations between partners to settle disputes efficiently.
- Can I trust a Polish lawyer in a case against a Polish company? Yes. We place immense importance on transparency and the elimination of any potential conflict of interest. This is why we have implemented a rigorous onboarding procedure. It goes far beyond the standard requirements of the Polish Bar Act and the Code of Ethics for Attorneys-at-law. We conduct a detailed investigation into any professional, business, or social connections between our team members and the opposing party. They include their management board, supervisory board, or disclosed shareholders. This verification is performed under a separate agreement for a fixed fee of EUR 250 net. Following this audit, we provide the Client with a written declaration regarding the conflict check results. This statement is legally binding and subject to a contractual penalty (liquidated damages) payable by us to the Client.
Other questions
- How long does a commercial court case usually take in Poland? On average, commercial disputes in Poland take between 12 to 24 months for a first-instance ruling. However, through our specialized negotiation and mediation services, we are often able to reach a settlement much faster. It allows us save our clients both time and court fees.
- Do I need to travel to Poland for the court hearings? Not necessarily. In many cases, especially after the recent digitalization of the Polish judiciary, hearings can be conducted remotely via video conferencing. Furthermore, as your legal representatives, we can handle most procedural matters on your behalf through a power of attorney.
- Is it possible to recover the 5% court entry fee if we settle? Yes. If a settlement is reached before the trial begins or during mediation, the Polish court system allows for a partial or even full refund of the court fee. It depends on the stage of the proceedings. If you win the case, the court fee may also be reimbursed by the losing party.
How to find a trusted law firm in Poland? You can also read the following guide:
Before recommending litigation, we carefully analyse the contractual documentation, the available evidence and the economic context of the dispute to assess the realistic chances of success.
If you are considering litigation or negotiations with a business partner in Poland, we can provide a preliminary legal and strategic assessment of your case. Based on the available documents, we will explain the realistic litigation risks, estimated costs, and possible negotiation strategies before any formal engagement.
In many situations, a short initial consultation is sufficient to determine whether litigation in Poland is economically justified or whether negotiation or mediation would be a more effective solution.
If you would like to discuss a specific dispute or potential claim, you can contact us directly to arrange a consultation in English.
by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorJAKUBIEC & PARTNERS. A TRUSTED LAW FIRM IN POLAND
Are you looking for a trusted law firm in Poland? Foreign clients operating in Poland expect not only legal expertise, but also clear rules of cooperation and real guarantees of professional responsibility. We understand these expectations. Choosing a law firm in another country naturally raises questions about confidentiality, conflicts of interest, independence and financial security. To address these concerns, we have implemented solutions that make these issues transparent, measurable and predictable. In our firm you can find accountability, transparency and international standards.
NDA with a Contractual Penalty – it is our standard
Why are we a trusted law firm in Poland? At the client’s request, we sign a Non‑Disclosure Agreement that includes a contractual penalty (liquidated damages clause). This mechanism simplifies potential claims: in the event of a breach, the client does not need to prove the amount of damage — only that the breach occurred.
You can read more about our NDA’s philosophy: https://jakubieciwspolnicy.pl/en/nda-in-poland-contractual-penalty/
Written Conflict‑of‑Interest Statement
We provide a written declaration confirming that we have no business or personal ties to the opposing party. Transparency in this area is a core element of international professional standards.
Trusted Law Firm in Poland – Contractual Financial Liability
Our agreements may include a contractual penalty payable to the client in the event of a breach of confidentiality or a false conflict‑of‑interest statement. This ensures clear risk allocation and strengthens the security of cooperation.
Full Responsibility and Financial Stability. The Trusted Law Firm in Poland provides it.
The founder of the firm, attorney‑at‑law Dr. Andrzej Jakubiec, bears full and unlimited personal liability for obligations towards clients, as required by Polish law.
This responsibility is additionally secured by:
- professional liability insurance up to EUR 2.5 million, including contractual liability,
- the option to purchase an additional dedicated insurance policy for high‑value projects,
- full compliance with the Code of Ethics of the Polish Bar.
This combination of personal accountability and robust insurance protection provides clients with real financial security.
Experience with International Clients
We provide legal services to foreign companies operating in Poland. Our experience includes:
Switzerland – capital investments, support for technology startups, complex inheritance matters,
USA – IT contracts between American technology companies and Polish engineering teams,
France and Germany – shareholder disputes, transport law, intellectual property, ongoing corporate advisory,
United Kingdom and Sweden – capital investments, including in the technology sector, and multi‑layered business disputes,
Ukraine – legal support for agricultural and manufacturing companies.
A significant part of our practice involves shareholder disputes, conflicts in family‑owned businesses and projects requiring access to sensitive financial data, including due diligence processes.
Legal Expertise and Interdisciplinary Knowledge
Our dispute resolution and negotiation practice is grounded in strong academic preparation and an interdisciplinary approach.
The founder’s qualifications include:
a PhD in business law,
postgraduate studies in negotiation and mediation (University of Warsaw),
postgraduate studies in forensic psychiatry and psychology (University of Łódź),
ongoing education in behavioural analysis.
This combination of legal expertise and understanding of conflict dynamics allows us to conduct cases with attention to both formal legal aspects and the psychological mechanisms underlying disputes.
Contact Us
If you are looking for a trusted law firm in Poland that operates with ethics, clear rules of responsibility and transparent cooperation standards, we invite you to get in touch.
We will be pleased to discuss your project and the available confidentiality and contractual‑liability safeguards.
You can contact us by phone, email or through the form on our website:
📩 kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl
📞 536 270 935
FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can you provide a draft NDA?
Yes. We provide an NDA draft upon request. Clear rules for information protection are a foundation of our cooperation.
2. Does your insurance cover contractual liability, including penalties under an NDA?
Yes. Our professional liability insurance up to EUR 2.5 million covers contractual liability, including agreed liquidated damages.
