Mark Appel, a senior vice president at the American Arbitration Association, oversees the International Centre for Dispute Resolution office in Dublin. (For information about the ICDR, see www.icdr.org.) He can be reached by telephone at 353.1.676.1500 or by e-mail at email@example.com). The author welcomes comments from readers.
An explanation of the technique, its advantages, and how to implement it, along with model provisions for a procedural order.
Company lawyers are increasingly concerned about the cost of resolving complex transnational disputes. Law departments are measuring the cycle time of individual cases to ascertain the value of a growing number of conflict management strategies.
Many in the arbitration community have expressed concern about the desire of some parties to have arbitration mirror common law litigation practices. If the parties want nothing more than a private trial by dedicated expert arbitrators, that is their prerogative, but that is not arbitration.
Arbitration should be a far more expeditious process and civil law practitioners and lawyers familiar with arbitration know that. It should be no surprise that arbitrators, with the encouragement of arbitral institutions, are experimenting with new approaches to time management in complex arbitrations.1 This article focuses on time management in general, and the practical use and possible pitfalls of one of these techniques—the chess clock.2