You are on page 1of 2

Arbitration – Plusses and Pitfalls

Steven N. Malitz
ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
120 SO U T H RI V E RSI D E P L A ZA | SU ITE 1200
CHI CA G O , I L 60606
P 312.876.71 34 | F 312.876.6 234
snmalitz@arnstein.com

In my last article entitled “Crafting a Strong Sales Contract,” appearing at


http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/Web-Exclusives/Viewpoints/Crafting-a-Strong-Sales-
Contract-53831.aspx, I wrote of the importance and huge potential cost savings to a business of
having a well-written contract with its customers. One such provision which has become more
commonplace in such contracts is an arbitration provision.

Arbitration is a type of out-of-court, alternative dispute resolution mechanism where a civil (non-
criminal) dispute may be heard and decided expeditiously, cost effectively and privately by an
arbitrator, instead of a judge or jury. After taking testimony, reviewing evidence and hearing
argument similar to a trial but without the same formal rules of procedure and evidence, the arbitrator
issues a binding “award,” which can be registered and enforced in court just like a judgment after a
trial.

While arbitration has become a popular form of dispute resolution, it may not be right for all
businesses, at all times. While arb "may" be faster, cheaper and confidential, it could hamper the
business in defending or bringing an action.

In Ware v. C.D. Peacock, Inc., a decision handed down by a federal trial judge in Chicago, a major
retailer required its employees to sign an employment agreement containing an arbitration provision.
The arbitration provision required that any disputes arising out employee’s employment with
employer be arbitrated instead of litigated in court.

Employee Ware sued employer in federal court claiming discrimination based on age, race and color
when she was demoted. Attempting to put the case out of court, employer raised the arbitration
clause in the employment agreement. In response, employee acquiesced to arbitration.

Before arbitration (where discovery is limited), counsel for employer sought permission from the
arbitrator to take the deposition of a non-party, who was a key witness for employee. The arbitrator
granted permission but the non-party moved to quash the subpoena in federal court arguing that the
Federal Arbitration Act prohibited depositions of non-parties before the actual arbitration hearing.
The federal judge agreed, meaning that counsel for employer could not depose this key witness
before the arbitration, leaving counsel guessing as to what this witness would testify to at arbitration.
So, while employer insisted on arbitration in its agreement—ostensibly to keep the dispute private
from the press and other would-be employee-plaintiffs—it was faced with going to hearing against its
employee on serious discrimination charges without knowing all the facts. Few litigators and surely
no business enjoys trial by ambush.

While many businesses prefer arbitration because it can be less expensive, quicker and private (not a
matter of public record like a lawsuit), great care should be taken in deciding whether arbitration is

1
actually preferable to court, whether all disputes should be subject to arbitration or “carved out” of the
arbitration provision, and what the content of arbitration provision should be.

When one of our service business clients—after consultation—has decided that arbitration is
appropriate in its agreement with its customers, we at times have crafted an arbitration provision, as
follows:

ARBITRATION. Any claim or controversy relating to this Agreement and the conduct, activities and
services of the Company, except a claim by Company against Client for the payment of any fee, shall
be resolved informally by the parties or by binding arbitration conducted in accordance with the rules
of the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA"), before one arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be
selected from a panel of arbitrators knowledgeable about the ______________ industry. The parties
agree that the laws of the State of Illinois will govern the interpretation of this Agreement. The parties
also acknowledge that venue for any arbitration or litigation relating to this Agreement and the
conduct, activities and services of the Company, will be within Chicago, Illinois. The arbitrator shall
hear motions to strike, motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, and enforce full discovery
rights in accordance with the provisions of Illinois Supreme Court Rules, the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure and Circuit Court of Cook County Local Rules. The parties may commence discovery upon
the selection of the arbitrator. Discovery shall be permitted for a period of not less than 120 days and
shall be concluded not less than 60 days prior to the final hearing. Within 30 days of the hearing, the
arbitrator must give a written award setting forth the material facts and legal basis for his or her
award. The arbitration award shall be final. Judgment upon the award may be confirmed by any court
having proper jurisdiction. IF CLIENT FAILS TO INITIATE A DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION WITH THE AAA
WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT, CLIENT SHALL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM
INITIATING ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE COMPANY. In such an event, it shall be
considered conclusive evidence that Client is satisfied with the Company's performance relating to the
Agreement and the conduct, activities and services of the Company, and Client agrees to release the
Company from any and all liability relating to the Agreement, and the conduct, activities and services
of the Company.

Note that the foregoing arbitration clause provides for discovery such that the business will not be
trying the case “blind”, like the employer in Ware. However, because full-blown discovery is provided
for in the above sample provision, that right is reciprocal and the client (or employee, as the case may
be) may also conduct discovery on the business. And, discovery can be costly, which offsets one of
the benefits of the streamlined arbitration process. However, on balance, and after exploring the
many factors which go into determining whether arbitration or court is better for the business, this
business—with assistance of counsel—opted for arbitration and the terms of this provision.

Accordingly, before a business decides on providing for arbitration in its contracts with its employees
or customers, legal counsel should be consulted. And in deciding whether arbitration is preferable to
court, counsel should brainstorm with the business about prior, pending and potential, future
disputes, covering all eventualities and other factors bearing on the content of the arbitration clause.

While arbitration may be the new, hot thing, it may not be for all businesses or for all types of disputes.
A business can control its destiny with a sound contract, including a solid, well-drafted arbitration
provision.

You might also like