3. Does the founder of the firm bear personal liability for obligations towards clients?
Yes. Under Polish law, an attorney running a law firm bears full and unlimited personal liability.
4. Is an NDA with a contractual penalty standard practice in Poland?
No, it is not common. In our practice, however, we treat it as an element of transparent risk allocation for international clients.
5. Can financial security be increased for large projects?
Yes. For high‑value projects, we can arrange an additional dedicated insurance policy.
How to find a trusted law firm in Poland? You can read also this text:
by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorCONFIDENTIALITY AND NDAS IN POLAND
We do not sign NDAs because we doubt our team, our procedures, or our professionalism. We sign them because we are completely confident in all of these — and we want our Clients to see that.
NDA with contractual penalty? Yes, we do accept it.
We are a Polish law firm advising foreign companies, international investors and SMEs operating in Poland. We understand that confidentiality is not a formality — it is a fundamental business requirement. Sensitive commercial information, strategic plans, internal disputes, shareholder conflicts or financial data must remain fully protected.
Confidentiality is not only a contractual matter. Under Polish law, attorneys are bound by strict professional secrecy obligations. This statutory duty, combined with GDPR compliance and internal security procedures, forms the foundation of how we protect client information in every legal engagement.
NDA with Contractual Penalty – A Clear Allocation of Risk
We do not want to put anyone in the uncomfortable position of having to prove damages in court in order to recover losses caused by a breach of confidentiality. For that reason, we are prepared to sign a comprehensive Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) at the outset of cooperation. It includes a clearly defined contractual penalty mechanism where appropriate.
Under Polish law, a contractual penalty (kara umowna) simplifies enforcement: the injured party does not need to prove the precise amount of damage, only the fact of breach. In cross-border business relations, this predictability is often essential.
We are ready to agree on reasonable and proportionate penalty clauses reflecting the scale and nature of the project. This is not a symbolic gesture — it is a transparent allocation of risk and responsibility.
Such clauses are standard in international business practice, and we have no hesitation in accepting them within a professionally structured framework. Our professional liability insurance (EUR 2.5 million), which also covers contractual liability, provides an additional layer of financial security and ensures that any agreed responsibility is effectively backed by insurance coverage.
How We Protect Confidential Information
Our approach is simple and disciplined:
- we protect all data with strict internal protocols and controlled access systems,
- only authorised lawyers and team members involved in a specific matter have access to case materials,
- we maintain structured and traceable document management procedures,
- we apply GDPR-compliant data protection standards,
- we understand the commercial and litigation consequences of any breach of confidentiality.
In many disputes — especially commercial and corporate conflicts — improper handling of confidential information becomes a separate legal risk and may escalate the conflict itself. This is particularly relevant in M&A transactions, during Due Diligence processes, and in shareholder disputes, where access to sensitive financial and strategic data is central to the matter. Our role as legal advisors in Poland is not only to resolve disputes, but to prevent additional exposure.
Confidentiality as Part of Professional Ethics and Legal Services in Poland
Foreign clients often tell us that what they value most is not only legal expertise, but also discretion, predictability and accountability. We share this view.
Signing an NDA with a clearly structured contractual penalty is not a burden — it is a natural extension of:
- our statutory professional secrecy obligations under Polish law,
- our experience in cross-border legal services,
- our understanding of international compliance standards,
- and our commitment to secure, trustworthy cooperation.
If your business requires absolute discretion when operating or investing in Poland, we are prepared for it. Safeguarding your information is not just part of our work — it is a principle we stand by.
Contact Our Law Firm in Poland
Do you want to know how we work, discuss confidentiality arrangements, or request an offer for legal services? Feel free to contact us.
A conversation about the terms of cooperation is an opportunity for both sides to define expectations clearly and build a solid foundation of trust.
📩 kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl
📞 +48 536 270 935
We know that confidentiality is the foundation of the attorney–client relationship worldwide. That is why we look to the highest international standards — such as the ABA’s guidance on confidentiality https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/(americanbar.org in Bing — to ensure that our Clients receive the same level of protection.
NDA with contractual penalty. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. Can you send us your NDA template?
Yes, of course. Please contact us and we will gladly provide a draft of our Non-Disclosure Agreement. For us, clear confidentiality terms are a foundation of professional cooperation.
2. Does your insurance cover contractual obligations such as NDA penalties?
Yes. Our professional liability insurance, up to EUR 2.5 million, also covers contractual liability, including obligations arising from agreed contractual penalties. This ensures that our commitments are financially secured.
3. Does the leader of your law firm bear personal liability toward clients?
Yes. Advocate Dr Andrzej Jakubiec, the founder of our law firm, bears full and unlimited personal liability for obligations toward our Clients. This reflects our approach to responsibility and professional integrity.
4. Is signing an NDA standard practice on the Polish legal market?
No. Many law firms in Poland are still reluctant to sign NDAs with contractual penalties. We are proud to do so. In our view, accepting clearly defined confidentiality obligations is a natural element of modern legal services for international business.
You can read about us here: https://jakubieciwspolnicy.pl/en/english-speaking-lawyer-in-poland-commercial-litigation-expert/
If you are courious, how do we perceive the shareholders disputes in modern conflict environment, read these two articles:
by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorHOW TO FIND THE RIGHT LAW FIRM IN POLAND?
It is a Practical Guide for Foreign Companies. Choosing a law firm in a foreign jurisdiction is never simple. For international companies operating or entering the Polish market, the challenge is even greater: differences in legal culture, language barriers, unfamiliarity with court procedures, and uncertainty about enforcement standards may create real business risk. This guide provides foreign businesses with a practical framework for choosing a reliable, competent, and trustworthy law firm in Poland — particularly in the area of commercial litigation in Poland, dispute resolution in Poland, and cross-border enforcement in Poland. It is based not only on formal criteria, but also on real experience in representing foreign investors and SMEs in complex corporate and dispute matters.
