Submit a Case Submit Case Find a Neutral Search Neutral

JAMS ADR Blog

Blog List Banner

Top Five Myths About Commercial Arbitration


by Zela “Zee” G. Claiborne, Esq.

While the use of arbitration is on the rise, there are some persistent misconceptions about the process that may be deterring some from using this economical alternative to court trials. Here are a few of those myths along with the reality of commercial arbitration practice.

Myth #1: Arbitrators do not follow the law.

Perhaps this myth stems from the fact that the arbitration process is more informal than a court trial. However, the law that will apply to the merits of a case usually is set forth in the arbitration provision of parties’ contract. If not, it is one of the first things to be determined at the preliminary conference with the panel.  Arbitrators are guided by the rules of law specified by the parties.  In some circumstances, if allowed by the parties’ contract and the governing arbitration rules, arbitrators also may be guided by the rules of equity in granting relief.   At the end of a case, a reasoned arbitration award should outline the key issues and the decision of the panel as supported by the evidence and the law.

Myth #2: Arbitrators are reluctant to manage with a firm hand.

Over the last 10 years, one of the strongest trends in arbitration has been to make the process both efficient and fair by encouraging arbitrators to be decisive and managerial in style.  For example, arbitrators may limit motion practice, encourage the parties to split a pre-determined amount of hearing time on a 50/50 basis, limit time for opening statements, limit objections, ask counsel to use written statements in place of direct examination of experts or other witnesses, impose page limits on briefs, and so forth.

Counsel should review the background of potential arbitrators to find those who take a managerial approach to handling cases.  Also, it is common to interview those arbitrators to inquire about their approach to the process.

Myth #3:  Arbitration discovery is insufficient.

Counsel often specify the Federal Rules or state discovery rules in their arbitration agreements in the belief that discovery under most arbitration rules is insufficient.  However, one of the benefits of arbitration is the speedy and efficient resolution of a dispute. Arbitrators are empowered under the rules of most providers to limit discovery in an effort to ensure that it is in proportion to the size of the dispute at hand.

Counsel have a role in this effort and should work with the panel to prepare a reasonable discovery plan, including an exchange of relevant documents and a limited number of depositions.  Interrogatories and requests for admission are not favored in arbitration since they are expensive and often fail to elicit significant information.  Finally, counsel may work with the arbitrators and agree on an informal process for the resolution of discovery disputes, usually handled by just one of the arbitrators.

For the rest of "Top Five Myths About Commercial Arbitration," please read the full article from Law.com by clicking here.


Disclaimer:

This page is for general information purposes.  JAMS makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy or completeness.  Interested persons should conduct their own research regarding information on this website before deciding to use JAMS, including investigation and research of JAMS neutrals. See More



AUTHOR(S)

Zela ''Zee'' G. Claiborne, Esq.

Categories

Archives

JAMS NEWSLETTERS

ABOUT OUR BLOG

The JAMS ADR blog serves to engage our clients, the legal community and the public in a discussion about alternative dispute resolution. As leaders in mediation, arbitration and more, we strive to remain at the forefront of legal developments, trends and news in areas of law that pertain to ADR.

Welcome to the JAMS ADR blog. We hope you find it informative, interesting and we hope you visit again soon.