Practice Management

Law Firms Pass On Arbitration In Employment Disputes

By Brian J. Ritchey

In an article for the upcoming issue of the National Law Journal  (NLJ) posted yesterday on their site, law firms are not taking their own advice when it comes to arbitration clauses in employment disputes.

Is this a case of what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?  Why would arbitration be a good idea for other businesses but not good for law firms?  The answer brings into question the utility of arbitration. 

The arguments for arbitration come from those who have been burned in litigation.  Litigation can have you sitting in front of a jury that likely has no experience in the subject matter at hand and may in fact have motives other than the subject matter at hand to deliver a large award to a plaintiff.   Arbitrators, on the other hand, are picked from within the industry from which the dispute arises and ostensibly provide a more fair, though equally binding, resolution at less cost than litigation.  Where litigation can hinge on perception, arbitration decisions are meant to be grounded in experience-laden fact.

According to the NLJ story, however, only 10% of 200 law firm respondents to a 2003 survey had "mandatory arbitration in place".  I assume this means that equity partners were bound by it through the partner agreement and that other employees were bound by it as a condition of employment, though it isn't specified in the article.  One reason cited is that arbitration clauses may have a detrimental effect on the workplace.  Said a partner with DLA Piper, "Your attorneys can perceive that you are materially changing their position vis-a-vis the firm and attempting to circumscribe the rights they might otherwise have."

I believe that statement holds true to any situation where arbitration exists, not just when applicable to law firms.  Any other reason to not have them?  The article paraphrased a partner in the New York office of Greenberg Traurig, writing "Arbitration [] no longer offers the benefits of a speedier, cheaper resolution, as proceedings have become bogged down in discovery and quasi-motion work that mirrors litigation."

If that is truly the case, then arbitration has a gloomy future indeed, and not just with law firms.  I brought up the article to an attorney I know who defends clients in arbitration and he told me some of his concerns with it:

• Arbitration has become very inefficient, with no control over evidence admission (ie, evidence can come in at any time);
• The arbitrators do not have the same fear of appeal that judges do and thus are unafraid to ignore precedent;
• The quality of arbitrators has declined.

This is in line with the NLJ article and indicates some serious problems with the arbitation system for dispute resolution.  As the attorney I spoke with said, "Our clients used arbitration to get away from runaway juries.  Now they are going back to the courts to get away from runaway arbitrators".

We have begun taking submissions for the 2008 Law Firm Economic Survey.  If your firm is interested in participating, please contact Brian by clicking here.

Full post as published by More Partner Income on April 04, 2008 (boomark / email).