Why Not Arbitrate? Breaking the Backlog in State and Federal Courts
If the courts cannot resolve commercial disputes due to the priority that must be accorded to matters involving danger to the community—including criminal matters, domestic violence, and health and safety issues—then the parties to commercial disputes might wish to consider other options for dispute resolution.
May 14, 2020 at 11:10 AM
4 minute read
New York's state and federal courts have worked hard in these unprecedented times to provide essential services. This means that criminal cases and civil cases involving health and safety have been considered "essential" and are being heard through remote or virtual means. But matters considered "nonessential" have been put on hold. When the courts reopen, there will be a large backlog of civil matters. With the best of intentions, it is apparent that civil trials will not go forward for many months, particularly if there has been a jury demand. Some have predicted that there will be no civil juries in New York until 2021.
In most cases, such a significant delay is bad for everyone. Businesses need certainty. Does a new product infringe a patent? Does a product infringe a trademark? Will an insurance company need to continue to place a large reserve on an outstanding claim? Does a company need to continue to disclose a potential liability on public filings? Will an employee be reinstated or can her position be filled? Many more questions like these could be asked. The point is that while delay is sometimes welcome to avoid the unwelcome news that monies are owed, in many business disputes what is most needed is a determination and closure.
If the courts cannot resolve commercial disputes due to the priority that must be accorded to matters involving danger to the community—including criminal matters, domestic violence, and health and safety issues—then the parties to commercial disputes might wish to consider other options for dispute resolution.
One option, of course, is to negotiate directly in an attempt to settle the lawsuit. When this fails, mediation with the help of an experienced neutral is the next step. But at the end of the day, if neither direct or facilitated negotiations work, the parties in commercial disputes should consider designing their own dispute resolution process by consenting to arbitration.
Arbitration does not have to be agreed to in advance of a dispute. Many parties bring their dispute to court, only to decide after years of high cost litigation, and long waits for a trial date, that they should leave court and agree to a confidential and expeditious arbitration. Arbitration can be a very flexible process. The parties can design whatever process they wish. They do not have to be subject to the rules of any particular provider of dispute resolution services. Parties can choose to retain a sole arbitrator or can choose a panel of three arbitrators. They can determine the selection process and they can agree on the required qualifications of the arbitrator. They can agree on whether discovery will be permitted, whether there will be live testimony or written submissions, whether there will be a post-hearing briefing, and even whether an appeal would go before an arbitral appellate panel. In short, the parties have much more control over the process of resolving a dispute than they do in court.
Experienced arbitrators are ready to assist in designing a process that can be tailored to the needs of a particular dispute. Many arbitrators are affiliated with law firms and can provide the space needed for in-person arbitrations, or can host a virtual arbitration.
As a former federal judge, and now an experienced arbitrator, I have served several times as an arbitrator in cases where the parties designed their own process. In those matters the parties achieved a speedy and efficient resolution. Some examples may be helpful. In one arbitration the parties agreed that the arbitrators could only award one of two amounts. They wanted nothing more than that number after a full week of hearings. No reasoning, no long decision—just a low number or a high number. That was their choice. In another case, involving many millions of dollars, counsel agreed to a timed trial, with no direct examination of any witness—only cross-examination and re-direct. The point is that the parties have the freedom to design a process that best fits their case.
I suggest to you that, given the realities of the current situation, arbitration is something all parties in commercial disputes should consider if they wish to resolve their dispute and return to the business of doing business.
Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.D.J. (Ret.) is affiliated with AAA, CPR, FedArb and NAM. In addition to arbitration, she is available for mediations and to serve as a special master.
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 AllFor Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
4 minute readBenjamin West and John Singleton Copley: American Painters in London
8 minute readTrending 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