1. English speaking lawyer in Poland
The base is to find an English speaking lawyer in Poland. For foreign companies, seamless communication is fundamental. A Polish lawyer should be able to:
- communicate fluently in business-level English (or German, French, Russian etc.),
- prepare bilingual contracts and pleadings,
- explain Polish legal procedures clearly and without unnecessary jargon,
- represent the client in negotiations and before Polish commercial courts.
A short introductory call is often enough to verify whether the lawyer is truly an English speaking lawyer in Poland, or whether communication will be filtered through intermediaries.
2. Look for Proven Experience With Foreign Investors
Cross-border representation requires more than language skills.
In my practice, I have:
- represented Swiss and UK investors in the acquisition of the Oscar-winning Se-ma-for Film Studio in Łódź,
- served on the supervisory board of Se-ma-for on behalf of foreign investors,
- handled joint venture disputes and shareholder conflicts,
- represented foreign clients (including from Sweden and France) in family-business conflicts involving commercial structures,
- established companies in Poland for German and Ukrainian entrepreneurs,
- structured M&A transactions and investor agreements as a PhD in commercial law.
These matters required not only knowledge of Polish corporate and civil procedure law, but also an understanding of how foreign investors assess legal risk, governance standards, and strategic exposure.
When choosing a law firm, ask for specific examples of cross-border experience — not general declarations.
3. Experience in Commercial Litigation and Shareholder Disputes
Many foreign companies seek assistance only once a conflict has escalated: unpaid invoices, breach of contract, deadlocked joint ventures, or shareholder disputes. Effective representation in commercial litigation in Poland requires:
- strong courtroom experience,
- strategic use of interim measures,
- familiarity with evidentiary rules under the Polish Civil Procedure Code,
- experience in shareholder disputes and corporate governance conflicts,
- knowledge of enforcement mechanisms through Polish bailiffs.
The Mediation and Negotiation Advantage: Litigation, however, is not always the optimal path. In many cross-border disputes, a carefully designed negotiation strategy or mediation process can significantly reduce financial and reputational risk. Early strategic intervention often determines whether a matter escalates into full-scale litigation or is resolved through structured settlement discussions.
I completed postgraduate studies in Negotiations, Mediations, and other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods at the University of Warsaw: https://wpia.uw.edu.pl/pl/studia/studia-podyplomowe/podyplomowe-studia-negocjacji-mediacji-i-innych-alternatywnych-metod-rozwiazywania-sporow, as well as postgraduate studies in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Łódź: https://www.wpia.uni.lodz.pl/psychiatria. To further refine my strategic approach to conflict, I am currently continuing my professional development at the Behavioral Analysis Studies in Wrocław: https://sie.edu.pl/analiza-behawioralna/#Opis.
I am also a member of the Advocates’ Mediation Center at the District Bar Council in Łódź: https://lodz.adwokatura.pl/adwokackie-centrum-mediacji/mediatorzy/
4. Understand the Real Concerns of Foreign Clients
Foreign entrepreneurs often express specific concerns:
- unpredictability of court practice,
- duration of proceedings,
- litigation costs,
- reliability and accountability of local counsel.
I am personally familiar with these concerns.
Predictability and Timelines
I outline realistic timeframes and procedural stages at the outset of every case. While no responsible lawyer can guarantee the duration of court proceedings, it is possible to explain procedural milestones, likely evidentiary phases, and potential appeal scenarios.
Cost Transparency
I provide a clear cost structure and explain which elements are predictable (court fees, standard procedural costs) and which depend on developments during litigation. Clients receive a structured estimate and ongoing updates to avoid financial uncertainty.
Professional Accountability
As a Polish attorney, I bear personal professional liability. I guarantee the quality, integrity, and diligence of our work with my own name and assets. My professional liability insurance coverage amounts to EUR 2.5 million.
5. Independence and Conflict-of-Interest Procedures
Foreign companies should always request:
- a written conflict-of-interest check,
- confirmation of independence,
- written engagement terms.
Professional dispute resolution in Poland requires strict compliance with ethical and procedural standards.
6. Choose a Firm That Matches Your Scale
In our experience representing foreign SMEs in Poland, the most common strategic mistake is choosing a law firm that is too large — primarily because of brand recognition.
The Risk of Over-Scaled Structures
In such firms:
- the client often pays high hourly rates,
- the matter is delegated to a junior associate with limited courtroom experience,
- the well-known partner signs off but is not deeply involved.
Direct Partner Involvement
For many foreign SMEs involved in disputes or cross-border enforcement in Poland, a specialized boutique firm provides:
- direct partner involvement,
- strategic consistency,
- proportional cost structure,
- real courtroom experience.
Before instructing any firm, ask directly:
“Who will personally conduct representation before Polish commercial courts?”
The answer is decisive.
7. Transparency in Corporate and Transactional Work
As a PhD in commercial law, I have extensive experience in:
- company formation in Poland,
- drafting shareholder agreements,
- structuring M&A transactions,
- preparing investor agreements,
- designing joint venture frameworks.
I place particular emphasis on clarity of contractual provisions and transparent cooperation rules with clients. Many shareholder conflicts originate from ambiguous clauses drafted without anticipating dispute scenarios.
Preventive structuring is often more valuable than litigation.
8. Cultural Awareness in Dispute Resolution
Disputes are not only about statutes and procedural codes. They also concern negotiation culture.
Companies from Germany, Switzerland, the UK, France, Scandinavia, the US or Ukraine often differ in:
- risk tolerance,
- documentation standards,
- approach to settlement,
- internal decision-making dynamics.
Effective dispute resolution in Poland requires understanding these differences and aligning litigation strategy accordingly.
9. Practical Verification Checklist
Before hiring a Polish law firm, consider:
- Does the firm have real cross-border experience?
- Who will personally handle your case?
- Does the lawyer have litigation experience?
- Has the firm handled shareholder or joint venture disputes?
- Are costs and procedural risks explained transparently?
- Is the firm experienced in cross-border enforcement in Poland?
- Is communication direct and structured?
10. Common Mistakes Foreign Companies Make
- Selecting a firm solely based on brand size.
- Assuming all lawyers speak fluent English.
- Not verifying who actually conducts representation.
- Ignoring litigation experience.
- Contacting a lawyer too late.
- Failing to monitor registered address data in the KRS.
- Underestimating enforcement risks.
Avoiding these mistakes significantly improves your position in any commercial dispute in Poland.
Jakubiec & Partners – Your Trusted Partner Across Poland
We support international clients across major Polish business hubs. We offer clear, practical guidance tailored to SMEs investing, operating, or resolving disputes in Poland. Whether you are entering the Polish market, managing a shareholder conflict, or seeking to recover assets, we provide strategic legal representation grounded in experience and analytical precision.
Contact us today to discuss your business objectives in Poland or to schedule a strategic legal consultation. English speaking lawyer in Poland:
📩 kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl
📞 536 270 935
You can read more about us here: https://jakubieciwspolnicy.pl/en/cross-border-commercial-disputes-in-poland-jakubiec-partners/
and here you see my text about shareholders disputes in three-person companies: https://jakubieciwspolnicy.pl/en/what-does-j-mearsheimer-teach-us-about-shareholders-conflicts/
FAQ – Foreign Companies and Legal Disputes in Poland
How long does commercial litigation in Poland usually take?
First-instance proceedings often last between 12 and 24 months, depending on complexity and evidentiary scope.
Can proceedings before Polish commercial courts be conducted in English?
Court proceedings are conducted in Polish. Documents in foreign languages require certified translations.
Can a foreign company sue in Poland without a Polish subsidiary?
Yes, if jurisdiction exists under EU regulations or applicable private international law rules.
How are foreign judgments enforced in Poland?
EU judgments are generally enforceable after formal recognition. Non-EU judgments require separate recognition proceedings before enforcement.
What are typical litigation costs?
Court fees are statutory and predictable. Legal fees depend on scope and complexity. A structured cost estimate should always be provided at the outset.
by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorLEGAL SUPPORT FOR FOREIGN SMES OPERATING IN POLAND
We are english‑speaking lawyers in Poland. Jakubiec & Partners is a Polish law firm specializing in cross-border commercial disputes and strategic legal advisory for international SMEs operating in Poland. Based in Łódź, with a strong presence in Warsaw and representation capabilities throughout Poland, we advise and represent foreign entrepreneurs who require not only legal compliance, but also strategic clarity in a complex regulatory and negotiation environment. For 17 years, our founder has worked with approximately 60 foreign companies from, among others, the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, France, and Turkey. We support international SMEs both in day-to-day corporate matters and in high-stakes commercial disputes before Polish courts and arbitration tribunals.
Who we help?
We support international SMEs that operate in Poland or are involved in commercial disputes with Polish counterparties.
Commercial Disputes and Strategic Legal Advisory in Poland
Our Practice Focuses On:
- Cross-border commercial disputes in Poland
- Strategic negotiation structuring in complex cross-border business conflicts
- Corporate advisory for foreign investors
- Commercial litigation, mediation, and asset recovery in Poland
- Risk mitigation and dispute prevention strategies
Business Entry, Operations & Growth
We assist foreign entrepreneurs in navigating the complexities of Polish business law, ensuring secure and compliant operations from day one.
Our services include:
Company Formation & Market Entry: Establishing subsidiaries, branches, and representative offices aligned with your long-term strategic objectives.
Corporate & Shareholder Matters: Advising on shareholder disputes, joint ventures, corporate governance issues, and internal restructuring.
Mergers, Acquisitions & Joint Investments: Legal support in negotiations concerning the acquisition of commercial companies, joint ventures, and strategic partnerships.
Commercial Real Estate: Legal due diligence, negotiation, and oversight of property acquisitions and commercial lease agreements.
Employment & Compliance: Drafting employment contracts, advising on HR policies, and ensuring compliance with Polish labor regulations.
We regularly advise foreign clients in payment disputes (claims for receivables), corporate conflicts, and strategic governance matters.
Cross-Border Disputes & Strategic Negotiations
For international companies facing disputes with Polish contractors, suppliers, shareholders, or business partners, we provide a structured and analytically grounded approach. Our firm has extensive experience in complex business negotiations, particularly in:
- Shareholder conflicts and disputes within joint ventures
- Deadlocks in strategic investment projects
- High-value commercial disagreements
Our founder previously served on the Supervisory Board of the Oscar-winning animation studio Se-ma-for Sp. z o.o.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se-ma-for, representing a Swiss / British investor. This role required navigating sensitive cross-border corporate dynamics and investor protection issues.
In addition to a PhD in Commercial Law and postgraduate studies in Negotiation and Mediation (University of Warsaw): https://wpia.uw.edu.pl/pl/studia/studia-podyplomowe/podyplomowe-studia-negocjacji-mediacji-i-innych-alternatywnych-metod-rozwiazywania-sporow as well as Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (University of Łódź), our founder completed the Cycle de Droit Comparé at Université Robert Schuman in Strasbourg: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Université_de_Strasbourg_III. He is currently undertaking advanced studies in behavioral analysis in Wrocław: https://sie.edu.pl/analiza-behawioralna/#Opis, focused on business and organizational conflict, further strengthening our analytical framework for understanding conflict dynamics.
Dr. Jakubiec is also a Certified Mediator. He is officially registered on the List of Permanent Mediators maintained by the President of the District Court in Łódź (official registry link).
