South Texas Law Review Vol.62 No.4

SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW

SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGEOF LAW HOUSTON HOUSTON, TEXAS

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE

The subscription price to South Texas Law Review is $32.50 per annum (plus applicable sales tax). The price for a single symposium issue is $25.00.

CURRENT ISSUES

Single issues in the current volume, including symposium and special issues, may be purchased from the Review by contacting Jacob Hubble at (713) 646-1749.

BACK ISSUES

Complete volumes and single issues prior to the current volume are available exclusively from William S. Hein Co., Inc., 2350 North Forest Road, Getzville, NY 14068, (800) 828-7571.

South Texas Law Review is published four times each year by the students of South Texas College of Law Houston. Four issues of the Review constitute one volume.

Subscriptions to South Texas Law Review are considered to be continuous and absent receipt of notice to the contrary, it is assumed that a renewal of the subscription is desired. Please notify Jacob Hubble of any change of address.

The Review welcomes the submission of unsolicited manuscripts. All submissions should be typed and double spaced with footnotes. Citations should conform with The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. eds., 21st ed. 2020) and, where applicable, the Texas Rules of Form (14th ed. 2018).

Except as otherwise noted, South Texas Law Review is pleased to grant permission for copies of articles, notes, and book reviews to be made for classroom use, provided that (1) a proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy; (2) the author and source are identified; (3) copies are distributed at or below cost; and (4) South Texas Law Review is notified of the use.

All communications should be addressed to:

South Texas Law Review

1303 San Jacinto, Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 646-1749 or Facsimile: (713) 646-2948

Copyright

All rights reserved.

2023, South Texas College of Law Houston

SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW

SYMPOSIUM 2023VOL. 62NO. 4

EDITORIAL BOARD

2022–2023

ZACH TROELL Editor in Chief

RYLIE GOLDWAIT Managing Editor

DAVID GRIFFIN Executive Editor

ASHLEY WOLLASTON Development Editor

COURTLAND PETTIGREW Research and Administrative Editor

MAHA GHYAS CRISTINA ORDONEZ

MIKHAEL KHAN EMMA PEREZ

EMILY MITCHELL RHEA VARGHESE Articles EditorsArticles Editors

ASSOC. DEAN CHERIE O. TAYLOR PROF. VAL D. RICKS Faculty AdvisorFaculty Advisor

PROF. SHELBY A.D. MOORE JACOB HUBBLE Faculty AdvisorScholarly Publications Coordinator

MEMBER, NATIONAL CONFERENCEOF LAW REVIEWS

SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW

SYMPOSIUM 2023VOL. 62NO. 4

MEMBERS

BRYSSA ACEVEDO MICHAEL GASSMAN NORA OGBUNUGAFOR

SHAHRUKH ALI KAYLA HAYNES URVI PATEL

JORDAN BARLEY DANIEL HOWRY SAMUEL PENDERGAST

JESSICA BELL JAKE JOHNSON ALEXANDRA PEREZ

CLARK BULLINGTON MIKHAEL KHAN DYLAN PRESSWOOD

KAITLYN CARRARA ZANE KOENIG KATHERINE ROSENDAHL

TYLER CIAVARRA KENDAHL WON LEE GABRIEL SEGOVIA

JUNIE DALICE LILLIAN LEE ISAAC SEGURA

MICHAEL DAVIS TAYLOR LEGER ELENA SMITH

IVAN DE LEON CRESPIN LINTON DIANA SORIANO

RAYMOND DENNISON MELANIE MADDEN KEVIN SZYMCZAK

TAYTE DODDY BOSTON MALLORY SIMONA TADDEI

AYESHA DURRANI MORGAN MCDANIEL KRISTINA TIPTON

KYRA EASTON KAITLYN MCKINNEY MARTHA VAZQUEZ

LANCE FELICIEN ARMON MEHRINFAR HILLARY WATERSTREET

DAMARIS FLORES COLIN MINX GUNNER WEST

JOSH FOJTIK LINDSEY MOORE MATTHEW WILLIAMS

D’MORNAQUAH FONTENOT SUMMER WILLIAMSON

The opinions expressed in the South Texas Law Review are those of the contributors and are not necessarily representative of the views of the editors of the Review or of South Texas College of Law Houston.

SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW

SYMPOSIUM 2023VOL. 62NO. 4

SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGEOF LAW HOUSTON

MICHAEL F. BARRY, President and Dean

CATHERINE GREENE BURNETT, Vice President, Associate Dean for Experiential Learning, Professor of Law, and Director of Pro Bono Honors Program

TED L. FIELD, Vice President, Associate Dean for Faculty, Professor of Law

DEREK FINCHAM, Associate Dean, Part-Time and Online Education, Professor of Law

MANDI GIBSON, Vice President, Student Services and Support

MAXINE D. GOODMAN, Associate Dean, Academic Success and Bar Readiness, Professor of Law

BRIDGETT JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Officer

CHERIE O. TAYLOR, Vice President, Associate Dean for Academics, Director of Institute for International Legal Practice and National Security, Professor of Law

FACULTY

MICHAEL F. BARRY, B.A., University of Virginia; M.A., University of San Francisco; J.D., Yale Law School; President and Dean, Professor of Law

DEBRA BERMAN, B.S., Georgetown University; J.D., American University Washington College of Law, Professor of Clinical Studies, Director of the Frank Evans Center for Conflict Resolution.

JOSH BLACKMAN, B.S., The Pennsylvania State University; J.D., George Mason University School of Law; Charles Weigel II Research Professor of Constitutional Law, Professor of Law

DRU BRENNER-BECK, B.S.F.S., Georgetown University School of Foreign Service; J.D., Boston University School of Law; LL.M. The Judge Advocate General’s School, U.S. Army; Assistant Professor of Law.

V ANESSA B ROWNE -B ARBOUR , B.A., Carnegie-Mellon University; J.D., Duquesne University School of Law; Professor of Law.

CATHERINE GREENE BURNETT, B.A.,University of Texas; J.D., University of Texas School of Law; Vice President, Associate Dean, Professor of Law, and Director of the Pro Bono Honors Law Program

ELAINE A. CARLSON, B.S., Southern Illinois University; M.A., McMaster University; J.D., South Texas College of Law Houston; Stanley J. Krist Distinguished Professor of Texas Law; 2008 Distinguished Alumna and Professor of Law

RICHARD R. CARLSON, B.A., Wake Forest University; J.D., University of Georgia School of Law; Professor of Law

AMANDA HARMON COOLEY, B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; J.D., University of North Carolina School of Law; Vinson & Elkins Research Professor, Professor of Law

DANIEL R. CORREA, B.A., University of California at Los Angeles; J.D., Oklahoma City University School of Law; LL.M. New York University School of Law; Associate Professor of Law.

FRANK FAGAN; B.S., Grove City College; M.A., University of Bologna; Ph.D., Erasmus University Rotterdam School of Law; Ph.D. University of Bologna Department of Economics; J.D. University of Pittsburgh School of Law; LL.M., Hamburg University School of Law; Associate Professor of Law.

MATTHEW J. FESTA,B.A. University of Notre Dame; M.P.A., Murray State University; M.A., Vanderbilt University; J.D., Vanderbilt University Law School; Professor of Law.

TED L. FIELD, B.A., University of Illinois at Chicago; M.A., Northwestern University; J.D., The John Marshall Law School; Vice President, Associate Dean, and Professor of Law.

DEREK FINCHAM,B.A., University of Kansas; J.D., Wake Forest University School of Law; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen School of Law; Associate Dean, Professor of Law

SHARON FINEGAN, B.A., University of Virginia; J.D., American University Washington College of Law; LL.M., Columbia Law School; Professor of Law.

ROBERT L. GALLOWAY, B.B.A., Southwestern University; J.D., South Texas College of Law Houston; Vice President of Advocacy, W. James Kronzer Jr. Distinguished Professor of Advocacy, and Professor of Law.

PAMELA E. GEORGE, B.S., University of Texas; M.L.S., University of Texas; J.D., University of Texas School of Law; Professor of Law

MAXINE D. GOODMAN, B.A., Brandeis University; J.D., University of Texas School of Law; Associate Dean, Professor of Law.

