In-House Counsel Favor Right of Appeal for International Arbitration
"Given the consensual nature of arbitration and its intended flexibility in meeting the needs of business users, should not the arbitration process at least offer the option of an appeal?" the Annual Arbitration Survey 2020 published by Bryan Cave asks.
May 27, 2020 at 04:05 PM
3 minute read
Nearly half of in-house counsel are in favor of a right of appeal for international arbitration, according to a new report published by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.
According to the firm's Annual Arbitration Survey 2020, which focused on appealing international arbitration results, 46% of in-house counsel said the right to appeal would make arbitration more attractive.
"One [reason] may be that it is in-house counsel who are left to deal with the practical consequences of a bad decision when the external lawyers have gone home," said Carol Mulcahy, a partner at Bryan Cave in London, in an email to Corporate Counsel.
Mulcahy said that 62% of in-house counsel felt that the incorrect decision in some cases are "so serious as to make the lack of an appeal mechanism unacceptable."
"Given the consensual nature of arbitration and its intended flexibility in meeting the needs of business users, should not the arbitration process at least offer the option of an appeal?" the report states in making an argument for the ability to appeal arbitration.
Only 38% of in-house counsel who responded to the survey were concerned about the cost associated with appealing decisions that come from arbitration. Additionally, only 38% of in-house counsel indicated they were concerned about the amount of time the appeals process would take for arbitration.
If an appeals process for international arbitration were allowed, there remains a question of who would preside over the appeal. Roughly 77% of in-house counsel would rather have an internal mechanism for arbitration appeals over having that process play out in national courts.
"If an appeal mechanism is available in both arbitration and court, and therefore becomes a neutral factor, some in-house counsel may consider the time and costs likely involved in each," Mulcahy said.
She said some courts put a deadline for the delivery of the appeal decision. Having an internal appeals process may "offer a more relaxed regime."
"An internal appeal is also more in keeping with the original choice of arbitration in preference to litigation," Mulcahy said.
The firm's annual arbitration survey received responses from 123 respondents, which included in-house counsel, arbitrators, academics, external lawyers working at law firms, employees of arbitral institutions, expert witnesses and litigation funders. The regions the respondents come from are Asia, North America, North Africa, Australasia, the Middle East, Latin America, Russia and Europe.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readElaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
PepsiCo's Legal Team Champions Diversity, Wellness, and Mentorship to Shape a Thriving Corporate Culture
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250