What do we apply?
- Strategic negotiation structuring and conflict de-escalation techniques
- Analysis of counterpart’s behavioral patterns
- Litigation strategy aligned with business objectives
This interdisciplinary approach enables us to effectively manage negotiation stalemates and dispute escalation. We provide a long-term strategic perspective rather than focusing on a purely procedural one.
Our founder regularly publishes on negotiation dynamics, AI in disputes, and behavioral aspects of commercial conflict.
Furthermore, Dr. Jakubiec is the architect of the Coupled Confirmation Bias (CCB) framework. He developed this concept to explain the phenomenon of rapid dispute escalation observed in his practice. Particularly in scenarios where both parties utilize AI to interpret the counterparty’s intentions and design their own strategic moves. You can explore his in-depth analysis of CCB here: The Coupled Confirmation Bias
and CCB Part 2
Litigation, Arbitration & Asset Recovery in Poland
When litigation becomes necessary, we provide rigorous representation before Polish courts and arbitration tribunals.
Commercial Litigation in Poland: Representation in payment claims, contractual disputes, shareholder conflicts, and corporate litigation.
Mediation & Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Strategic mediation support aimed at preserving business value while resolving disputes efficiently.
Securing Transactions & Risk Mitigation: Preventing disputes before they arise through carefully structured contracts and enforcement planning.
Asset Tracing & Recovery in Poland: Identifying, securing, and recovering debtor assets within the Polish jurisdiction.
Enforcement Proceedings: Efficient navigation of enforcement mechanisms under Polish law to ensure successful recovery of claims.
Why International SMEs Choose Us in Poland?
Strategic Approach: Deep understanding of Polish enforcement mechanisms and procedural strategy.
Conflict Resolution: Experience in complex negotiation stalemates, particularly in shareholder and joint venture disputes.
Multilingual Communication Without Intermediaries: Direct legal support in English and French, with additional assistance in Russian.
Global Perspective: Cross-border experience gained through long-term cooperation with foreign investors and international SMEs.
Jakubiec & Partners – Your Trusted Partner Across Poland
We support international clients across major Polish business hubs. We offer clear, practical guidance tailored to SMEs investing, operating, or resolving disputes in Poland. Whether you are entering the Polish market, managing a shareholder conflict, or seeking to recover assets, we provide strategic legal representation grounded in experience and analytical precision.
Contact us today to discuss your business objectives in Poland or to schedule a strategic legal consultation:
📩 kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl
📞 536 270 935
FAQ
1. Can a foreign company pursue a commercial claim against a Polish contractor?
Yes. Foreign SMEs can file commercial claims in Poland, and Polish courts regularly handle disputes involving international parties. We represent foreign companies throughout the entire process, from pre‑litigation strategy to enforcement.
2. How long does commercial litigation in Poland typically take?
Most commercial cases take between 8 and 18 months in the first instance, depending on complexity and the court’s workload. Well‑prepared filings and strategic case management can significantly shorten the timeline.
3. Can a foreign judgment be enforced in Poland?
Yes. Judgments from EU countries are enforceable under EU regulations, while judgments from non‑EU jurisdictions may require recognition by a Polish court. We handle both recognition and enforcement proceedings.
4. What documents are needed to start a dispute in Poland?
Typically: the contract, correspondence with the Polish counterparty, invoices, proof of delivery or performance, and any settlement attempts. We assist clients in preparing a complete evidentiary package.
5. Do you provide legal support directly in English or French?
Yes. We offer direct legal support in English and French, without intermediaries. We also provide assistance in Russian through a lawyer with a background in Russian philology.
6. Are out‑of‑court dispute resolution methods effective in Poland?
Yes. Our firm has extensive experience in resolving disputes through mediation and structured negotiation. We also represent clients in arbitration proceedings. These methods help avoid the natural risks of court litigation, reduce procedural costs, and typically lead to significantly faster outcomes.
by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorSTUDY: AI AS A HIDDEN ALLY IN DISPUTES?
Below is a report from a study conducted in January 2026. We gathered information on how people use AI to analyze their disputes. The results proved to be very interesting.
AI’s Role in Disputes Report (January 2026): Hidden Advisor or Error Generator? What did we do?
We conducted a survey completed by 87 participants. This group included our clients, lawyers, mediators, and business leaders. It also involved psychologists and people from the fields of science and art. Consequently, this is not a nationally representative sample. However, it represents a group with high awareness of conflict essence. These individuals can critically evaluate their own reasoning.
I designed the survey myself. After its distribution, some participants provided technical feedback on the questions. I appreciate these comments. Therefore, I will include them in future studies. I certainly plan to conduct more research soon.
What was the focus of the AI survey?
The questions concerned general AI usage. We also focused on analyzing family, work, and business situations. This includes the stage before a formal dispute arises.
Furthermore, we asked about analyzing the other party’s intentions. This element is highly susceptible to the fundamental attribution error. When combined with AI hyper-alignment, it generates a so-called feedback loop. This is a confirmation trap that leads to tunnel vision.
Next, I asked about using AI to determine one’s own actions. I deliberately did not specify if this meant the first move or a reaction. However, the most important question concerned transparency. I asked if participants would inform the other side about using AI. Surprisingly, the respondents showed remarkable consistency here. The conclusions from this remain an open question.
The final two questions concerned trust in AI. Although they were similar, the results were intriguing. Trust in AI does not match the assessment of its objectivity. It seems we know AI is not objective, yet we tend to trust it.
How did the participants respond?
Below are the “raw” questions and answers.
Do you use AI LLM models?
(Blue – yes, red – no)
87 answers
Do you use AI’s LLM to analyze family, employment or business?
Which of these relationships do you use AI to analyze? Family, work, business, or other?
Do you use AI’s LLM to analyze the other party’s intentions?
