Today we present a guest post by Professor Peter Friedman concerning the argument for judicial power to void class action waivers and arbitration agreements based on state public policy grounds.
I met Peter through the LinkedIn Commercial and Industry Arbitration Group (learn about the group here). He’s a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Detroit Mercy Law School, where he teaches Contracts and Core Concepts. He also teaches U.S. Contract Law at the University of Windsor and the Universiteit van Amsterdam. He is currently on leave from the Case Western University School of Law, where he has been on the faculty since January 1996. He’s a very smart, creative guy who is devoted to the law, critical analysis of important legal issues, and, even more importantly, legal education.
Prior to entering the academic world, Peter spent eleven years immersed in the practice of commercial litigation in New York City, most recently as a partner in the New York City office of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. He graduated with his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1984 and his A.B. in Ancient Greek and Latin from Brown University in 1981.
Since August 2008, Peter has written a blog, Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity, that explores the ways law affects creative endeavors and the ways creativity informs the practice of law. Prior to Ruling Imagination, he authored What is Fair Use?, a blog he wrote in connection with an assignment in one of his legal writing classes in which his students drafted cross-motions for summary judgment for a copyright infringement lawsuit. Just this month Peter has also begun a blog, 1L Contracts, in which he intends to explore issues connected with the law of contracts as they arise through the coming academic year in his Contracts class at Detroit Mercy.
Peter recently wrote a two-part guest post for Disputing concerning class action waivers and mandatory arbitration agreements in consumer, online arbitration agreements, and whether courts should enforce such agreements. (Available here and here) That guest post discussed, among other things, the Massachussets Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Feeney v. Dell Inc., ___ Mass. ___, slip op. (July 2, 2009), which we had covered in two earlier posts, here and here.
To make a long story short, Peter took the liberty of critiquing our critical analysis of Feeney in a detailed comment, complete with citations. (Here) I promptly contacted him and suggested that he turn his comment into a guest-blog post to which we would respond. He graciously agreed to do that.
So today we offer Peter’s guest-post, “The Argument for Judicial Power to Void Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and Class Action Waivers on State Public Policy Grounds,” which shall be followed in the not too distant future by our response, “The Argument Against Judicial Power to Void Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and Class Action Waivers on State Public Policy Grounds.” Wherever you might come out on this controversial issue, we hope that you enjoy both posts.
Tags: Class Action Waivers, Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group, Disputing, Federal Arbitration Act, Feeney, Feeney v. Dell Inc., Fiser, Fiser v. Dell Inc., Mandatory Arbitration Agreements, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Online Consumer Transactions, Professor Peter Friedman
