SAN FRANCISCO — JAMS is staying neutral, sort of, on an entertainment litigator’s claim that it favors big studios in arbitrations and mediations.
The claim, made by Bird Marella partner Ronald Nessim in a UCLA law review this summer, is essentially that JAMS has a lock on studio business, with the overwhelming majority of studio contracts reviewed by Nessim naming JAMS as the provider. That gives JAMS neutrals an incentive to favor them–a repeat-player bias.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