(blue – yes, red – no)
Do you use AI to design your own moves in an dispute?
(blue – yes, red – no)
Would you inform the other side of the dispute that you are using AI to analyze and predict their behavior or prepare your own moves?
Do you trust artificial intelligence analyses?
(blue – yes, red – no, yellow – partly)
Is AI objective?
Analysis of the Responses
The vast majority of participants use AI. Certainly, they do so to varying degrees. Their topics of interest are also not the same. Nevertheless, the widespread use of language models is a fact.
Specifically, 43% of respondents use AI to analyze family or business situations. In my opinion, this is a high number. Interestingly, business analysis was the most common. Family situations were the least frequent. Meanwhile, 29% of people pointed to other areas. Here is a link to an article on AI in family disputes: [Link]
A significant majority (81%) did not try to determine the other party’s intentions via AI. Is this a high number? On the contrary, almost 20% of people do try. This means every fifth person is vulnerable to the AI feedback loop. AI tends to “agree” with the user, reinforcing their original bias.
Furthermore, 25% of respondents use AI to plan their moves in a dispute. This discrepancy with the previous question is interesting. Perhaps 5% of us use AI for planning without analyzing the other side’s intentions. It is unclear if these are the same participants. This might result from ignoring psychological aspects or simply focusing on the “matter” of the case.
Significantly, 80% of us would not inform the other side about using AI. Why is that? Do we consider it unfair, like “technological doping”? Perhaps we view it as a superstition and feel slightly ashamed. Or maybe we believe we have a technological advantage and want to keep this powerful weapon secret.
Do we trust AI?
The last two questions yielded astonishing results. While 75% of us use AI, 67% believe it is not objective. Why then do we use it? Perhaps to reinforce our own beliefs. After all, it feels good when technology says: “That’s a great idea, Andrzej!”. We might simply pretend not to see the lack of objectivity. Alternatively, we may feel that AI is biased, but it is “on our side.” This correlates with the fact that most respondents partially trust AI.
Conclusions
AI has become a common tool. It shapes our attitudes in many areas of life. Certainly, its influence is felt in the disputes we handle. Interestingly, we also see it in the analysis of the situation’s structure. This can lead to a desire to change the status quo. Consequently, it may even trigger the dispute itself.
My previous publications on AI in disputes
Below are links to articles regarding AI’s impact on dispute dynamics. I presented my original concept of Coupled Confirmation Bias (CCB) there. These texts include references to the latest research in prestigious journals. They cover psychology, technology, and the role of AI in creating tunnel vision.
I recommend a key article by Yiran Du: Confirmation Bias in Generative AI Chatbots. It analyzes confirmation bias mechanisms in AI models. You can read about the risks of this coupling here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09343?
I applied this research to situations where both parties use AI. One party’s actions, determined by their AI, become the input for the other party’s AI. This prompts a specific, often escalated response. This escalation seems particularly dangerous.
For those interested, here is the link to the English version of my article on CCB: https://jakubieciwspolnicy.pl/en/coupled-confirmation-bias-2/ and the main text in polish: https://jakubieciwspolnicy.pl/sprzezony-blad-konfirmacji/
Invitation to Cooperation
If you are a party to a dispute, you may need strategic advice. I and my team deal with more than just the law. We conduct negotiations based on psychology, economics, and behavioral analysis.
If you have experiences with AI in disputes, please contact us. We would love to hear your story. It might serve as valuable material for our research. We ensure full anonymity.
Email: kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl
Phone: 536 270 935
by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorWHEN DISPUTANTS USE DIFFERENT AI MODELS
I recently introduced the concept of Coupled Confirmation Bias (CCB). Now, we must examine how different LLMs affect dispute dynamics. I distinguish between two main groups: American and Chinese AI models. This is a simplification used to present a specific problem. This distinction is not based on technology. Language models carry tendencies rooted deeply in the cultures of their creators.
Cultural AI Models: Types of Language Models
Let us assume two basic cultural AI models: American and Chinese. This division describes communication styles, not technology. Language is strictly tied to culture. Language models aim to build and maintain relationships with users. They do this by predicting the next word. However, this process is not neutral. It is influenced by the cultural values of the developers. It also depends on the user’s chosen language. Finally, it reflects the user’s native way of thinking.
American language models operate within a different conceptual grid. This stems from natural semantic differences. They also lead conversations differently. Interaction in Western and Eastern cultures has different goals. American culture values individualism, competition, and being right. Chinese culture prizes harmony, collectivism, and politeness.
A central example is the approach to “saving face.” Models with different conversational styles impact how users perceive a dispute. An LLM is not just a “word machine.” It is a carrier of values. American AI may promote an adversarial system. Chinese AI may promote a consensus-based approach.
Mutual Perception and Different Language Models
In CCB, each party filters the other’s actions through their own cultural model. The AI model reinforces this filter. This creates a spiral of mutual errors.
Imagine one party uses an American LLM and the other a Chinese one. Their worldviews will differ. Their language, questions, and goals will also differ. Every language has specific patterns and taboos. Some things are obvious; others must remain unsaid. These are low-context (American) and high-context (Chinese) cultures.
In some cultures, assertiveness and confrontation are values. In others, harmony and hierarchy are more important than being right. Cultural models reinforce the attitudes deemed desirable in those societies.
Users from different cultures will describe the same event differently. Furthermore, AI consultations may produce opposite results. This overlaps with the fundamental attribution error and confirmation bias. We must also consider AI hyper-utility. This is the tendency of models to be “too helpful.” They provide answers that reinforce the user’s false assumptions. Shared cognitive space may quickly disappear.
The Critical Point
In CCB, the critical point occurs when interpretations diverge completely. Every reaction from one side is seen as an escalation by the other. Shared cognitive space vanishes faster than in traditional conflicts.