R. RANDALL KELSO, B.A., University of Chicago; J.D., University of Wisconsin Law School; Spurgeon E. Bell Distinguished Professor of Law

RACHAEL KOEHN,B.A., University of Missouri; B.J., University of Missouri; J.D., Baylor University School of Law; Visiting Assistant Professor.

CHRISTOPHER S. KULANDER, B.S., Wright State University; J.D., University of Oklahoma College of Law; Ph.D., Texas A&M University; Director of the Harry L. Reed Oil & Gas Law Institute, Professor of Law.

JOSEPH K. LEAHY,B.A., Swarthmore College; J.D. New York University School of Law; Professor of Law.

KATERINA LEWINBUK, B.A., Minnesota State University; J.D., John Marshall Law School; Professor of Law

BETTY J. LUKE,B.S., Lamar University; B.S., University of Texas Medical Branch; J.D., South Texas College of Law Houston; LL.M., University of Houston Law Center; Professor of Clinical Studies

BRUCE A. MCGOVERN, B.A., Columbia University; J.D., Fordham University School of Law; LL.M., University of Florida College of Law; Professor of Law.

SHELBY A.D. MOORE, B.A., Towson State University; J.D., University of Baltimore School of Law; LL.M., Harvard Law School; Vice President for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Professor of Law.

JAMES L. MUSSELMAN, A.A., Illinois Central College; B.S., Illinois State University; J.D., Brigham Young University; J. Reuben Clark Law School; Professor of Law

RYAN H. NELSON, B.S.B.A., University of Florida; J.D., Benjamin N. Cordozo School of Law; LL.M., Harvard Law School; Assistant Professor of Law.

FRANCESCA ORTIZ, B.A., University of Texas; J.D., Harvard Law School; Professor of Law

PHILLIP E. PAGE, B.S., University of Tennessee; J.D., Memphis State University College of Law; LL.M., New York University School of Law; Professor of Law

JAMES W. PAULSEN, B.F.A., Texas Christian University; J.D., Baylor University School of Law; LL.M., Harvard Law School; Professor of Law.

AMANDA J. PETERS,B.A., Texas Tech University; J.D., Texas Tech University School of Law; Godwin Lewis PC Research Professor, Professor of Law

JEAN FLEMING POWERS, B.A., University of Texas; J.D., University of Houston Law Center; Professor of Law.

SCOTT REMPELL,B.A., University of Michigan; J.D., American University, Washington College of Law; Professor of Law.

JEFFREY L. RENSBERGER, B.A., Wabash College; J.D., Indiana University, Bloomington; Charles Weigel II Research Professor of Conflict Laws, Professor of Law.

CHARLES W. “ROCKY” RHODES,B.B.A., Baylor University; J.D., Baylor University School of Law; Charles Weigel lI Research Professor of State and Federal Constitutional Law, Professor of Law.

VAL D. RICKS, B.A., Brigham Young University; J.D., Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School; Professor of Law

NJERI MATHIS RUTLEDGE, B.A., Spelman College; J.D., Harvard Law School; Professor of Law.

D’ANDRA MILLSAP SHU, B.S., Weber State University; J.D., University of Houston Law Center; Assistant Professor of Law.

MARK R. SIEGEL, B.S., B.A., University of Florida; J.D., Florida State University College of Law; LL.M., Emory University School of Law; Professor of Law.

ANDREW T. SOLOMON, B.A., University of Michigan; J.D., Boston University School of Law; Professor of Law

MARK E. STEINER, B.A., University of Texas; J.D., University of Houston Law Center; Ph.D., University of Houston; Professor of Law.

DRU STEVENSON,B.A., Wheaton College; J.D., University of Connecticut School of Law; LL.M., Yale Law School; Wayne Fisher Research Professor, Professor of Law

CHERIE O. TAYLOR, A.B., Harvard University—Radcliffe College; J.D., University of Georgia School of Law; LL.M., Georgetown University Law Center; Vice President, Associate Dean, and Professor of Law.

KATHERINE T. VUKADIN, B.A., University of Houston; J.D., The University of Texas School of Law; Professor of Law.

