Delaying Tactics in Arbitration - Dispute Resolution Journal - Vol. 59, No. 4
Author Alain Frécon has more than 30 years of experience with commercial and corporate transactions and international litigation. A member of the Minnesota State Bar and a qualified neutral under Rule 114, Minnesota General Rules of Practice, he has been serving as an arbitrator since 1976. He serves on the American Arbitration Association training faculty and is a mediator and arbitrator on the AAA panel for commercial, international and large, complex cases. He also serves on the panel of CPR and the ICC. He can be reached at Alain@freconlaw.com and at 612-338-6868.
This article was prepared for a presentation on delaying tactics at the AAA Neutrals Conference held March 5-6, 2004, in San Antonio, Texas.
Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal
Let's face it. Anyone involved with arbitration has either engaged in or seen another party use delaying tactics to stall the regular flow of arbitration. Such tactics are almost universally frowned upon by arbitrators and attorneys, except that there is no rule prohibiting their use when it would serve the interest of a party who can afford to delay. This article analyzes the most common delaying tactics, their timing and efficient management tools arbitrators can use to minimize their impact on the process.
No one likes it when a party uses delaying tactics to stall the normal course of an arbitration, whether it is an ad hoc (i.e., self-administered) or an administered proceeding.1 It is generally assumed that the respondent is the most likely party to seek to delay the arbitration, arguably because it would benefit from a postponement of the outcome. However, experience teaches that this is not the exclusive privilege of respondents. Claimants have reasons of their own to instigate delay.