The critical point is a specific moment. One party maintains a mature, relational strategy. They try not to be provoked. Eventually, this strategy is seen as losing face. The other party may escalate repeatedly. They violate the need for harmony and politeness. This leads to an unintended, uncontrolled explosion. Passive behavior is finally viewed as total failure. A 180-degree turn in strategy follows.
This critical point may differ from the “ping-pong” effect described earlier. We can visualize ping-pong as a corridor. There, “pleasantries” bounce from side to side, gaining momentum. In this model, it looks more like a triangle. Its height grows with the escalations of one party. Eventually, the triangle is torn apart by the pressure.
Cultural AI Models: Literature
For more on these issues, read “The Geography of Thought” by R. Nisbett. See also “Babel” by G. Dorren and “The Age of Unpeace” by M. Leonard. These books were my starting point for cultural differences in conflicts. Of course, nothing replaces T. Schelling’s “The Strategy of Conflict.” It is one of the most important books ever written.
Evidence that models adopt cultural values can be found here: “Cultural Alignment in Large Language Models” (Johnson et al., 2023/2024): https://globalaicultures.github.io/pdf/14_cultural_alignment_in_large_la.pdf
Studies also confirm that Chinese models avoid open conflict more than American ones: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10946. See “CultureLLM: Incorporating Cultural Differences into Large Language Models.” Similar conclusions appear in “Values-aligned AI: Comparing Western and Chinese LLMs on Moral Dilemmas” (Liu et al., 2024): https://arxiv.org/html/2506.01495v5
If you want to read more about Coupled Confirmation Bias (CCB), see my previous articles:
by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediatorCOUPLED CONFIRMATION BIAS – A DEVELOPMENT
In this article, I expand on the previously presented hypothesis about the existence of conjugate confirmation bias (CCB). This is solely an attempt to explain observations I have made in my professional practice. I make no claims to truth—rather, I invite discussion on whether this new phenomenon can be explained in this way. In any case, my hypothesis clearly requires testing. I provide the conditions for its falsification in this and the previous texts.
Levels of Escalation (L₁, L₂, …)
To understand the mechanism of feedback loops in conflicts where parties consult their interpretations with AI systems, it is not enough to describe the conflict as a sequence of different interpretations of the same behaviors. The key mechanism lies elsewhere: interpretation influences behavior, and the changed behavior becomes the subject of a new interpretation made by the other side.
The conflict between A and B (players) begins at level L₁ — the baseline level of interpreting the actions and intentions of the other party.
However, it is crucial to note that L₁, L₂, L₃ are not merely successive executions of the same move. Each subsequent level includes a new or intensified behavior A(n), generated (and subjectively considered necessary) by A’s Decision DA(n) under the influence of A’s Interpretation IA(n‑1) of the opponent’s previous move B(n‑1).
This means that the interpretation of the move from level L(n‑1) is the beginning of sequence L(n).
At this level L(n), move A(n) will be subjected to interpretation IB(n) by player B, who will make decision DB(n) on how to respond. Its effect will be move B(n+1), which brings the entire conflict to a new escalation level L(n+1).
Escalation is therefore not solely a cognitive process — it is a cognitive‑behavioral process.
Importantly, this model refers to a simple “exchange” of moves and does not cover situations in which the players:
- may perform multiple moves simultaneously or in short sequences before the other side recognizes and interprets them,
- or situations in which information about moves A(n) reaches B with such delay that B is effectively responding to A(n‑2) or even earlier moves. Interestingly, a significant asymmetry may arise in this respect (one of the parties may make more or faster movements, or they will have a faster noticeable or real effect).
The Basic Escalation Loop
A performs move A₁.
B consults A₁ with AI. AI typically does not create new meanings. Its dominant function is to stabilize and reinforce the user’s intuitions.
These intuitions, however, are not neutral.
Humans almost always begin with the fundamental attribution error (FBA) — the tendency to explain others’ behaviors through internal traits, intentions, and motives, while underestimating situational factors. This is especially easy when one must justify one’s stance to superiors, behavior reviewers, or stakeholders.
Attributing negative traits to the other side is energetically cheap and easy. Moreover, it automatically allows one to attribute opposite traits to oneself. In this way, it is easy to move from a dispute to a conflict of values and to “cement” one’s position. It is easy to corner oneself and lose room for maneuver. De‑escalation leading to settlement may then be perceived as a betrayal of those “values.”
FBA does not operate only at the beginning of a conflict. It is applied every time a new behavior of the other side appears. The result is tunnel interpretation. But there is a risk that it affects both sides.
Under conditions of AI consultation, it is additionally reinforced through the Coupled Confirmation Bias (CCB).
B increasingly believes that A’s action had negative or hostile intentions.
B responds with move B₁. From B’s perspective, this is a defensive reaction to a perceived threat.
A interprets B₁ through the same mechanism. A reactivates FBA, again reinforced by AI. The attribution filter does not reset; it accumulates.
A consults B₁ with AI and concludes that a response is necessary.
A performs move A₂.
And here comes the key transition:
A₂ is not merely interpreted at a higher level — it is executed from a higher level of subjective defensiveness. Interpretation changes behavior, and behavior changes the conflict.
This moment marks the transition from L₁ to L₂ — not as a change in interpretation, but as a real behavioral escalation. It involves readiness to inflict and receive stronger blows and losses.
Alternative Paths After A₁: Conflict as a Multi‑Branch Structure
Move A₁ does not have to automatically lead to escalation in the manner described above. The extended model assumes several alternative trajectories.
1. Pause by B — P₁
After A₁, B may not respond immediately. We denote this as P₁ (pause).
A pause is not a neutral state. Waiting is not an empty, zero, or negligible posture. On the contrary — the lack of a move is information that A interprets as AI₁.