MICHAEL WHITMIRE,A.B., Harvard University; J.D., University of Texas School of Law; Visiting Assistant Professor

KENNETH WILLIAMS, B.A., University of San Francisco; J.D., University of Virginia School of Law; Professor of Law.

JOHN J. WORLEY, A.B., University of Georgia; J.D., University of Georgia School of Law; M.A., Rice University; Director of Transactional Law Practice Certificate Program, Professor of Law

KEVIN M. YAMAMOTO, B.S., University of California at Davis; J.D., University of San Diego School of Law; LL.M., University of Florida College of Law; Professor of Law

LISA YARROW, B.A., Texas A&M University; J.D., South Texas College of Law Houston; Assistant Dean, Bar Preparation and Academic Support; Assistant Professor, Clinical Studies.

SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGEOF LAW HOUSTON

BOARDOF DIRECTORS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

GENORA KENDRICK BOYKINS ‘85 Board Chair

J. KENNETH JOHNSON ‘86 Immediate Past Chair

HON. THERESA W. CHANG ‘96

STEWART W. GAGNON ‘74

CHRIS HANSLIK ‘95

MICHAEL W. MILICH ‘97

RANDALL O. SORRELS ‘87

RUTHIE NELSON WHITE ‘96

MICHAEL S. HAYS ’74, EXOFFICIO

DON D. JORDAN ’69, EXOFFICIO

MEMBERS

DARRYL M. BURMAN ‘83

MICHAEL E. COKINOS

APARNA DAVE ‘02

EPHRAIMDEL POZO ‘97

RANDY R. HOWRY ‘85

NICHOLAS J. LANZA, JR. ‘89

JOSEPH K. LOPEZ ‘78

MARY-OLGA LOVETT ‘93

CATINA HAYNES PERRY ‘06

ANDREW SOMMERMAN ‘86

JAMES D. THOMPSON III ‘86

CHAIRMEN EMERITUS

MICHAEL S. HAYS ’74

DON D. JORDAN ’69

ADVISORY DIRECTORS

LARRY BAILLARGEON ’74

HON. ROBERT A. ECKELS ’93

IMOGEN S. PAPADOPOULOS ’84

GORDON QUAN ’77 viii

SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW

LAW REVIEW ADVISORY COUNCIL

MEMBERS

N. TERRY ADAMS, JR.

HON. JEFF BOHM

JAMES D. SEEGERS

DRU STEVENSON

DULCIE G. WINK

JOHN J. WORLEY

SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW

SYMPOSIUM 2023VOL. 62NO. 4

SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGEOF LAW HOUSTON

TRANSCRIPTS

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONSIN PRE-DISPUTE CLAUSE CONSTRUCTION, SELECTINGAN ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONOR SELF-ADMINISTERED ARBITRATION, AND THE USEOF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES ...........

Roger Greenberg 533

M. Imad Khan

Judge Daryl Moore

Denise Peterson

FOUNDATIONSOF EFFECTIVE ARBITRATION AND PRACTICE IMPLEMENTATION

Patrick Aana 557

Rafael Boza

Stacey Barnes

Meredith Craven

Robert C. Rice

RULEMAKINGIN ARBITRATION .............. Geoffrey H. Bracken 573

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

OIL & GAS ARBITRATION

Robert C. Rice 583

Geoffrey H. Bracken 603

COMMERCIAL/CONSUMER ARBITRATION ........ Roger Greenberg 615

CONSTRUCTION ARBITRATION ...................... Ben Aderholt 627

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ...................... Rafael Boza 639

Meredith Craven

MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS ARBITRATION .......... Stacey Barnes 657

Ethical Life Cycle of Arbitration

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Impact of West Tankers on Parties ’ Choice of a Seat of Arbitration

. 2021 International Arbitration Survey: Adapting Arbitration to a Changing World

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Arbitrating Antitrust Claims: From Suspicion to Trust

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical Life Cycle of Arbitration

FOUNDATIONS OF EFFECTIVE A RBITRATION

Really,

really, really never

FOUNDATIONS OF EFFECTIVE A RBITRATION

FOUNDATIONS OF EFFECTIVE A RBITRATION

FOUNDATIONS OF EFFECTIVE A RBITRATION

AT&T v. Concepcion

American Express v. Italian Colors

Epic Systems v. Lewis

Epic Systems v. Lewis Italian Colors

FOUNDATIONS OF EFFECTIVE A RBITRATION

FOUNDATIONS OF EFFECTIVE A RBITRATION

FOUNDATIONS OF EFFECTIVE A RBITRATION

RULEMAKING IN ARBITRATION

GEOFFREY H.BRACKEN

I will try not to repeat topics you've heard, but I wholeheartedly agree that you must read the arbitration clause. If you have not gotten that by now, you need to leave the room.

