Ella Fishman T: 310.201.0010 F: 310.201.0016 ella@adrservices.com ADR Services
Suite 200
1900 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4303 |
Arbitration Tips
Arbitrator Selection – Minimum Due Diligence
Use a Supplemental Disclosure QuestionnairePursuant to CCP 1281.9(a) a proposed arbitrator is required to disclose “all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial.” The problem when selecting an arbitrator is how to discover such matters and facts. Consider using a supplemental disclosure questionnaire, similar to a short form jury questionnaire, inquiring into the arbitrator’s personal background and experiences with the type of dispute at hand. Ideally, the supplemental questionnaire would be developed jointly by opposing counsel. Failing that, serve your questionnaire on the proposed arbitrator and the other side. If the arbitrator fails to or refuses to answer the questionnaire, disqualify the arbitrator for failing to make disclosure under CCP 1281.9. Arbitrator Disqualification Can Not be WaivedA party’s right to disqualify an arbitrator can not be waived. In Azteca Construcion v. ADR Consulting the Third District Court of Appeal held that an arbitration agreement calling for American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules, making the AAA the final authority on arbitrator qualification, must yield to the arbitrator disqualification provisions of CCP 1281 et. seq. An arbitrator must make disclosures pursuant to CCP 1281.9 within 10 days of appointment. Any party may disqualify a neutral arbitrator within 15 days of the arbitrator’s disclosure (CCP 1281.91). The right to disqualify is absolute, may be exercised without cause and an unlimited number of neutral arbitrators may be disqualified. Azteca Construcion v. ADR Consulting, C045316, 2004 DJDAR 10648 (August 25, 2004) Full text link in Word format: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C045316.DOC Azteca Construcion v. ADR Consulting, C045316, 2004 DJDAR 10648 (August 25, 2004) Full text link in PDF format: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C045316.PDF Use CCP 638(a) to Insure Trial and Appellate Court ReviewYou and your opponent agree to arbitrate a litigated dispute and both are concerned about the lack of judicial review and the limited review standard on appeal. Rather than dismissing the case or having the trial judge order the matter to arbitration, prepare an Order to Agreed Reference pursuant to CCP 638(a). Your neutral is now a referee, who after conducting the hearing(s) prepares a report and recommendation to the trial judge. Each side has the opportunity to object to the report and/or recommendations, conduct hearings on the objections and the losing party has full appellate rights. Request a Reasoned, Interim Arbitration AwardThe chances of modifying a binding arbitration award are somewhere between “slim and none”. The review grounds set out in CCP 1286.2 (Vacation of Award) and CCP 1286.6 (Correction of Award) are very narrow and there are no post award proceedings because the arbitrator loses jurisdiction upon signing of the award. Requesting a reasoned, interim award creates the opportunity for post-award hearings. A reasoned award sets out the arbitrator’s factual and legal rationale for the award. An interim award preserves the arbitrator’s jurisdiction while post arbitration matters are considered. Most arbitrators will honor the parties’ joint request for a reasoned, interim award. After an interim award is rendered, the parties know who the prevailing party is and can structure the appropriate request for attorney fees, if allowed by contract or statute. The interim, reasoned award gives counsel the chance to comment on the award, either formally or informally, bringing to the arbitrator’s attention correctable errors of fact, law or reasoning. Master the “Arts & Crafts”“Arts & Crafts” refers to your case’s presentation details. Attention to the look and feel of the presentation adds to its persuasive quality. Below are 5 “arts & crafts” tips.
More “Arts & Crafts”
High – Low AgreementsHigh – Low Agreements, also known as “Mini – Maxi” agreements are used to limit or bracket arbitration awards and jury verdicts. They can be made at any time before the award/verdict is rendered. Below we discuss the mechanics of a high – low agreement as it usually occurs in an arbitration. Prior to commencing the arbitration, the plaintiff agrees to limit its recovery ($500,000). In consideration the defendant agrees to pay a sum certain ($100,000). If the award ($700,000) is more than the high, it is reduced to the high number ($500,000). If the award ($20,000 or a defense verdict) is less than the low, the award is increased to the low number ($100,000). If the award falls between the two numbers ($350,000) that number is the award. When implementing a high – low agreement, consider whether to tell the arbitrator its parameters. Generally, if the arbitrator knows the parameters of a high – low agreement, you will get a result between the numbers. Therefore, if you are the defendant with the chance at a defense verdict or the plaintiff with the chance of a homerun, you probably do not want to disclose the high – low agreement’s numbers. When using a high – low agreement in an arbitration, where the arbitrator does not know its parameters, request an interim award, because the arbitrator loses jurisdiction on signing the award, except for limited grounds to correct. After receiving the interim award, reveal the high – low agreement’s parameters and have the arbitrator enter the final award in accordance with the agreement. When using a high – low agreement in a bench or jury trial, it is best practice to let the trial judge know the existence of the agreement without revealing its parameters, so as to avoid the perception that you are manipulating the court and/or wasting judicial resources. Baseball ArbitrationBaseball arbitration is named after the process by which major league baseball players resolve salary disputes with the owners. Here’s how it works in the litigation world. The parties negotiate to their last and best offers, agreeing to submit their dispute to a neutral arbitrator. After hearing the evidence, the arbitrator must pick either the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s final number. Baseball arbitration levies a heavy penalty on an unreasonable party because the arbitrator’s tentative decision gravitates toward the reasonable party’s number. This demand for reasonable negotiating behavior has the happy side effect of settling disputes. As the parties try to set their respective reasonable number that will most appeal to the arbitrator, they close the gap and settle. Day baseball or night baseball? In “day” baseball arbitration, the arbitrator is told the parties’ final numbers before evidence is introduced. This fosters a subtle anchoring effect where the arbitrator filters the evidence and uses it to test the parties’ numbers, rather than exercising independent judgment. In “night” baseball arbitration the arbitrator hears the evidence and renders an interim award. Then the parties’ numbers are revealed and the final award is made at the party’s number closest to the interim award. Arbitrator Selection - Strike and Rank ProcedureThe strike and rank procedure is the almost universal method for arbitrator selection absent the parties' agreement. Here's how it works in a two-sided case.
Reverse the ProcessWith the growing court backlog, binding mediation, also known as mediation-arbitration or "med-arb", is making a comeback. In med-arb the case is mediated; if impasse occurs, the process becomes an arbitration and the former mediator, now an arbitrator, renders an award. Remedy for Unpaid Arbitration Fees
Make a RecordAs trial dates stretch into an unknown future and judges carry 600+ caseloads, we will see more and more parties and counsel opt to resolve disputes in arbitration. In order to assure a fair and controlled process, a stenographic record is essential. Below are four good reasons to make a record.
Copyright ©
, Ralph O Williams III |