FAQ

I believe my responsibility to the parties is to personally review the evidence, documents, and declarations provided; to personally assess the relevance, materiality, and weight to be given to that evidence; and then to personally draft the award when a sole arbitrator or chair of a panel, and participate in the deliberation and drafting of the award writing assigned by the chair when a panel member. Nevertheless, I can conceive of the rare circumstance where the case may require delegation of some procedural or routine matter.

In some cases, circumstances may suggest the use of a tribunal-appointed secretary to enhance the efficiency and coordination of the proceedings. This may occur where the dispute involves numerous issues, multiple parties, multiple witnesses, and a large volume of documents or will involve multiple motions or hearing dates, or other similar complicating circumstances. I would inform and solicit input from the parties on any proposal to retain a tribunal secretary with the agreement of the parties and the decision being addressed at the earliest possible time and preferably at or before the preliminary hearing.

Efficiency, fairness, and agreement by the parties are key factors from my perspective. If time, cost, and other efficiencies can be realized by deciding a potentially dispositive issue expeditiously, and the parties have agreed that the arbitrator can initiate a suggestion for early resolution of a potentially dispositive issue, I would be comfortable in raising a potentially dispositive issue at the earliest possible time and thereafter defining, in a collaborative interaction between the parties and panel, a process for presenting and deciding the issue as expeditiously as possible. I would not otherwise raise an issue not otherwise raised by the parties since there may be strategic reasons for not raising it. Of course, if either party raises an issue by motion or otherwise, I would engage with the parties and other panel members to discuss whether bringing such a motion would promote the efficiency of the arbitration process. Furthermore, in consultation with the parties, a proceeding may be phased to address specific issues in sequence.

It is not the role of the arbitrator to assist the parties in reaching a settlement or to actively look for opportunities to do so but rather to decide the matter brought before the tribunal based on the facts, the law, and the arguments presented. However, I would be inclined to grant any request to stay in the arbitration proceedings to enable the parties to engage in mediation or serious settlement discussions and would always acknowledge the option of the parties to settle the matter on their own or with the assistance of others.

In my view, giving views on the strengths or weaknesses of claims or defenses before evidence or arguments have been presented could be interpreted as prejudging the matter and could raise questions about the impartiality of the arbitrator. I would decline any request by a party for an evaluation but would suggest one or both parties pursue other individuals or processes (e.g., a neutral, non-binding mini-trial or mini arbitration, an expert evaluation) who can assist in such evaluation. At a later stage, I might request that the parties focus on or address certain issues in the briefing or may raise concerns based on the evidence presented.

Where the parties have agreed in the arbitration clause or at the preliminary hearing to apply specific rules of evidence, the party’s agreement should be followed where legally and practically possible. If not otherwise specified, or agreed upon, the final decision on the rules to be followed should be decided by the Panel at the preliminary hearing and contained in the scheduling order. The IBA rules are comprehensive and provide a baseline that can be adopted by the parties and panel.

E-discovery is authorized by the IBA Rules and the rules of most other arbitral institutions and I would follow whatever rules the parties agreed to follow in the arbitration. That said, broad, expansive discovery like litigation discovery is inappropriate for arbitration even when the rules allow some discovery. Therefore, my general approach to discovery when it is allowed under the agreed rules is to first require the parties to meet to narrowly and specifically define the discovery they want. Often, and this is my experience, the parties will agree on that scope and the need for further arbitrator intervention becomes unnecessary. Where the parties cannot agree, Article 3, paragraph 3 of the IBA Rules define a process for narrowing and focusing the discovery including e-discovery requests. I would opt for those or similar rules to focus discovery if any, on what was relevant and material.

Clearly define the issues to be decided by the tribunal. This first summary should disclose the legal theories and supporting facts for each of the claims to be decided as well as the damages or other relief for each claim. The second time would be before the hearing of evidence, testimony and argument. This second prehearing brief would recite the claims and the supporting legal and factual basis for the claims, counterclaims, and defenses and the related relief to be sought. Rarely provided but very helpful would be a timeline annotated with names of a witness or key figures and key exhibits. A separate timeline from each party would highlight the perspective of each party and focus on the issues in dispute.

If the applicable rules allow party-appointed arbitrators to consult with the parties regarding the appointment of a chair, then I would be willing to engage in such a consultation. However, even party-appointed arbitrators are generally expected to be neutral. To protect the process and my neutrality, any such consultation would be focused and limited to that issue and once the chair was appointed, I would refrain from further contact with appointing party.

Yes, I would be available for a schedule interview.

In my experience, a party has never requested to interview a prospective chair. Absent a specific provision of the rules to be applied or in the arbitration agreement itself, I cannot see a basis or rationale for permitting such an interview.