Most of the contracts that I am involved with, either litigation or

The arbitration clause might be a very small part of a multi-page document. Likewise, we arbitrate and litigate oil supply agreements and midstream gas contracts, which cover a host of legal issues.

I agree with everything that the previous panel members have talked about with regard to the arbitration clause. However, I want to sensitize you all to some other things in your contract that will involve not only the going forward.

First off, is everybody here taking trial advocacy or some kind of trial advocacy course? Okay, has anybody taken arbitration advocacy? I assume you have a class like that here at South Texas, right? Arbitration? Arbitration is an intersection of the law and the facts, whereas if you were in front of a jury, the jury would decide the facts, and the judge would apply the law to the facts.

In many instances, you have very able arbitrators, like Judge Moore. So he necessarily has an understanding of not only the law but also will hear the facts. So when you advocate in an arbitration proceeding, it is not unusual to

This presentation, given on February 25, 2022, was part of the South Texas College of Law Houston Law Review Symposium titled Ethical Life Cycle of Arbitration. It focused on a number of ethical issues related to different areas of arbitration.

Geoffrey H. Bracken is the former managing partner of the Denver office of Foley & Lardner and is currently the colitigation practice emphasizes commercial, construction, copyright infringement, wrongful death and personal injury disputes, in particular disputes related to oil and gas exploration and production. He has represented individuals and businesses in both personal injury and commercial litigation matters in trials, on appeals, and, increasingly, in arbitration proceedings. Mr. Bracken has tried in excess of 65 cases including 25 reported cases, and conducted numerous domestic and international arbitrations. He represents employers, individuals and business entities, both public and private.

meld the two. You talk about the law and how the law applies to the facts, something that you would not do if you were in the courtroom because the ine. It is a little different. So I

There is no third-party beneficiary language, which you would typically put into a contract. By that, I mean you want to know who your counterparty is. You heard some comments earlier this morning about how you do not want affiliates, or you do not want third parties necessarily being part of your - contract gives you a leg-up in making that argument.

So all you had to do to try and get out of an arbitration agreement was to allege that it was fraudulently induced, and the judge back then would say,

of you probably already know that Texas Supreme Court case. It has language tha they are wholly relying upon their and their own advisors, including their

And then you add whatever you want to the arbitration clause. And then, from a drafting standpoint, we have heard many caveats from some of the folks up here, and I think they are all valid. There is language that we use quite frequently because it has been approved by none other than the Texas

make it unambiguous, open, and obvious, you put that language in, and you are good to go.

So those are my thoughts on the contract, but how you deal with your opposing counsel is very important. In trial advocacy, as in many things in - -gander rule goes something that ruling? Because I will

When drafting a contract, you need to think about that. Is this so in my Bracken. You put that in your contract, so I thought you wanted it to apply

sure there is some symmetry in terms of the rights and obligations.

If you plan on practicing in Houston, you will be very familiar with the American Arbitration Association, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, or JAMS. JAMS has recently become a viable administration to

administer rules and arbitrators. They vet the arbitrators and provide lawyers with information on where they have been, what they have done, and if they are any good.

Self-administered arbitration is not necessarily a bad thing, but there are risks that can be mitigated. Those who choose to self-administer arbitration should, at the very least, pick a set of rules for the arbitrator they choose to be bound by. JAMS and AAA have set rules that can be used by those that choose this route. To go into a self-administration without any established rules is to set yourself up for failure.

