main image

Posts Tagged ‘Arbitrators’ Selects The Loree Law Firm as one of the top 18 Best Arbitrators & Mediators in New York City out of 1,763 Reviewed

January 16th, 2020 Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, General, Loree & Loree, Mediation 7 Comments »
Arbitration | Loree & Loree

We were thrilled and honored to learn just recently that Loree & Loree was selected by out of a group of 1,763 persons or firms reviewed to be one of’s top 18 “Arbitrators & Mediators” in New York City for 2019. (See here.)’s “goal is to connect people with the best local experts.” (See here.)

The criteria used was reputation, credibility, availability, and professionalism.’s website describes those criteria in more detail and explains how top expert selections are made here and here.

In making its determination, “scored arbitrators & mediators on more than 25 variables across five categories, and analyzed the results to give you a hand-picked list of the best arbitrators & mediators in New York, NY.” (See here.) The category “Arbitrators & Mediators” includes firms, like L&L, which represent clients in arbitrations and in arbitration-law related disputes.

About L&L, said that “[t]he boutique firm is known for personalized service and reasonable fees and covers B2B litigation and arbitration, arbitration law, practice, and procedures, reinsurance, and insurance matters.” noted, among other things, that the “office has been quoted in Global Arbitration Review,” and “has considerable experience with the Federal Arbitration Act. . . .” (See here.)

You might also be interested in reading. . .

Second Circuit Sets Evident Partiality Standard for Party-Appointed Arbitrators on Industry Tripartite Arbitration Panels

2018-2019 Term SCOTUS Arbitration Cases: What About Lamps Plus?

Class Arbitration, Absent Class Members, and Class Certification Awards: Consent or Coercion?

Nuts & Bolts: Limitation Periods for Motions to Vacate, Modify, Correct and Confirm Domestic Arbitration Awards Falling Under Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act

Arbitration Law FAQs: Confirming Arbitration Awards under the Federal Arbitration Act

Delegation Agreements, Separability, Schein II, and the October 2019 Edition of CPR Alternatives



Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.



No Good Deed Should Go Unpunished: Functus Officio and Merion Constr. Mgt., LLC v. Kemron Environmental Serv., Inc.—Part I

May 3rd, 2014 American Arbitration Association, Appellate Practice, Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration and Mediation FAQs, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Construction Industry Arbitration, Final Awards, Functus Officio, Grounds for Vacatur, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, New Jersey State Courts, Practice and Procedure, State Arbitration Statutes, State Courts, Uncategorized Comments Off on No Good Deed Should Go Unpunished: Functus Officio and Merion Constr. Mgt., LLC v. Kemron Environmental Serv., Inc.—Part I

Courts usually err in favor of not vacating awards in close cases. As a result, Courts usually vacate awards only where there is a very clear, fundamental disconnect between the award and the parties’ arbitration agreement. Vacating an award in those circumstances enforces the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, which is exactly what the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and state arbitration codes are supposed to do. (See, e.g., L. Reins. & Arb. L. Forum post here.)

Today’s case, Merion Constr. Mgt., LLC v. Kemron Environmental Serv., Inc., No. A-2428-12T4, slip op. (N.J. App. Div. March 13, 2014), involved two disputed awards: the original arbitration award (the “Original Award”) and a subsequent, modified award (the “Modified Award”). The arbitrator (the “Arbitrator”) issued the Modified Award to correct a mistake in the Original Award, which had inadvertently omitted items of claimed damage that one of the parties had requested the Arbitrator to award. The Arbitrator said he intended to include those damage items in the Original Award. The Modified Award thus accurately reflected the parties’ agreement and submission and the Original Award did not.

Which Award should have been confirmed? Relying on the functus officio doctrine, and an American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) Rule concerning arbitral modification and correction of awards, the intermediate state appellate court reversed a trial court judgment confirming the Modified Award, and held that the Original Award should have been confirmed.

A few years back the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court prefaced one his opinions with the following truism: “People make mistakes. Even administrators of ERISA plans.” Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. 506, 509 (2010) (Roberts, C.J.). Had Merion Construction been decided correctly, then the New Jersey appellate court might have prefaced its opinion with a similar truism: “People make mistakes. Even arbitrators.” But based on how the case was decided a more fitting preface would have been: “No good deed should go unpunished. Even those perpetrated by arbitrators.” Continue Reading »

Improving Arbitration-Award Making and Enforcement by Faithfully Implementing the Purposes and Objectives of the Federal Arbitration Act

November 12th, 2013 Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, General, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Small Business B-2-B Arbitration Comments Off on Improving Arbitration-Award Making and Enforcement by Faithfully Implementing the Purposes and Objectives of the Federal Arbitration Act

Part I:

An Introduction to the Problem and its Solution

Arbitration can be a very effective way of resolving a wide range of disputes arising out of many legal and commercial relationships. It can benefit the parties if they make informed decisions about agreeing to it, and craft their agreement accordingly. It can benefit the courts and the general public by shifting to the private sector dispute-resolution costs that the public-sector would otherwise bear.

