Kodiak is Head of Dispute Resolution department at the Kennedys' Peru office. Qualified in Peru in 2006, obtained his law degree at Universidad de Lima.

After nearly two decades participating before Peru's main jurisdictional authorities in judicial and arbitration disputes regarding civil, commercial and constitutional matters, insurance law, administrative law, as well as dispute resolution through alternative methods such as negotiation, mediation and conciliation, Kodiak has gathered the necessary experience to provide his clients with preventive counsel on potentially litigious matters. In addition, if the inevitable dispute arises, he is able to execute legal strategies to protect our client's interests, minimizing risks and seeking the efficient solution in each case.       

Kodiak also contributed to the fourth edition of Kennedys’ Global Legal Handbook, one of our most popular guides, which outlines the main legal and procedural issues that case handlers may encounter when dealing with claims across 53 jurisdictions globally.  

Kodiak Semsch Gutierrez focuses on the prevention of litigation, and has considerable experience in both litigious proceedings and arbitration.

Market recognition

  • Recommended lawyer for 'Insurance (Peru)'
    "Key figures include practice director Kodiak Semsch, an experienced litigator."
    The Legal 500 Latin America 2023
  • Recommended lawyer for 'Dispute resolution (Peru)'
    "Practice head Kodiak Semsch Gutierrez focuses on the prevention of litigation, and has considerable experience in both litigious proceedings and arbitration."
    The Legal 500 Latin America 2023
  • Recommended lawyer for 'Insurance (Peru)'
    "Kennedys is building an effective disputes practice, boosted by the arrival in 2020 of litigator Kodiak Semsch Gutierrez and his team from Osterling Abogados."
    The Legal 500 Latin America 2022
  • Recommended lawyer for 'Insurance (Peru)'
    The Legal 500 Latin America 2021
  • Kodiak has received recognition by Chambers & Partners Latin America, Legal 500 and Leaders League regarding Litigation, Arbitration and Administrative Litigation.

Work highlights

  • Participated in a constitutional action against the Peruvian government due to the confiscation of 19,275 hectares of land from a family group. The lack of payment of just compensation turns the alleged “expropriation” into a covered-up confiscation; therefore, the family filed a lawsuit against the government to obtain such compensation. This case is important because of the vast extension of land confiscated, as well as the different jurisdictional criteria applicable to property violations held during military governments.  


  • Kodiak was lead counsel in a case of a 9-year-old boy who was wrongfully rejected by a school board under the assumption he lacked the necessary attention skills to attend regular school with other kids his age. The family took the case to court resulting in a judge ordering the immediate incorporation of the child in class. This case is important because this boy proved the school wrong and ended up being an overachiever, as well as setting a judicial precedent later used in similar disputes.  


  • Kodiak participated in a civil case aimed to recover a historic building and Hotel located in downtown Lima. The property was occupied by a tenant who was affecting the integrity of the premises. This case is important because of the historical value and cultural significance of the building. 


  • Kodiak represented a major Peruvian insurer in a lawsuit against a foreign reinsurer under a run-off for the reimbursement of certain payments done by the insurer to the insured. This case is very important because it could be the first time reinsurance clauses like information, cooperation and claim control are discussed before a Peruvian commercial court.


  • Kodiak represented a group of Peruvian mining companies in a constitutional suit aimed to prevent the retroactive enforcement of certain procedural laws the environmental authority intended to apply. This case is very relevant because the positive outcome set an important precedent on retroactive enforcement of procedural law within an active administrative procedure.