The benefits of arbitration include confidentiality, providing finality, and competent arbitrators.1 As to competent arbitrators, most arbitrators are judges. This can be vital in arbitration, especially if there is a sticky legal issue before a panel of arbitrators that includes a judge. Most likely, the other arbitrators will ask the judge how he interprets the issue. Thus, there is much strategy to picking arbitrators, much like picking a jury for trial. When going to trial, lawyers will try to pick a jury that will side with them, not one that is reasonable and fair. The same calculus needs to be used when picking arbitrators.

The finality is important. It has not been discussed, but many clients, especially corporations, believe that the award's finality is important. They do not have years of appellate litigation. They do not have the time. They do not have time-value money issues. So, finality does come into the process in terms of whether or not you should go to arbitration.

The cons are self-explanatory, though. Nobody has discussed the fourth one split the baby and it is a real deal.2 As you heard, it is a real deal because the arbitrators try and do a good job. But by the same token, repeat business is preferred. So, if they go all the way for one side or the other, they will alienate that lawyer or that firm from picking them later, so you just need to be aware of this.

Why do I tell you this stuff? Because this is your first interaction with opposing counsel. Do you want to go to arbitration? Typically, there have been demand letters back and forth. Maybe you are involved as a lawyer. Maybe you are not involved as the lawyer, but now they say they will sue you. You need to pick up the phone, talk to your opposing counsel, and say, we have an arbitration agreement? If we have an arbitration agreement, do we really want to go to arbitration? Maybe

agreement, the parties can still agree to go to the courthouse and solve their

1 Author refers to his PowerPoint slides, located at [https://perma.cc/78G8-ZTZS].

2 Id.

issues. You need to have these initial discussions with your counterpart across the aisle about how you will go forward on this.

Once you decide that you will arbitrate and you have heard this before remember that arbitration is a creature of contract. If you get anything from today, you have to look at the clauses; it is a contract creature. Here is who can bring the arbitration as a general rule.3 Counterparties yes. Affiliates no. Third parties no, unless estoppel applies. That is where

you are in a contract with Party A, but Party B is the one that is benefiting from that contract, whether or not Party B should be part of the arbitration as well. Strangers never. You cannot be a stranger to a contract and enforce arbitration because it is a creature of contract.

I want to shift from the clauses and focus on these important provisions.4 Choice of law I think everybody knows what that is. The good news is we have very good law in Texas. At least, it is currently being refined as to how arbitrations are to be done and that sort of thing. We choose Texas law not only because we are here but also because there is a body of law that can help the parties resolve certain issues regarding arbitration.

Forum selection clauses you heard the earlier panel discuss choosing a site for arbitration. I could not agree more, but you also need to get a site in terms of where you will go to enforce that arbitration. Or the converse of that, trying to get it set aside.

The number and qualifications of arbitrators I think that has already been discussed.

Here is something that was not really discussed. It is the bane of every discovery matters. And I cannot stress how important it is. Once you get your law license, discovery matters are the bane of our existence. And they are typically the bane of our existence because you have lawyers on the other side who think that discovery is a mechanism to pressure the other side to gain a settlement or a favorable ruling. From my standpoint, if you have lawyers doing that to you, you tend to work twice as hard, maybe even three times as hard, to beat those people. So, I would suggest that when you get out and start practicing, pick up the phone and talk to the lawyer on the other side, especially regarding discovery matters in arbitration. But not just an arbitration. Even in a trial.

Here is the problem with the discovery. Getting subpoenas out in arbitration can be difficult. With the approval of the other side, they become much more accessible. How many depositions are you going to take, who are you going to take, can you get a corporate rep, or is a corporate rep even

3 Author refers to his PowerPoint slides, located at [https://perma.cc/3CJ6-UT52].

4 Id.

allowed? All these things are discussions that you have to have openly with the other side. And again, I am going to go back to where I started. Good for the goose is good for the gander. So, if you want to propose something to the

think through it, get with your client before you make that call so that you guys are all on board, and you go forward.

Even the use of depositions is something. In the courthouse, you can use certain depositions if the party or the witness is unavailable. There are federal rules and state rules, and that is something that you need to hash out. The most important thing is the scheduling order. Scheduling order parties are provided to the panel, and the panel then adopts that as their order. And it governs things such as how many depositions and how many requests for admissions, if any. You can do all the things you would otherwise do in a civil suit in arbitration through the scheduling order.

