Common errors in forum non conveniens cases include failing to thoroughly assess the adequacy of the alternative forum, neglecting important private and public interest factors, and lacking solid factual or documentary support. Lawyers may also underestimate judicial discretion or overcomplicate their arguments with excessive details or technical jargon. To avoid these pitfalls, best practices involve conducting a comprehensive analysis of the alternative forum, addressing all relevant factors like convenience and public interest, supporting claims with strong evidence, and framing the argument clearly and concisely. Additionally, lawyers should understand the court’s discretionary power, ensuring their argument aligns with broader principles of fairness, justice, and judicial efficiency.
