Crafting Resolution: Peter Kamminga’s Methodical Approach to Building Lasting Outcomes

Please provide a brief overview of your legal career prior to joining JAMS.

I studied law in both Europe and the United States, earning credentials that enabled me to practice and advise across multiple legal systems. Shortly after becoming an attorney, I took on a dual role as a legal consultant and in-house counsel at a tech consultancy firm. This early experience sharpened my understanding of complex regulatory frameworks and commercial dispute dynamics in the tech and telecom sectors. I’ve worked in academia and as a legal advisor counseling Fortune 100 companies, sovereign entities, and NGOs on multifaceted legal challenges, blending the strategic mindset of a U.S.-trained lawyer with the procedural and cultural fluency needed to manage global disputes. I spent two decades cultivating a legal career that combined deep engagement with U.S. law and a global legal perspective.

For nearly 80% of my professional life, I have served as a neutral—initially in international forums and later with a strong focus on U.S.-based arbitration and mediation. I worked as a member of Judge Danny Weinstein's global mediation team while also developing my own ADR practice. Given my background and experience, JAMS was a natural fit.

What traits have contributed to your success as a mediator/arbitrator?

I believe my success as a mediator and arbitrator is grounded in rigorous legal analysis, sound procedural judgment, and the ability to earn the trust of parties and counsel.

In mediation, thorough preparation, listening, and determination are the keys to getting a matter resolved. I will do an in-depth analysis of all the materials submitted and ask the parties tough questions to try to facilitate movement towards resolution. I am relentless in following up and will go out of my way to make myself available to the parties for continued discussions. My approach is methodical, fair, and solution-oriented, with particular attention to ensuring that all solutions are both legally sound and practically effective.

As an arbitrator, I prioritize clarity and procedural efficiency while maintaining a strong commitment to due process. I adapt procedural frameworks to match the scale and complexity of each dispute—from expedited hearings to multi-party, multi-jurisdictional cases—without compromising the process's integrity. I feel proud and humbled that clients and co-arbitrators—including former federal judges—trust me to chair arbitration panels. As chair, I try to steer cases with decisiveness to maintain steady case momentum while trying to foster cohesion within the panel. I think people have confidence in my legal judgement, professionalism and commitment to neutrality.

What practice areas are you passionate about and why?

I focus on complex commercial, insurance, cybersecurity/privacy, and technology- and AI-related disputes—areas where my legal depth and industry-specific experience deliver significant value. These cases typically involve intricate contracts, regulatory uncertainty, and high financial or reputational stakes.

I am especially drawn to sectors such as finance, health care, and construction, where I’ve spent years advising clients and resolving claims involving technical subject matter and layered risk structures. In the technology space, I have a deep understanding of legal issues surrounding AI, blockchain, cryptocurrency, and data privacy. I enjoy working in areas where legal principles are evolving and where parties need a neutral who can translate both technical and legal complexities into structured, enforceable decisions.

What kinds of challenges arise in cases involving rapidly evolving technologies like AI and blockchain? How do you approach resolving disputes in those areas?

Disputes involving AI and blockchain often present a dual challenge: technical opacity and legal uncertainty. From the arbitrator’s perspective, the key is to understand how these technologies function—for instance, how an AI system made a decision or how a smart contract executed on a blockchain—and then apply legal principles where precedent or regulation may be limited.

I approach these matters by aiming to make the record clear and understandable—whether through structured expert testimony, technical tutorials, or proactive framing of the issues. I keep the focus on commercial intent, contractual allocation of risk, and how the parties designed their agreement to function under technological uncertainty.

I also adapt procedural tools as needed—for example, to address data confidentiality, proprietary algorithms, or multi-jurisdictional enforcement—while maintaining fairness and efficiency. Ultimately, I aim to deliver outcomes that are both legally durable and grounded in the commercial realities of emerging technologies.

What is something unique about your practice?

While my practice is primarily domestic, my background in European legal systems adds distinct value in cross-border disputes. In one notable commercial arbitration between U.S.-based parties and a European counterparty, the panel encountered conflicting expectations around procedure and evidentiary standards. Drawing on my fluency in both U.S. and European legal cultures, I helped harmonize these differences, by promoting procedural fairness while anchoring the proceedings in U.S. legal norms. This alignment preserved the integrity of the process, allowed for efficient progress, and enhanced enforceability.

What is your favorite pastime?

I enjoy renovating houses—whether repairing misaligned doors, reshaping layouts, or resolving foundational issues. There’s deep satisfaction in solving structural problems with practical, hands-on solutions and transforming a space through craftsmanship and persistence.

I think this hobby reflects my hands-on, thoughtful, and down-to-earth personality. I bring that same energy to the arbitration table—pragmatic, personable, and solution-focused.