Nothing to Hide: How to Make and Evaluate Disclosures in ADR
Although the roles of arbitrators and mediators are different, neutrals in either capacity need to make fulsome disclosures so their impartiality can be adequately assessed.
August 13, 2024 at 11:41 AM
9 minute read
Whether you are an advocate representing clients in alternate dispute resolution (ADR) or serving as a neutral arbitrator or mediator, it is critical to understand the disclosure rules. All stakeholders in the ADR process want to assure that parties participating have the requisite information to have confidence in the fairness of the process. Although the roles of arbitrators and mediators are different, neutrals in either capacity need to make fulsome disclosures so their impartiality can be adequately assessed. As arbitrators render binding decisions, they and the parties want to avoid challenges to an award due to disclosure deficiencies. Although mediators generally do not issue binding determinations, but try to facilitate the parties' negotiations, they too want the decisionmakers and their advisers to trust that the conciliatory efforts are not influenced by concealed relationships. On the flip side, counsel for the parties want to provide sufficient information about parties, witnesses, experts and counsel themselves so potential neutrals can conduct a meaningful inquiry for disclosure purposes. They also want to conduct a meaningful assessment of potential neutrals to identify potential or perceived conflicts that could jeopardize the process or any resolution derived from engaging in ADR.
The Importance of Party Input in Identifying Potential Conflicts
Garbage in; garbage out. The quality of the neutral disclosure process starts with the adequacy of the information provided to the ADR professional when approached for a potential appointment. That information serves as the yardstick against which a potential arbitrator or mediator evaluates whether the individual, their family members, colleagues or organizational affiliates, have relationships that could be perceived as reflecting an actual or potential bias. The more exhaustive the input, the more likely it will reveal possible issues or confirm that none exist. The process may be governed by the administrative organization overseeing the matter, such as the American Arbitration Association (AAA), CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution (CPR), a court, bar association or other organization. In the absence of a sponsoring entity, the parties or the neutral candidate my propose or agree on the protocols for assessing potential disqualifying interests. Whatever the methodology, parties seeking ADR assistance should provide candidates with financial, personal and business affiliations that might bear on how parties will perceive the potential neutral's independence, particularly if the party is unhappy with the result. Parties can request additional information beyond what the procedures call for or for follow up information if a disclosure raises concerns. The information provided by the parties in soliciting a neutral's disclosures impacts the usefulness of the response. If the parties do not provide sufficient information, it is more likely an issue may be overlooked.
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 AllPa. Supreme Court to Decide Enforceability of 'Browsewrap' Arbitration Agreements
8 minute readFrom a Mediator’s Perspective: Common Mis-steps That Parties Make at Mediation
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
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