Are You Sure You Want an Arbitration Clause? (Part 2 of 3)
Many business people, and even some lawyers, take it as an article of faith that any contract is improved by including an arbitration clause. If you ask them why they think a contract should contain an arbitration clause, you will probably hear something like: “because arbitration is quicker and cheaper than going to court!” Is this true? Yes, it can be. Is it always true? No, not by a long shot. Many people assume that simply including an arbitration clause—any arbitration clause—in their contract means that they will automatically gain the main perceived benefits of arbitration: quicker and cheaper dispute resolution. To paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, this is yet another assumption that has outlived its uselessness. In fact, a poorly drafted arbitration clause can have the opposite effect. Bad arbitration clauses tend to inflict extraordinary delay and expense because such clauses often result in prolonged litigation over what the clause itself means. For example, if the arbitration clause says nothing about class arbitration, is class arbitration permissible or not? Similarly, who resolves a dispute over whether or not a certain claim is covered by the arbitration clause: a judge or the arbitrator? These pesky questions are not minor skirmishes. They are threshold battles whose outcomes will define the entire course of the arbitration proceeding to follow. Depending on the circumstances, these preliminary issues can prolong a dispute for months. When the stakes are high enough, we have even seen these issues stretch out disputes for years while the parties churn through a morass of dueling proceedings and appeals. All the while, litigation expenses continue mounting while the underlying merits of the dispute remain virtually untouched. Even properly drafted arbitration provisions can present enormous danger. If an arbitrator rules against you, it will be very, very hard to overturn his ruling. Why? Because unlike a decision from a judge or jury, an arbitrator’s ruling cannot be overturned on appeal except for a few narrow, specific reasons, such as if the proceeding was rigged by fraud, arbitrator bias, or the like. And in some jurisdictions, an appellate court cannot overturn an arbitrator even if the arbitrator blatantly disregards the law. This is the risk you take when you bargain for the benefits of expedited, private litigation. So how can you minimize the likelihood of either unintended litigation or a bad ruling with no way out? First, drop the assumption that arbitration is a guaranteed time and money saver. It would be great if that were always true, but it’s not. Arbitration can achieve those goals, but not always. Instead, consider the pros and cons of arbitration [hyperlink Art. 1] and invest some time considering how those apply to your specific circumstances. All things considered, if arbitration does not look like a net gain for you, then do not insist on it. Leave it to the courts to settle any disputes. Sure, they may not be perfect, but they are pretty good at it overall. On the other hand, if you decide that arbitration is a compelling alternative to traditional litigation, then by all means include an arbitration clause in your document. However, do not rely on a generic form or some unconsidered boilerplate. Resolve to craft an arbitration clause that will establish a coherent and informed framework for resolving disputes. Calibrate that framework to your specific business needs and risks. We’ll take on this task in the third part of this series and offer some creative and practical drafting tips to achieve that...
Read MoreArbitration & Mediation: Know the Basics (Part 1 of 3)
Most of you know arbitration and mediation as two different kinds of alternative dispute resolution. Some of you have even participated in one or perhaps both. But what exactly are they? How do they differ? And which one is the best fit for your business needs? Arbitration = Private Litigation Arbitration is essentially private litigation that results in a binding, final decision. Instead of a judge or jury deciding your case, the parties select a neutral arbitrator who renders a decision. The parties typically agree to arbitrate based on a clause in an agreement, usually long before a dispute arises. Advantages: When deployed correctly, arbitration can be cheaper and faster than litigating in court. Arbitrations also typically afford the parties a higher level of confidentiality than is otherwise available in a court of public record. And to some degree, arbitrations can be less formal. Disadvantages: Ironically, a bad arbitration clause can be worse than none at all. A poorly drafted arbitration clause can inflict enormous expense and delay on the parties as they fight over what it means, and the cost of such a battle can negate the entire purpose of arbitration. Additionally, arbitration awards are appealable only in very narrow, specific circumstances. So if the arbitrator rules against you, virtually any appeal will be a very tough, uphill battle with a slim chance of success. We’ll discuss these dynamics in more detail in a future post, Are You Sure You Want an Arbitration Clause? Mediation = Facilitated Negotiation Mediation is a process where the parties to a dispute meet to negotiate and explore whether they can agree on a resolution. A neutral mediator, usually selected by the parties, facilitates the parties’ negotiations, but he has no authority to force the parties into settlement, nor is it his job to predict how a judge or jury might ultimately rule on the matters in dispute. Instead, a mediator’s role is to assist the parties as they seek their own, voluntary resolution of their dispute. Advantages: Perhaps the biggest benefit of mediation is control. Parties who mediate retain control of the outcome of their case, instead of handing that control to a judge or jury. When parties feel like they control their own destinies, they also tend to feel a higher sense of satisfaction with the eventual resolution. As Shakespeare said, “He is well paid that is well satisfied.” And of course, a successful mediation will resolve a dispute at a fraction of the cost of a full-blown trial. Disadvantages: Mediation is often not a productive exercise until the parties have already expended significant time and money litigating. Many business disputes start out with muddled issues and murky facts. Until the issues are crystallized and the facts are illuminated, parties are understandably reluctant to mediate. Why negotiate when you do not fully know either your own or your adversary’s strengths and weaknesses? Mediation also tends to be an ineffective tool when the dispute itself is binary, i.e. where only one of two outcomes is possible. When the outcome must be either “whole hog or none,” that doesn’t leave much space to...
Read More