Preparing for the Arbitration Hearing - Chapter 8 - Case Preparation and Presentation: A Guide for Arbitration Advocates and Arbitrators
Rocco M. Scanza and Jay E. Grenig both serve on the American Arbitration Association's labor panel.
Mr. Scanza is an Attorney, Arbitrator and Mediator of labor and employment disputes. He is also the Executive Director of Cornell University's Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, where he teaches courses in workplace alternative dispute resolution. Mr. Scanza was formerly a national Vice President at the American Arbitration Association. He graduated from Queens College in New York City and Loyola Law School of Los Angeles. He lives and works in Ithaca, N.Y.
Mr. Grenig is a Professor of Law at Marquette University Law School. He has served as an arbitrator or mediator in over 2,000 labor and employment disputes. A member of the National Academy of Arbitrators, the American Law Institute, and the Order of the Coif, Mr. Grenig is also a fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. He formerly chaired the Labor and Employment Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools and served as a consultant to the National Commission on Employment Policy. He has written or co-written numerous books and articles.
Originally from Case Preparation and Presentation: A Guide for Arbitration Advocates and Arbitrators
§ 8:01 GENERALLY
Thorough preparation is absolutely essential to successful advocacy. No amount of cleverness or cunning can substitute for preparation. Preparation means you become an expert on your case. Preparation for the hearing begins after the matter in dispute has been investigated and arbitration demanded. The preliminary case theory and theme should have been determined by this stage. However, in preparing for the hearing, the case theory and theme should be reexamined and modified if appropriate.
In some respects, preparation for the hearing may duplicate some of the case investigation. The advocate at the arbitration hearing, however, may be a different person than the one who conducted the investigation necessitating additional investigation. Moreover, there may have been new developments since the original investigation was conducted. Witnesses may no longer be available or other facts may have come to light.