Arbitration is not a perfect form of dispute resolution (and none is, including court litigation). That is so even when parties carefully draft their arbitration agreements, and the parties, arbitrators, arbitration service providers and courts do their best to ensure the integrity and reliability of the process and otherwise strive to protect the legitimate expectations of the parties. But at least over the last couple of decades or so, arbitration has, in the opinion of many, become a less attractive alternative to court litigation than it was intended to be, could be and once was. Continue Reading »

The Agency Model of Arbitral Power: University of Chicago Law School Law and Economics Professor Tom Ginsburg Explains Why Deferential Review Does Not Necessarily Make Arbitration an Effective Substitute for Adjudication

April 7th, 2010 Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Grounds for Vacatur, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on The Agency Model of Arbitral Power: University of Chicago Law School Law and Economics Professor Tom Ginsburg Explains Why Deferential Review Does Not Necessarily Make Arbitration an Effective Substitute for Adjudication

In George Watts & Son v. Tiffany & Co., 248 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2001), then Circuit Judge (now Chief Judge) Frank H. Easterbrook of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said:   “What the parties may do, the arbitrator as their mutual agent may do.”  248 F.3d at 581.   Chief Judge Easterbrook made this statement in the course of defining the “manifest disregard” standard of review.  Applying his “agency model,” he concluded that “the ‘manifest disregard’ principle is limited to two possibilities:  an arbitral order requiring the parties to violate the law.  .  . , and an arbitral order that does not adhere to the legal principles specified by contract, and hence unenforceable under § 10(a)(4).”   Id

Chief Judge Easterbrook’s “agency” model of arbitral authority is instructive.  Just as agents derive their authority by the consent of the principal (subject to the rules of apparent and implied authority), arbitrators derive their authority from the parties via the arbitration agreement and the submission.  Subject to any restrictions in the arbitration agreement, the arbitrators’ powers to resolve a dispute under a broad arbitration agreement are arguably co-extensive with those of the parties that appointed them. 

But the model is not perfect.  First, unlike agents, arbitrators are not subject to the control of their principals and owe them no fiduciary duties.  Second, analogizing arbitrators as agents of the parties in the way Chief Judge Easterbrook does effectively empowers arbitrators not only to decide cases, but to negotiate settlements that the parties could have entered into.  It therefore does not require arbitrators to even arguably interpret the contract or apply the law:  As long as the arbitrators do not require the parties to violate the law, and as long as the arbitrators are at least arguably faithful to the parties’ expressed choice-of-law, if any, they can reach whatever decision they wish, whether by application of facts to legal norms or by a compromise settlement that may or may not be rooted in the parties’ agreement.    That arguably does not comport with the parties’ presumed, legitimate expectations.  For the arbitrator’s job is to decide cases; settlement is a matter for the parties, and should be subject to the parties’ control. 

University of Chicago Law School Professor Tom Ginsburg has written an excellent white paper that argues that the deferential standard of review espoused by Watts and other courts does not necessarily make arbitration an attractive substitute for litigation.  See Tom Ginsburg, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 502 (2d Series), The Arbitrator as Agent: Why Deferential Review Is Not Always Pro-Arbitration  (Dec. 2009) (copy available here).  He argues that a more searching standard of review would make the market for arbitrators more transparent, and thus more effective.  He advocates using Chief Judge Easterbrook’s agency model as an analytical framework for allowing parties to choose whether they prefer a very deferential standard of review, like that prescribed in Watts; something akin to de novo review, like that available in litigation; or something in between the two.  Professor Ginsburg is in the process of publishing in the University of Chicago Law Review an article based on his white paper. Continue Reading »

The LinkedIn Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group is 200 Members Strong!

July 24th, 2009 Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group, General 1 Comment »

On May 21, 2009 Disputing and the Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum announced the formation of a LinkedIn Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group (post available here), an open forum for the discussion of industry and commercial ADR.   At that time the group was 29 members strong, and we are pleased to report that the group has since grown to 200  members.  Discussions have been lively, the group is internationally and professionally diverse, and group members have access to several ADR blogs, as well as articles posted by other group members.  It is an excellent networking and learning opportunity for anyone interested in commercial and industry ADR.

Membership in the group is useful to those of us that are following the unfortunate developments plaguing consumer debt arbitration, and for those who want to keep abreast of  judicial and legislative developments relevant to arbitration law.   A number of industry arbitrators, attorneys, industry people  and arbitration professionals are members. 

Mediation is another key area that is the subject of group discussions and the posting of articles.  The group is proud to have as members a number of accomplished mediators.  Not being a mediator myself, I have learned much about mediation simply through group participation.    

We welcome new members.  Persons who should consider joining this group include arbitrators; mediators; in-house and outside counsel; law professors; dispute-resolution consultants; members of ADR organizations; business entity representatives and principals whose day-to-day responsibilities include dispute resolution; law students and other students of commercial and industry ADR; and anyone else interested in the subject.  The Group is not a forum for, and does not permit, advertising or blatant self-promotion, so our members need not worry about being subject to sales pitches, and the like. 

If you are already a member of LinkedIn, please click here to apply for membership in the Group. If you are not a LinkedIn member, click here, and you will be guided through the process of creating a profile (which does not have to be completed in one step).  Once your profile is started, and you have a log-in name and password, you can apply for membership in the Group (which entails no more than clicking on a button).  Joining LinkedIn is free, as is joining the group.

We hope you’ll join us and participate!