After P₁, several outcomes are possible:
AR₁ (A Resignation)
The pause is interpreted as a signal to withdraw → de‑escalation.
ARSM₁ (A Repeats Same Move)
A repeats A₁, testing the reaction.
ASAM₁ (A Searches an Alternative Move on the Same Level)
A searches for another action at the same level L₁.
AE₁ (A Escalates)
The pause is interpreted as avoidance, manipulation, or passive aggression → unilateral escalation to L₂.
FBA makes AE₁ more likely, especially when the interpretation of the pause is consulted with AI.
It is very important that escalation in such a situation may be treated by A as a means to force B to engage in talks or return to them. This is logical if A cannot impose its will directly at the current escalation stage, and B refuses negotiations entirely or simulates them.
However, the escalation move (escalation for the sake of de‑escalation) by A may be perceived by B as a real threat. B may respond by:
- initiating talks,
- declaring that it will match the stakes — responding symmetrically to escalation,
- or pre‑empting AE₁ with its own escalation move BE₁.
It is crucial to distinguish that this move is not an ordinary response to A₁. It is chronologically so (unless ARSM₁ or especially ASAM₁ occurred), but not sequentially. The decision to pre‑empt escalation is made based on FBA and within the CCB process.
There’s also a risk that, through interaction with the language model, B will become convinced that reaching an understanding with A is impossible. He will remain in a state of pause, accepting A’s subsequent moves. I propose that AI may have a real impact on strengthening his initial cognitive biases toward A, which could make it more difficult for him to decide to de-escalate. Instead, it will reinforce the need to wait out A’s moves and then—over time—as the situation worsens—to make an escalating move. This may be an intentional escalation for the sake of de-escalation.
2. Lateral Response B₁ and Entry into Ping‑Pong (PP₁)
B may also respond with move B₁ at the same escalation level, leading to a ping‑pong sequence (PP₁).
Classical conflict theories assume that such symmetrical exchange:
- stabilizes the situation, or
- eventually leads to de‑escalation through exhaustion of resources, attention, and determination.
However, this assumption relies on a silent condition: the absence of systematic reinforcement of interpretations and determination.
Ping‑Pong as the Main Space Where CCB Manifests
In this model, I propose a different thesis:
Under conditions of continuous AI consultation, ping‑pong ceases to be a stabilizing mechanism and becomes the main carrier of escalation.
Why?
Each subsequent exchange in ping‑pong provides new behavioral data. Each of these behaviors is:
- interpreted through the lens of FBA,
- reinforced by AI,
- incorporated into an increasingly coherent narrative about the other side’s intentions.
Instead of leading to conflict fatigue, ping‑pong:
- hardens the parties’ convictions,
- increases certainty that previous measures are ineffective,
- strengthens the belief that “raising the stakes” is necessary.
As a result:
- the probability of escalation increases with the number of ping‑pong exchanges,
- the dynamics of escalation depend on the intensity of the exchanged “courtesies.”
It is in ping‑pong that the coupled confirmation bias manifests most fully: two AI‑stabilized narratives collide, generating escalation without ill will, without aggressive intent, and often without the parties’ awareness.
Security Dilemma Without Ill Intent
At this stage, the conflict begins to resemble the classical security dilemma:
- each side acts defensively,
- each perceives the other as increasingly aggressive,
- neither consciously seeks escalation,
- yet escalation occurs.
AI acts here as an accelerator of interpretive certainty, reducing ambiguity and reinforcing narrative coherence on both sides.
Theoretical Context and Novelty of the Model
This model develops earlier research on human–AI cognitive loops (e.g., M. Glickman, T. Sharot, B. Wang), which focused mainly on a single user.
In this approach, the key element is the collision of two mutually reinforcing interpretive loops in interaction.
This mechanism is potentially even more unstable in triadic and multi‑party systems, where the escalation threshold is lower and narrative synchronization is more difficult.
9. Possibilities for Falsifying the Model
Any theory aspiring to the status of a scientific framework must be falsifiable. The model of coupled interpretive loops (CCB) meets this requirement because it generates specific, testable predictions that can be empirically confirmed or refuted.
9.1. AI’s Influence on Strengthening the Fundamental Attribution Error
The model would be falsified if:
- AI consultations did not increase the tendency to attribute negative intentions,
- AI weakened, rather than strengthened, FBA,
- AI users didn’t show smaller empathy and samller tolerance for ambiguity than the control group.
9.2. AI’s Influence on Escalatory Behavior
The model would be refuted if:
- AI‑consulting users did not show greater propensity for escalation,
- AI consultations did not influence the choice of moves A₂/B₂,
- escalation levels in the AI group and the control group were identical.
9.3. Ping‑Pong Logic
The model would be falsified if:
- the number of ping‑pong exchanges did not correlate with escalation,
- ping‑pong under AI conditions led to greater de‑escalation than in the control group,
- AI consultations did not influence the interpretation of subsequent moves.
9.4. Epistemic Asymmetry
The model would be refuted if:
- AI users and human‑advisor users showed identical escalation patterns,
- epistemic asymmetry had no effect on conflict dynamics.
10. Author’s Statement
This text was prepared with the assistance of language models. Their help was not generative in nature, but testing, editorial, and supplementary.
Conclusions
- The fundamental attribution error operates at every stage of conflict.
- AI reinforces FBA through CCB, giving interpretations a veneer of objectivity.
- AI‑consulted conflicts have a multi‑branch, not linear, structure.
- Pause, lateral response, and ping‑pong are critical decision states.
- Ping‑pong under AI may reverse the classical logic of de‑escalation.
- Escalation may be a function of the number and intensity of exchanges, not merely ill intent.
- The model is falsifiable — and this makes it a theory, not a dogma.
If you are interested in my hypothesis, you can read this article: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11860214/? and this one: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3664190.3672520
Here is my main text about CCB:
You can read also this one: