ILNews

Badger: To arbitrate or litigate, that is the question

Steven Badger
January 2, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In my world of dispute resolution, one of the most basic questions is whether a particular business dispute should be resolved in arbitration or in a court of law. Like many of the questions I am frequently asked by clients, there is no simple answer that fits all occasions and situations.

badger Badger

This first installment of a two-part column outlines the principal considerations in determining what disputes are best suited to arbitration. The second part, coming in the Jan. 16 issue of Indiana Lawyer, applies these general principles to provide concrete guidance in the use of arbitration to avoid consumer class actions and in other “bet-the-company” commercial disputes.

The pros and cons of arbitration

Arbitration is sometimes touted as a potent remedy for the expense, delay and inherent uncertainty of litigation. Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925 to facilitate arbitration as an alternative to litigation and to overcome judicial resistance to enforcing private agreements to arbitrate disputes. The Federal Arbitration Act reflects a national policy favoring arbitration and places arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts.

Arbitration, while useful, falls well short of being a cure-all. Arbitrators wield broad authority and discretion that is virtually unreviewable by a court of law. Matters such as the scope of discovery, amendment of claims and pre-hearing motion practice lie within the virtually limitless discretion of arbitrators. Furthermore, while parties to arbitration agreements may expressly confine the authority and discretion of arbitrators in arbitration agreements, it is virtually impossible to anticipate all issues or fully counter arbitrators’ wide discretion in both procedural and substantive matters.

The primary factors that should be considered in determining whether to favor arbitration are identified below. Each consideration may weigh for or against the use of arbitration in different situations.

Privacy. Arbitration is a strictly private process. Written submissions and proceedings in arbitration are closed to the public. Litigation in court is quite the opposite. All filings and proceedings in court are presumptively open to the public. Although protective orders are routine in commercial litigation, courts generally limit their protections to the use of information in discovery and will only rarely, and for the most compelling reasons, seal filings and proceedings from public view.

The privacy of arbitration is often advantageous, but can put an aggrieved claimant at a disadvantage. Negative publicity and unwanted attention of competitors and customers to grievances in a court of law may compel some businesses to compromise. Before agreeing to mandatory arbitration, businesses entering into contracts with well-known or publicity-sensitive companies should consider how publicity could provide them leverage in a future dispute.

Industry Expertise. Arbitration offers the parties the opportunity to specify the qualifications of the arbitrator(s) who will decide their dispute. Such qualifications may include relevant industry or technical knowledge that a judge, randomly assigned in court, is unlikely to have. When a dispute is likely to involve complex technical issues or an understanding of a particular industry or area of law or finance, then arbitration may advantageously bring such expertise to bear.

Finality. Unless otherwise specified in the parties’ arbitration agreement, an arbitrator’s decision is virtually unreviewable for errors of fact or law. Generally, no appeal is available from arbitrators’ decisions. The finality of arbitration is advantageous when a prompt and certain outcome, even if unfavorable, is preferable to an extended period of uncertainty and delay. However, when the stakes are very high, the unavailability of any appeal or substantive review leaves the parties without recourse if the arbitrator renders an adverse decision.

Well-defined procedures. Courts follow well-defined and predictable pre-trial and trial procedures and a well-developed body of law interpreting those procedures. Those procedures include the opportunity to test a claim on the merits without the time, expense and risk of an evidentiary hearing on the merits. Motions to dismiss and summary judgment provide the means by which disputes may be resolved completely, or at least substantially narrowed, through a motion to the court rather than a trial. In contrast, procedures in arbitration are not as specific and are subject to broad discretion of arbitrators. Dispositive motions in arbitration are less common and less likely to be successful than in a court of law. Consequently, arbitration is more likely to require the parties’ personnel to appear and testify in person at a hearing before the arbitrator or panel. The parties may mitigate this drawback of arbitration by specifying certain procedures, even adopting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in their arbitration agreement. Yet, such rules and procedures are still subject to the broad discretion of arbitrators to apply.

No jury. Availability of a jury trial may be an advantage or disadvantage depending on a party’s perception of its case. Some claims have “jury appeal,” and some do not. Of course, juries are not available in arbitration. In court, the parties may waive their rights to a jury trial, but both sides must consent.

Expense. As a general rule, arbitration is less expensive than litigation. However, there are exceptions. Arbitration has certain additional costs that can come as an unwelcome surprise to business people who routinely include arbitration clauses in contracts. Courts are, of course, public institutions supported by taxpayers. In contrast, arbitrators must be compensated for their services by the parties. Consequently, in addition to their own attorney fees, the parties must pay the hourly fees of the arbitrator or multiple members of an arbitration panel. The arbitrators’ hourly fees can exceed the hourly fees of the lawyers. On top of the arbitrators’ fees, the parties may separately incur fees to the organization administering the arbitration. For example, in commercial matters in which $1 million to $5 million is in issue, the American Arbitration Association’s fee schedule requires payment of $12,450 in fees to the organization in addition to the arbitrators’ compensation.

“Baby-splitting.” There is more myth than fact to support the stereotype that arbitrators are “baby-splitters” who strive to reach outcomes somewhere between the positions advocated by the parties. The empirical research fails to show that resolving a dispute through arbitration compared to trial by judge or jury has any significant bias or effect on the ultimate outcomes of disputes. Consequently, “baby-splitting” is not a factor that should be considered when deciding whether or not to engage in arbitration.

In sum, arbitration offers some distinct advantages over litigation in court. However, arbitration is not without its drawbacks. Business owners and managers should confer with legal counsel and carefully consider the type of litigation risks they face and the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration in determining whether it is best-suited for their needs.•

__________

Mr. Badger is a member of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP’s Litigation Practice Group in Indianapolis and represents business clients in commercial litigation, arbitration and appeals. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  2. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  3. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

  4. If our State Government would sue for their rights to grow HEMP like Kentucky did we would not have these issues. AND for your INFORMATION many medical items are also made from HEMP. FOOD, FUEL,FIBER,TEXTILES and MEDICINE are all uses for this plant. South Bend was built on Hemp. Our states antiquated fear of cannabis is embarrassing on the world stage. We really need to lead the way rather than follow. Some day.. we will have freedom in Indiana. And I for one will continue to educate the good folks of this state to the beauty and wonder of this magnificent plant.

  5. Put aside all the marijuana concerns, we are talking about food and fiber uses here. The federal impediments to hemp cultivation are totally ridiculous. Preposterous. Biggest hemp cultivators are China and Europe. We get most of ours from Canada. Hemp is as versatile as any crop ever including corn and soy. It's good the governor laid the way for this, regrettable the buffoons in DC stand in the way. A statutory relic of the failed "war on drugs"

ADVERTISEMENT