US – NEW YORK
About us... ed-lawfirm.com Einbinder & Dunn’s vision today and since its formation more than 30 years ago, is to offer clients real value by providing personalised, cost-effective legal services. We offer a sophisticated practice closely tailored to the needs of each client. Based in Midtown Manhattan, with offices in White Plains and Millburn, New Jersey, Einbinder & Dunn serves mid-size and larger companies as well as small businesses and entrepreneurs. Our practice focuses on a range of key areas, including franchise law, commercial litigation, real estate law, business law, fashion law, restaurant law and trusts and estates. This range of highly diverse but interrelated areas of focus represent an array of proficiencies that our firm utilises to conceive unique, interdisciplinary strategies – the likes of which larger firms lack the versatility to employ – which are finely tuned to the individual needs of each client. Our years of experience in the areas in which we practice make us a recognised authority in many areas, such as franchising.
EXPERT VIEW: Arbitration versus Litigation
notable downsides. To start, despite being generally less expensive than litigation, arbitration can still be costly. Filing fees alone can be very high. The filing fee with JAMS, for example, is $1,750 for two-party matters, and $3,000 for matters with three or more parties. For AAA, filing fees depend on the amount disputed in the claim. At a minimum, filing fees are $1,725; at most, they can be (and often are) north of $25,000. In many arbitral organisations, the arbitrators are experienced practitioners. At JAMS they are often retired judges. In either case, because arbitrators are paid for the time they spend on a case the costs can quickly escalate. And these costs can triple when a case has to be decided by a panel of three arbitrators. Assume the hourly rate for an experienced arbitrator is $750 per hour and the hearing is three eight-hour days long. Arbitrators also charge for the time prior to the hearing and after the case is closed (and an award is drafted), which is often equal to time spent at a hearing. In this hypothetical case, an arbitrator will bill for 48 hours of time at $750 per hour. The total is $36,000. If there are three arbitrators, the fee is $108,000. In contrast, there is no cost to having a judge and jury hear a case. Judges are paid by the state or federal government and the jurors don’t charge the parties for their time. Even if the estimate is too high, it is easy to see how the costs of arbitration can be extreme. That’s true even if the process itself is more streamlined and it may not be, at least not all the time. There are trade-offs to consider in determining the best place to resolve cases. These choices are usually determined at the time a contract between the parties is drafted. If it has an arbitration clause, the choice is made before any dispute arises. Even when an agreement does not contain such a clause, the parties can agree to submit a dispute to arbitration. In any case, it is important to consider the relative benefits and downsides of each method of dispute resolution. An efficiently run arbitration with an experienced arbitrator (not a panel of three) in a case that is not exceedingly costly to file can be a great approach. That said, in larger cases, the costs can often be as high as a court case.
I n my practice, I have tried cases in court as well as in arbitration. I am also an arbitrator and have held numerous hearings as both an individual neutral and as a member of a panel. I have often discussed with other lawyers whether arbitration or litigation is the best method for dispute resolution. My experience and perspective as an advocate and an arbitrator lead me to an inevitable answer: it depends. The prevailing perception of arbitration is that it is faster, cheaper, and more efficient Michael Einbinder Founding Partner Einbinder & Dunn LLP
should not be taken for granted. To proceed with an action in the court system, the parties put themselves at the mercy of the court’s overcrowded calendars. Arbitration, on the other hand, offers much more flexibility. Hearings can usually be scheduled in a manner that is convenient for the parties involved. Further, arbitration’s rules of evidence are also less strict; these procedural rules can limit costly and time-consuming aspects of court cases, such as motion practice and discovery (for example, depositions). Because arbitration is quicker and is a generally less complicated process, legal fees tend to be lower in cases decided in arbitration. Importantly, arbitration hearings can be conducted privately, and decisions are not public, thereby affording confidentiality on top of efficiency.
Arbitrators are also often experts in the subject matter of disputes they preside over. In fact, some arbitration provisions require arbitrators who have such expertise. This process puts the chosen neutral in a unique position to limit costs and time by guiding a more tailored process. Finally, parties in arbitration have agency in the arbitrator-selection process (whereas there is none in court, where judges are assigned randomly) even when not choosing a subject matter expert. In arbitration, when a case is filed with JAMS or The American Arbitration Association, these prominent arbitral organisations usually provide a pool of potential arbitrators specific to the case. After that, parties begin the striking process, in which both sides can remove candidates that they see as problematic. Further, this allows (at least in theory) the parties to settle on an arbitrator most likely to leave them comfortable with the ultimate factfinder and decision-maker. But for all its efficiency and discretion, arbitration also carries
than litigation. This is true, with some caveats. In my experience as a litigator and an arbitrator, commercial cases take about nine months from initiation to completion, with some complex cases taking even longer. Disputes, whether in court or an arbitral forum, can be financially and sometimes emotionally taxing, and given the time differential between the two methods of dispute resolution, the opportunity to minimise this toll by reducing the length of a case
Michael Einbinder is a founding Partner of Einbinder & Dunn. He is a participating member of the American Bar Association Forum on Franchising as well as the New York City Bar Association. He is also a member of the International Franchise Association, the New York State Bar Association Committee on Franchising, and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Panel Memberships on Franchise Law, Commercial Law and Commercial Litigation). He is a Member of the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers, and is past chair of the American Franchisee Association Legal Symposium Steering Committee. He is also a member of the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution, participating in the Arbitration Committee and Ethics Committee.
“Because arbitration is quicker and is a generally less complicated process, legal fees tend to be lower.”
+1 2123 919 500 me@ed-lawfirm.com irglobal.com/advisor/michael-einbinder
44 | irglobal
irglobal | 45
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker