When the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was passed in 1926, arbitration was seen as a method of relieving court congestion, and a way to provide parties with a speedier, less costly means of resolving disputes. Almost a century later, however, arbitration if left unchecked may converge into a process just as complicated and costly as the court proceedings it was created to avoid.
There are ways to avoid that convergence. That's the premise of a recent piece written by Little Bulman Medeiros & Whitney, PC (Rhode Island, USA) partners John Bulman and Thomas Dunn, in the prestigious Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution. Written alongside Neal M. Eisman, who is a partner at Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP and adjunct professor of Real Estate at New York University, it's not your typical law journal read. As you will find, the authors take an amusing look at how arbitration may be under attack. In fact, many argue it is becoming emasculated and procedurally reshaped to the point where a growing number of disputes are now prepared, presented and defended in the same way as court cases.
In the piece, Bulman, Dunn and Eisman have identified how litigation-style procedures and practices are finding their way into arbitration and how best to eradicate them. Using satirical vignettes to illustrate their points, the authors discuss the techniques and practices that should be adopted by arbitrators and parties to ensure that arbitration remains an alternative to litigation in resolving disputes - a process that, if utilized properly, is more economical and efficient than trying a case in court.
For an entertaining read, check out "A Tale of Two Lawyers: How Arbitrators and Advocates Can Avoid the Dangerous Convergence of Arbitration and Litigation," by clicking here.
