Ogletree Launches Tool to Automate Arbitration Agreements Following SCOTUS Decision
Employment firm Ogletree Deakins launched an automation tool for revising arbitration agreements to include class-action waivers just one day after a controversial Supreme Court decision confirmed their legal viability.
May 23, 2018 at 12:11 PM
4 minute read
Law firms aren't known for preemptively building technology, but when a recent 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision confirming the lawfulness of arbitration agreements banning class or collective actions was announced on Monday, employment firm Ogletree Deakins was ready with an automated tool.
Attorneys at Ogletree Deakins had been watching the case closely for months. Shareholder Ron Chapman attended the Supreme Court oral argument, hoping to get a sense of how the justices might rule. The firm decided to make an educated guess on the outcome—that the high court would stand with companies looking to mandate class action waivers for employees—and take a gamble: The firm began development of an app that would automate the process for those companies last December.
The tool, called the Ogletree Deakins DIY Arbitration Agreements, launched finally on Monday, immediately following the high court ruling. “We went ahead full steam with our fingers crossed that the case would come out the way we thought it would,” Chapman said.
DIY Arbitration Agreements is an automated tool that walks users through a series of questions about the kind of arbitration agreement they'd like to implement and what kind of class action waivers they'd like to see in place. The tool then takes that information and compiles it into legal language.
“You answer eight or nine questions and press print, and that's it. This is not rocket science,” Chapman said.
The development process required both technologists and subject matter experts to contribute time. Devoting the resources is certainly not a cheap or easy prospect for firms with a revenue stream largely built on billable work, especially when there was no guarantee that the Supreme Court would uphold the legality of such agreements. “It's an investment. It was investment of time, it was an investment in money, for sure,” Chapman said.
Ogletree is banking on the idea that this decision will open the floodgates for companies to implement class action waivers in employee arbitration agreements. “That's going to result in a lot, if not most companies implementing arbitration agreements,” Chapman said of the decision.
The firm is also hoping that the tool will set the firm apart from its competitors in its ability to implement these newly allowed class action waivers cheaply. “To have that discussion with the client and tailor it to particular needs and come up with a form would cost several thousand dollars. This tool is designed to automate all that,” Chapman said. Clients can use Ogletree's tool for what Chapman called a “low flat fee,” designed to help clients bypass the billable pay structure that typically accompanies such work.
Class action waivers themselves have the subject of increasing scrutiny over the last year or so. The spike in sexual harassment claims empowered by the Me Too movement has also brought new heat to employment arbitration agreements that bar sexual assault victims from banding together to challenge workplace sexual harassment in court. A number of Big Law firms this year also ended their use of forced arbitration for associates in the wake of the movement.
Additionally, many consumers spoke out against mandatory arbitration clauses that require class action waivers in the wake of the Equifax breach, forcing the company to change its terms of service.
The Supreme Court decision itself drew an impassioned dissent from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who called the ruling “egregiously wrong.” Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the majority opinion, wrote in his decision, “The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written.”
Chapman noted that many of these hot-button topics, like workplace sexual harassment, can be exempted from class action waivers using the DIY tool, and users can opt to include a 30-minute consultation with a firm attorney. Chapman also noted that with or without the tool, “There's no one size fits all. That's a judgment call each client has to make.”
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1The Dynamic Duo Behind CMG's Legal Ops Team
- 2Land Use Issues Presented By Cold Storage Warehouses
- 3Zero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
- 4Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 5SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
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