Answer based on the following options:

1) Discipline During Proceedings, Immediately when Misconduct Occurs

2) Discipline Both During Proceedings and In Subsequent Award on Costs

3) Take Misconduct Into Consideration in Cost Award

4) Do Not Believe Counsel Misconduct Is the Responsibility of The Tribunal

It depends on the misconduct and the resultant prejudice to the other party or to the process itself. Absent a need to prevent or remediate prejudice caused by the misconduct, I would generally warn a party of the potential for sanctions, and if the conduct continued or was repeated then consider sanctions. In that situation, I would give each party notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Where an agreement in issue, arbitration agreement itself, or the applicable law permits the recovery to the prevailing party, it would certainly be appropriate to award the prevailing party its costs including reasonable legal fees. The issue of who the prevailing party is may also require briefing.

It would be appropriate to award in-house counsel fees if permitted by contract, statute, or the agreement of the parties. That said, before including in-house counsel fees, I would request the party seeking that recovery to provide the factual and legal basis for those fees and would also look to counsel to address whether the award of fees was in toto, reasonable, and the inhouse portion of those fees was necessary and non-duplicative.

How proceedings are conducted will depend on the facts of each case: the location of the arbitration, the background of the panel members, the location of witnesses, etc. An important consideration would be the preferences of the parties as expressed in the arbitration agreement or by the agreement at the preliminary hearing stage and I would generally defer to the process for conducting the proceedings preferred or agreed to by the parties. That said, even though my experience has been primarily in common law systems I would lean toward the civil law system approach to discovery in arbitration because of the importance which I attach to efficiency and economy in arbitration proceedings.

My approach to arbitration is premised on providing the parties with a process that is efficient, economic, and fair. At the same time, I believe it is important that the parties have significant influence in defining the process. I, therefore, encourage the parties to regularly communicate and to work constructively to address and resolve procedural and other issues before bringing those issues to the arbitrator or arbitration panel. Maintaining an orderly, deliberative and predictable process is also important so requests for delays are discouraged absent a showing of good cause. At the same time, I seek to be flexible in response to the viscidities of life. Finally, I avoid procedural formalities and welcome telephone conferences to resolve issues, requiring briefing only when necessary. My approach to specific aspects of the Arbitration follows:

Preliminary Conference (defining the issues and process):

After the appointment, and with the input from the parties, I schedule the Preliminary Conference as soon as practical. I will generally send the parties an agenda and request a summary brief that clearly defines all claims, counterclaims, and defenses that are to be decided before the Conference. While not required, I prefer that a party representative attend the Conference. In most matters, the Preliminary Conference will be by telephone conference but I prefer in-person Conferences if feasible and cost-effective. Based on the interaction between the parties, their counsel, and the panel, a Scheduling Order is prepared and sent to the parties defining the process, rules, and schedule for the arbitration. That Order will be subject to modification only upon good cause shown.

Discovery (document exchange, document requests, other discovery, resolving disputes):

I encourage the parties to collaborate in defining the information and discovery that will be exchanged. Only if the parties cannot reach an agreement through this collaborative process would I entertain a motion addressing the dispute. That motion should define the discovery sought or an objection to that discovery, giving the specific reasons why the information is relevant and material to the issues to be decided by the panel. Generally, discovery vehicles such as admissions, interrogatories, and depositions would not be allowed.

Motion Practice (procedural, discovery, dispositive):

See the discussion of motion practice related to discovery above. I prefer dealing with procedural issues such as extensions of time and the like by telephone conference. If desired, the parties may submit short letter briefs in support of such motions but that would generally not be required. Based on the oral arguments, I sometimes request a follow-up brief addressing a specific issue. If a party wants to file a dispositive brief, I would require a telephone conference where we would discuss the motion, and how the motion might promote efficiency, economy, and fairness.

Hearing (pre-hearing submissions, witness and expert testimony, hearing process):

Prior to the hearing, I would expect the parties to provide briefs discussing each claim, counterclaim, and defense; the damages or remedies being sought for each; and the specific evidence expected to be presented in support of the claim, counterclaim, defense, or damage/remedy sought. Witness lists, a joint exhibit list, and a joint exhibit notebook would be submitted at the start of the hearing. I prefer that each witness prepare direct testimony in the form of a declaration to be submitted prior to the hearing with live testimony at the hearing consisting of cross examination and redirect. At the close of the hearing, the parties will have the option of presenting the final argument or incorporating their final argument in a post-hearing brief.

Post-Hearing Briefs:

Post-hearing briefs are encouraged. Such post-hearing briefs should be organized by claims, counterclaims, defenses, and remedies. The brief should summarize the evidence, facts, and legal authority supporting each claim, counterclaim, defense, and remedy. Generally, upon receipt of the briefs, the hearing will be deemed closed.

Award:

Immediately after the hearing and again after receiving the post-hearing briefs, I will confer with my co-arbitrators regarding the facts and evidence, and arguments and will begin drafting the award or my assigned portion of the award as soon as possible.