Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

A tragedy of only somewhat less than Shakespearean proportions began to unfold in a recent private arbitration soon after prolonged negotiations had finally resulted in the appointment of a three-arbitrator panel. After pre-hearing conferences and some limited discovery had occurred, counsel for one party delivered to each of the arbitrators a 10-page letter viciously attacking the positions, expected evidence, witnesses, character and parentage of the other party. That party's counsel, apparently feeling duty-bound to respond in kind, then delivered to each arbitrator a similarly lengthy, vicious, and evidence-packed diatribe. Probably fearing they might face similar attacks from the eventual losing party, all three arbitrators resigned just before hearings were to commence. New appointments required renegotiations for arbitrator selection and compensation, hearings scheduling, award deadlines, and a host of similar matters which extended the length of the process to the point where the phrase "court congestion" began to sound good to the parties.