Med-Arb: Is It the Wave of the Future?
The pressure on the Alternate Dispute Resolution world to handle a dramatic increase in volume offers the opportunity to consider a third or hybrid process of dispute resolution known as Med-Arb, the melding of the two established conflict resolution processes—mediation and arbitration.
November 20, 2020 at 02:00 PM
7 minute read
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused tremendous stress to the litigation capabilities of our court system. Jury trials have been, for the most part, non-existent. Other aspects of the litigation world are now gradually emerging from their doldrums as motion practice resumes to some degree. It will be sometime before the court systems throughout the country are able to handle the pent-up litigation that exists. In the meantime, those of us committed to the world of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) are beginning to see a huge influx of ADR requests as disputants, unable to gain traction with litigation, opt instead for ADR. It is more than likely that this trend will continue.
As just one example, I expect to see a huge spike in the number of matrimonial disputes headed to mediation—the result of the physical closeting of families during the pandemic and most probably the inability of the court systems to process the burgeoning number of litigated matrimonial cases, especially high net worth ones involving complicated financial positions (see David Saxe & Joaquin Ezcurra, Online Mediation of Matrimonial Matters? It Works, NYLJ, Oct. 2, 2020) hence the resort to ADR. Other areas of litigation will likewise experience a significant increase in ADR interest—especially commercial litigation.
How will the current world of ADR handle this? The traditional fare offered up by ADR purveyors is generally either mediation or arbitration. A few general words about mediation and arbitration.
This content has been archived.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 All
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Be Comfortable Being Uncomfortable': Pearls of Wisdom From 2024 GC Q&As
- 2The New Frontier in Legal Compliance: Privacy, Security, and Information Governance for Law Firms
- 3North Carolina Courts Switch to Digital, Face Extreme Weather in 2024
- 4It’s Happening Faster than Anyone Thought
- 5Mootness and Ethics: Meeting the Client’s Objectives
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.