The last panel talked about how the courts get involved in arbitrations. Generally, they do not. But I want to talk to you about certain things they do get involved in. So, this is a case that is near and dear to my heart. It is one we argued in front of the Texas Supreme Court. It is the case on waiver of arbitration, and essentially, what Perry Homes v. Cull says is you cannot go throug

rather good facts for our client, Perry Homes. The other side had forgotten to designate an expert, realized they did not have the right expert for the trial starting in two weeks, and then sent notice of arbitration. Texas Supreme Court held that is a waiver.

You heard about compelling arbitration, which is also an important function of the trial court. Typically, arbitrations are to be proceedings with your counterparty and your counterparty alone. You usually do not have class actions, and you do not have multiple parties joining in the same arbitration. This was an actual case, an issue, where the lawyer on the other side wanted to parade at least two, possibly three, ex-employees in the same arbitration to show some kind of pattern of conduct. The judge rightfully found that, no, it is an individual proceeding; you can all proceed separately.

Let us look at exactly what the Texas Act is. So, you have heard a lot about the written agreement. Obviously, you cannot have an oral arbitration

has told you today: getting one of these awards confirmed is relatively easy. Trying to get one set aside is, however, very, very difficult. The federal statute has much of the same burdens of proof. The difference in the federal statute is that you have to have a transaction involving interstate commerce, which is pretty much everything in this day and age.

So that is one of the issues you want to look at. One of the issues you think the governing law is here? Do you think it is the Texas Act? Do you same place. This is a confirmation complaint that we filed in federal court. 5 Looking at paragraphs thirteen and fourteen and the highlighted language, you can see just how difficult it is to set one of these aside and how easy it is to confirm that award.

So, I thought I would give you guys some real-life clauses, and you can see some of the things I have talked about. If you look at (e), it has notwithstanding language, which allows you to provide an injunctive remedy to the extent that you need inner measures. As the lawyers explained to you earlier, it is very difficult to have an injunction issued by the arbitrator because how will you enforce it? The arbitrator does it, and it is not a final award, so you cannot very well take it and confirm with the trial court. So, it is very important that you have access to the trial courts to address certain things like that.

We heard about the receivership. That is not something arbitration can provide; you need to do it on your own. Again, much like everyone else before me has said, you are selecting the number of arbitrators, where the dispute is, where it is conducted, and how it is conducted.

Hopefully, the takeaway is that arbitration is there for a reason: it is an expedient way to get resolutions resolved. However, you will not be able to do it in an economical and prompt fashion without talking to the lawyer on the other side.

Thank you very much for your time. If you have any questions, I am happy to answer them.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: At what point do you address the confidentiality of the proceedings?

MR. BRACKEN: So, the confidential proceeding is the arbitration. When you bring an arbitration, it is by its very nature confidential. That confidentiality goes away, however, vis-à-vis the award if you want to get it confirmed. It becomes a public document. Therefore, I can show you that on the screen. Does anybody have anything else?

5 Author refers to his PowerPoint slides, located at [https://perma.cc/2KEB-CBEM].

AUDIENCE MEMBER: In general, can you tell me how you feel your current arbitration practice has added to your practice overall, and if you see any trends moving forward with arbitration versus traditional litigation?

MR. BRACKEN: Sure. There will always be a place for traditional litigation, but certain industries tend to have these kinds of arbitration provisions, like the midstream gas industry. If you guys are ever involved in that, you will see all kinds of arbitration agreements. The NAESB (North American Energy Standards Board) is a form that has an arbitration agreement as part and parcel of that. So, the nature of the business will dictate whether or not you will do more arbitration.

In the past year, we have done three jury trials in beautiful West Virginia and six arbitrations. When gas contracts and the winter storm Murray we had to deal with.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: During an arbitration, what are some practical ways to interact with opposing counsel who may not be as amenable to certain rules or has just proven to be a difficult opposing counsel?

