Mock Arbitration Exercises Boost Case Strategy

A valuable perspective on how mock arbitrations can help counsel sharpen their presentation and anticipate how a tribunal may respond well before the hearing. An important tool in effective case preparation.

Pure guessing is a coin flip. Pure judging is Dworkin's Judge Hercules, an adjudicator with superhuman intellect and infinite time. No real court sits at either end. Horst Eidenmüller and Anna-Sophie Hochgürtel argued on the Oxford Business Law Blog that jurors rewarded for matching the majority predict the crowd instead of judging the case. Federico Ast, William George and Facundo Trotz reply that the focal point jurors converge on is a strategy, not an outcome: reading the same record by the same rules. Courts also decide between the two poles, under standards of proof and incomplete information, and Kleros sits on the same spectrum. The full article is in the first comment.

John Amabile and Olivia Landrum wrote an article in the Daily Report | ALM about how a recent decision from the Georgia Supreme Court not to consider an arbitration appeal highlights an important consideration for Georgia businesses. For businesses, the takeaways from the yearslong arbitration dispute are clear, they wrote in the article. The court’s ruling emphasizes the need for a clearly drafted arbitration agreement. This includes clearly defining who has the right to decide the question of whether a party agreed to arbitrate: the court or the arbitrator. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eBisFUrQ

One contract had an arbitration clause. The other didn’t. So who decides whether the dispute belongs in arbitration? In Drusch v. Borchers, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals said: the arbitrator. Because the operating agreement left it to the arbitrator to decide scope, the Texas Business Court could not decide whether claims under a separate security agreement fell outside the arbitration. The lesson: An arbitration clause in one contract may control who decides disputes arising under another.

U.S. District Judge Mia Roberts Perez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania determined that while the plaintiff, a child, agreed to the terms of use on multiple occasions, the child later disaffirmed the terms of use and the defendant failed to present evidence that would invalidate the disaffirmance. Thus, the court determined the plaintiff "cannot be bound by the contract." Patrick Huyett of Anapol Weiss, in Philadelphia, told reporter Riley Brennan that courts are divided over whether disaffirmance reaches a contract’s delegation clause, which is where the arbitration issue comes into play. Huyett said arbitration agreements often include delegation provisions requiring an arbitrator, rather than a court, to decide challenges to the agreement's enforceability. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/gnYRBFWB

A dispute doesn't end when everyone agrees to stop fighting. It ends when the agreement is in writing, signed, and specific about what it covers. Resolutions unravel months later because the release language is vague. One side assumes it covers every future claim, the other assumes it only covers what's already on the table, and nobody wrote down what happens if either side breaks the new deal. However you get there, whether through negotiation, arbitration, or a courtroom settlement, the resolution itself deserves as much attention as the dispute did. Skip that part, and nothing is resolved. You've bought some time before round two.

Contract disputes can turn on the language of an agreement, the parties’ conduct, and the evidence supporting each side’s interpretation. Bochetto Lentz & Heim recently secured a $1.6 million jury verdict in a contract dispute involving attorneys. The case required careful examination of the contractual obligations, the parties’ positions, and the evidence presented at trial.

Two ICC Hearing Centres. One commitment to dispute resolution. From 1 October, we will assume full management of the ICC Hearing Centre in São Paulo. Following eight years of partnership with CNI - Confederação Nacional da Indústria, the transition will enable us to further strengthen our global hearing services. Together, the ICC Hearing Centres in São Paulo and Paris provide purpose-built facilities designed to support arbitration and ADR proceedings, along with seamless services for businesses, counsel and arbitrators worldwide. 🔗 More here: https://bit.ly/47zGX7L

I'm happy to announce that the report I co-authored with Maciej Padamczyk for the World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO on "Judicial Structures and Procedural Rules for Intellectual Property Disputes" has been published today. Drawing on the law and practice of eleven jurisdictions, the report provides an overview of judicial structural options, the types and roles of judges and court-appointed experts, IP specific procedures, and related policy considerations. The report offers objective, practical insights to support policymakers and judiciaries considering reform of IP dispute resolution systems. Available to download via the link below. https://lnkd.in/eNRErr9w

One of the first questions confronting a party served with a notice of intention to arbitrate is when it must seek judicial intervention. CPLR 7503(c) generally requires a party to move to stay arbitration within twenty days of service or be precluded from later objecting to arbitration. Disputes often arise, however, over whether the statutory period was properly triggered and whether an exception permits judicial review after the deadline. New York courts recognize important limits on CPLR 7503(c)’s preclusive effect. A party may challenge arbitration after the twenty-day period where it disputes the existence of an arbitration agreement, and a materially defective notice may be insufficient to trigger the statute. In Matter of Ean Holdings, LLC v. Samuels, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 51647(U), the motion court applied both exceptions, holding that a late Article 75 petition was not barred and directing a framed-issue hearing on a threshold arbitrability dispute. Our discussion of Matter of Ean Holdings, LLC v. Samuels can be found by clicking the following link: https://lnkd.in/eJm6-gDe