Javier Rubinstein, Lucila Hemmingsen and Seth Meyer of Kirkland & Ellis write: Faster is not always better, as some disputes unavoidably require a more extensive dispute resolution. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. The key is to ensure that the dispute resolution process is thoughtfully selected by the parties to meet their needs.
Jordan E. Trager of Wisselman & Associates writes: Through efforts to provide a better understanding of the practice of divorce mediation, the courts will gain a greater appreciation of the unique role of divorce mediators, apart from other professionals, and will learn the unique role that divorce mediators can play.
Larry S. Schachner of NAM’s (National Arbitration and Mediation) writes: Private mediation allows cases to be resolved more quickly, more efficiently, with greater cost-effectiveness and with the parties maintaining greater control of the outcome, than allowing your case to slowly meander through the different stages of the court system’s litigation maze.
Christopher Ryan, Jon Greenblatt and Henry Weisburg of Shearman & Sterling write: While party autonomy is a benefit of arbitration, the selection of arbitrators by the parties can raise similar questions of dependence and partiality that cause parties to view local courts with skepticism. The participants in the international arbitral system have recognized the potential harm that could arise from unchecked concerns over arbitrator bias and, as a result, a web of overlapping rules and ethical guidelines governing arbitrators have emerged.
Dennis Tracey and David Michaeli of Hogan Lovells write: As recent cases make clear, enforcing arbitral awards against sovereign-owned entities is often expensive and difficult for a host of reasons, including weaknesses in the drafting of the arbitration agreements and judicial doctrines that may undermine a party’s ability to enforce arbitral awards. The good news is that many enforcement problems can be addressed at the drafting stage.
Richard De Palma of Thompson Hine writes: Multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses are generally enforceable under New York law, but counsel may encounter some twists if the clause is not carefully drafted or if the arbitrator or court is not properly educated on the legal effect of the language employed.