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
© 2025 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 AllThe Public Is Best Served by an Ethics Commission That Is Not Dominated by the People It Oversees
4 minute readThe Crisis of Incarcerated Transgender People: A Call to Action for the Judiciary, Prosecutors, and Defense Counsel
5 minute read‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Former U.S. Dept. of Education Attorney Suspended for Failure to Complete CLE Credits
- 2ArentFox Schiff Adds Global Complex Litigation Partner in Los Angeles
- 3Bittensor Hackers, Accused of Stealing Over $28 Million, Face Federal Lawsuit
- 4In Novel Oil and Gas Feud, 5th Circuit Gives Choice of Arbitration Venue
- 5Jury Seated in Glynn County Trial of Ex-Prosecutor Accused of Shielding Ahmaud Arbery's Killers
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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