Strategies for Effectively Selecting the Right Arbitrator
With little ability to overturn an arbitrator's award, it is critical that you select an arbitrator right for your case and client.
January 05, 2023 at 09:18 AM
8 minute read
Special SectionsArbitrator selection is likely the single most important, outcome determinative decision you make when proceeding to arbitration. You can have both the law and facts on your side, but if you don't have the arbitrator on your side, you can lose. In fact, an arbitrator can render a decision against your client based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of the law, and there is little chance you can do anything about it. For example, under the Federal Arbitration Act (under which most arbitrations fall), there are only four reasons a disgruntled party may appeal an award by an arbitrator: the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; there was evident partiality or corruption by the arbitrators; there was arbitral misconduct, such as refusal to hear material evidence; or the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed their powers that they failed to render a mutual, final and definite award. Some courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, have also recognized additional, nonstatutory bases upon which a reviewing court may vacate an arbitrator's award under the FAA. See generally Tanoma Mining v. Local Union, No. 1269, 896 F.2d 745, 749 (3d Cir. 1990) (recognizing that an award may be set aside if it displays "manifest disregard for the law"). It should be noted, however, that the Second Circuit analyzed all cases in its circuit which sought to reverse an arbitration award under the "manifest disregard for the law" standard – only 4 of the 48 cases before it were successful. See Duferco International Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness Shipping A/S, 333 F.3d 383, 389 (2d Cir. 2003). All this is to say, with little ability to overturn an arbitrator's award, it is critical that you select an arbitrator right for your case and client.
This content has been archived.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 AllSpecial Section: 2024 Labor & Employment/Workers' Compensation
Insurers Are Misusing IMEs to Prematurely Cut Off Injured Workers' Benefits
7 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Does My Company Really Need a Generative AI Policy?
- 2'This Is a Watershed Moment': Daniel's Law Overcomes Major Hurdle
- 3Navigating the Storm: Effective Crisis Management (Part 1)
- 4The Testamentary Exception Does Not Permit a Decedent to Impliedly Waive a Survivor’s Attorney-Client Privilege
- 5Trump 2.0 and Your Career
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