MR. BRACKEN: It does not play very well in arbitration, and it does not play very well in the jury trial. If you have a jerk on the other side, there

brother-in- -inpeople should conduct themselves. It is much more important in an arbitration setting, where you typically have ex-judges and lawyers; most of those folks understand and appreciate that you have to treat people like you

you are a jerk in front of the panel, you will not know it until you get the award, and you might not like it.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a question about dispositive motions in arbitration.

MR. BRACKEN: Yes, and I am glad you brought this up. Nothing in the rules talks about dispositive motions, per se. By dispositive motions, we mean summary judgments, motions to dismiss, and those kinds of things. However, no panel is going to tell you not to file one. What they will

important to follow those motions, and you tell me if you think I am right because you have been on the panel. They educate the panel. They educate

the arbitrators. They illustrate the issues the three or four legal issues. Typically, most cases boil down to five documents and three issues. So, you might as well get those five documents and three issues out there, in a written form, so they can take them home with a glass of wine

AUDIENCE MEMBER: [Question inaudible]

MR. BRACKEN:It helps to have judges on the panel because they have seen so many summary judgments that they can read throug

panel so they can make an informed decision, and it helps early in the case. When you file a motion for summary disposition three days before the final hearing out early.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: In my experience, most arbitrators do not grant dispositive motions; they carry them with the case.

MR. BRACKEN: Of course.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay, here is what I do as the arbitrator. I say: determine whether I want them to spend the money and time because we are supposed to save money, and it is supposed to be efficient. I find the letter gives me that advanced look.

MR. BRACKEN: Right. I am not suggesting to you guys that you will file a summary judgment, and the arbitration will just go away. You can put something in the scheduling order so the panel is not surprised when you file a dispositive motion because the parties must contemplate filing a dispositive motion before a certain date. As long as I have been doing this, I have only had one granted, and it was a standing issue.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have never had one.

MR. BRACKEN: Well, you have to look at standing.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I wanted to add to the point of confidentiality. It is true that you lose confidentiality because you are recording, but you can file it under seal. Mostly with a trade secrets case or when there are trade secrets within the dispute.

MR. BRACKEN: And that is a good point. I mean, if you have an award in your hand and the time period passes, you have some leverage, right? Because some counterparties do not want that award made public. So, that is something you can leverage as a winner in arbitration.

Ethical Life Cycle of Arbitration

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

Comparison of AAA, JAMS, CPR Commercial Rules (7th Blogiversary!)

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

utterly

failure to disclose vastly

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

Alternative Dispute Resolution

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

Forced into arbitration, 12,500 drivers claim Uber won’t pay fees to launch cases

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

always

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

predispute

The Limits of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act,

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION

Ethical Life Cycle of Arbitration

Ridge Natural Resources

Ethical Life Cycle of Arbitration

C OMMERCIAL /C ONSUMER A RBITRATION

C OMMERCIAL /C ONSUMER A RBITRATION

C OMMERCIAL /C ONSUMER A RBITRATION

C OMMERCIAL /C ONSUMER A RBITRATION

C OMMERCIAL /C ONSUMER A RBITRATION

Texaco v. Pennzoil

C ONSTRUCTION A RBITRATION

Cleveland v. Levco

C ONSTRUCTION A RBITRATION

C ONSTRUCTION A RBITRATION

v. Ayala

. See generally id.

. See generally id.

. See generally id. . Id.

Olshan

. See generally

C ONSTRUCTION A RBITRATION

Perry

Perry v. Cull

C ONSTRUCTION A RBITRATION Leach

Ethical Life Cycle of Arbitration

I NTERNATIONAL A RBITRATION

I NTERNATIONAL A RBITRATION

Id.

I NTERNATIONAL A RBITRATION

. See generally

I NTERNATIONAL A RBITRATION

stare decisis

I NTERNATIONAL A RBITRATION

I NTERNATIONAL A RBITRATION

I NTERNATIONAL A RBITRATION

Ethical Life Cycle of Arbitration

MERGERS &ACQUISITIONS ARBITRATION

MERGERS &ACQUISITIONS ARBITRATION

MERGERS &ACQUISITIONS ARBITRATION

MERGERS &ACQUISITIONS ARBITRATION

MERGERS &ACQUISITIONS ARBITRATION

MERGERS &ACQUISITIONS ARBITRATION