Moscow State Law Academy, J.D.
University of Pennsylvania Law School, LLM
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, WBLC

New York Expertise,
Global Dispute Solutions
Focus Areas
- Breach Of Contract
- Business Disputes
- Commercial Arbitration
- Appeals
We are specializing in representing foreign businesses facing litigation in the U.S. With deep understanding of issues arising in such cases, including proof of jurisdiction and application of forum non conveniens doctrine, service of process and use of international treaties, choice of law concerns, obtaining discovery, and using mechanisms available for enforcing judgments, we provide strategic guidance and representation tailored to the specific needs and expectations of each client.
We have experience in managing disputes that require a coordinated strategy across multiple jurisdictions, including the courts withing the United States, Europe, Russia and other international forums.
Our network of international practitioners provides us with invaluable insights and resources to effectively handle cross-border disputes, ensuring efficient and value-driven representation.
Our court experience gives us a unique edge in handling international commercial arbitration matters. We bring the same advocacy skills to these matters that we bring to matters in the state courts, together with specialized knowledge of international arbitration rules and practice.
Whether reclaiming assets domestically or navigating the complexities of international recovery, American federal and state courts provide a broad range of tools for tracing hidden funds. We have experience in representing judgment creditors in post-judgment proceedings where the winners in underlying cases can demand information from individuals and financial institutions, freeze assets, set aside transfers of property or the incurrence of obligations by the debtor in fraud of creditors, and ultimately collect their judgments.
Foreign businesses and individuals often seek our advice on federal and New York state law or a second opinion on ongoing or prospective litigation. Our honest assessments of viability of their case provides clients with valuable insight to strategize even before legal proceedings commence. We have experience in collaborating with existing legal teams or providing private consultations.
We have experience representing clients in art-related disputes involving issues such as copyright, provenance and authenticity, art forgery, art contracts and transactions.
any questions?
Representative Matters
- USA
- Russia
- International
Attorney Profile
Irina Frolova

Irina is a dual-qualified attorney based in New York. Establishing her presence in New York as independent practitioner in 2016, Irina focus on representing foreign businesses in U.S litigation and managing cross-border disputes across a broad range of jurisdictions.
She has advised clients in litigation ranges from disputes over shareholder rights, litigation between borrowers and lenders, suits by investors over financial products, and efforts by creditors to satisfy judgments against debtors. Irina also has experience representing clients in art-related disputes involving issues such as copyright, provenance and authenticity, art forgery, art contracts and transactions.
Drawing from her experience as a litigator in both Russian and the U.S., and her academic backgrounds in both countries, Irina possesses unique position to understand and maneuver through Civil and Common Law systems. Fluent in both Russian and English, Irina is able to handle cases in both languages.
New York State
U.S. District Court: Southern District of New York
U.S. District Court: Eastern District of New York
American Bar Association
New York State Bar Association
Young ICCA
Young ITA
ICDR Young & International
LCIA
Russian
English
News and publications
U.S. sanctions regimes impose complex restrictions on international commerce, but not every transaction involving a sanctioned country is illegal, nor does the existence of sanctions automatically excuse performance. U.S. courts have drawn careful distinctions between (i) contracts void as against public policy because they directly violate sanctions, (ii) contracts where performance remains lawful but has become commercially or politically difficult, and (iii) situations where equitable relief or international comity may permit enforcement, even in the presence of some sanctions-related conduct.
Case law involving sanctions against Venezuela, Iran, and Russia suggests that U.S. courts generally do not allow sanctions to be used as a formal basis for refusing to perform contracts unless performance would violate the provisions of U.S. sanctions regulations.
Since 2022, the number of disputes in which Russian parties invoke the exclusive jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, in connection with the introduction of restrictive measures by Western countries, has increased significantly (APC art. 248.1).