Arbitration & Mediation

Virtual Arbitrations/Trials — Should You Use An Expanded Witness Oath?

For arbitrations and trials that are pending and/or are scheduled for the near term, the judges/arbitrators/counsel/parties are now confronting the decision on whether to proceed forward with conducting the proceedings remotely.  If they decide to proceed forward, there will naturally be some reluctance to proceed forward.  The reluctance is because it is new and unfamiliar.  It is because there is a sense that it may be more challenging to evaluate a witness’ credibility and veracity.

There are also technological concerns of virtual hearings — both as to functionality (testing the video/audio connection) and the integrity of the testimony.  In this post, I am sharing a contribution from my Pierce Atwood law partner John Bulman, FCIArb who regularly serves as an arbitrator handling construction and commercial cases domestically and internationally.  In his post below, John addresses specifically the issue of additional measures that should be considered by arbitrators, attorneys, and witnesses to ensure the integrity of the virtual arbitration process.

*

Virtual Mediations Are Zooming Forward . . . Jump on Board

With most of the country on stay at home orders of some variety and court closings, parties to claims, litigation, and arbitrations are adapting quickly to virtual litigation activities that are customarily done in person.  This includes virtual depositions, mediations, arbitrations, and trials.

In this post, I will talk about virtual mediations.

Contractual mediation is a requirement in many construction contracts to proceeding forward with litigation/arbitration.  There is often a period of time in which the mediation should be concluded before a party may proceed to the next step of dispute resolution.

No matter the parties to the case, it is customary for parties, their counsel, experts, and insurance representatives to meet in-person at the mediator’s office, one of the law firms, or some neutral location like JAMS and/or AAA’s offices.  The physical presence is an advantage in that it gets parties and their counsel together at the same place with one objective in mind — settle

Pierce Atwood Attorneys Attend Construction Industry Dispute Resolution Meeting in Washington, DC

Last week, John Bulman and I attended the National Construction Dispute Resolution Committee’s (NCDRC) Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. The NCDRC is an advisory committee formed by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to engage in discussion with a wide variety of construction industry associations about the AAA Rules and dispute resolution processes generally. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) graciously hosted the meeting at its offices.

Representatives from the following organizations were present:

A View from the Middle of the Table – A Mediator’s Practical Observations and Recommendations

After more than 300 mediations in the last twenty years, I have found that a successful mediation of a complex matter requires thoughtful preparation and collaboration by counsel, parties and the mediator. In contrast, the hallmarks of a failed mediation often include: an inadequate objective evaluation of one’s own case, a failure to fully support or vet the damages claimed, failure to make a cogent and competent case presentation in the joint session, or a failure to accurately estimate the transaction cost of proceeding to judgment (attorneys’ fees, expert fees, discounted risk of adverse judgment etc.). What follows are some practical observations and suggestions on how to be effective as an advocate in mediation. This is not meant to be exhaustive; it is meant to orient (or re-orient) counsel’s thinking as a mediation approaches.

Choose the Right Mediator

There are many schools of thought on how to pick the right mediator. Some argue that picking a mediator with deep substantive knowledge in the subject