Join me next month for Arbitration Backlash

The Cardozo Legal Society has invited me to speak next month at its breakfast meeting in downtown Orlando at the law firm of BakerHostetler. This one-hour general credit CLE will take place July 12th at 8:00 am in the SunTrust Center located at 200 South Orange Avenue. The U.S. Supreme Court just issued another decision upholding contracts to arbitrate rather than litigate disputes. Arbitration, however, continues to be attacked by media and elected officials despite being an effective ADR method to resolve disputes and control the rising cost of trying lawsuits. Federal law supports and governs the practice through the Federal Arbitration Act. To be enforceable, a clause must provide a meaningful opportunity for redress, and courts review contractual provisions for fundamental fairness. Because the litigation system has become so expensive, arbitration is often the preferred forum for disputes involving amounts in controversy for which litigation of claims is uneconomical. My talk explores the recent backlash against arbitration and reminds attendees of the origins and benefits of this dispute resolution process. The content is designed for lawyers who represent clients in arbitration and for attorneys who use arbitration clauses in contracts. I am a past chair of Cardozo Legal Society and former executive board member of our local non-profit federation, JFGO. Cardozo is a Business & Professional Society that offers attorneys, judges, law students and professors, and those in related roles in the legal profession an opportunity to get involved with the community while creating long lasting relationships with colleagues. See registration link here-- https://bit.ly/2KnWHlt

CMS Reversing Arbitration Ban

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a final rule for nursing homes just before last fall's election that included a provision prohibiting facilities from requiring pre-dispute binding arbitration to settle disputes over resident care. The final rule, which went into effect November 28, 2016 for facilities participating in the Medicare or Medicaid programs, was seen as a prohibition on regular practice in long-term care facilities of using resident agreement arbitration clauses upon admission. CMS just announced its intention to remove the ban on pre-dispute arbitration agreements. The rule, released after the agency abandoned its appeal in a lawsuit over the matter, would allow arbitration agreements that meet certain standards. For example, such documents would need to be written in plain language, be thoroughly explained to residents and their representatives, and be understood. A party in such agreement waives the rights to sue and to a trial by jury, to participate in a class action lawsuit, or to receive any type of judicial review apart from the very limited grounds applicable to setting aside arbitration decisions. The American Bar Association (ABA) previously commented that in many circumstances arbitration can be advantageous, and residents should continue to have the choice to use it to resolve disputes. Many recent court decisions, including the latest, Kindred v. Clark out of SCOTUS have upheld enforcing such agreements. See more here-- http://bit.ly/2semtQC and http://bit.ly/2s7WlGh and http://bit.ly/2pCk94L

Nursing Home Arbitration Ban Postponed

Last fall, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency under Health and Human Services (HHS), essentially barred any nursing home or assisted living facility that receives federal funding from requiring that its residents resolve any disputes in arbitration, instead of in court. It was the most significant overhaul of the agency’s rules governing federal funding of long-term care facilities in decades. The nursing home industry maintains arbitration offers a less costly alternative to court. Allowing more lawsuits, the industry says, could drive up costs and force some homes to close. This was the case in the early 2000s, when many excess verdicts were recorded in Florida, forcing players out of the state or out of business altogether. Lawyers who work with the elderly say that people are being admitted to nursing homes at one of the most stressful moments of their lives. When CMS essentially barred any requiring residents to resolve any disputes in arbitration, federal courts were quick to issue injunctions in industry suits. Now CMS has issued a memo that it will not attempt to enforce the ban until the injunction is lifted. With the impending Trump Administration, it seems possible that the new CMS rule will die altogether. Congressional Republicans have vowed to roll back many regulations approved in the final months of the Obama Administration, such as this one. I do a fair amount of long-term care arbitrations, usually serving as the chair of a panel. These are difficult cases and are sometimes better suited to be resolved in private before knowledgeable and fair neutrals, rather than presented to juries. Arbitration of health care cases can be streamlined for counsel, saving the parties costs and often providing a quicker result than the courts. See more here-- http://bit.ly/2ibNZ8G and http://bit.ly/2j5R8XK

Rapid Arbitration in Delaware

Delaware lawmakers are moving quickly to approve legislation streamlining the closed-door resolution of corporate disputes, after an earlier state-sponsored secret arbitration program was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court. Delaware lawmakers previously passed legislation allowing state judges to preside over private corporate arbitration proceedings. The Delaware Coalition for Open Government challenged the program on constitutional grounds, arguing that citizens have a First Amendment right to access court hearings. The new legislation cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee without debate and already passed the House. Delaware Senators were expected to take up the measure and send it to the governor for signature this week. The bill's supporters say the revised rapid arbitration process doesn't run afoul of the Delaware or U.S. Constitution because, unlike the earlier secret arbitration scheme, the new program would not be run by sitting state judges. Delaware's Chief Justice advocated for a new arbitration program, and the legislation was drafted by a committee of the Delaware State Bar Association. A longtime corporate darling, Delaware is legal home to more than 1 million corporate entities, and more than two-thirds of Fortune 500. Corporations choose Delaware for access to friendly business laws and the Delaware Chancery Court, which is widely recognized for its judicial expertise in matters of corporate law. The new legislation requires resolution of arbitration disputes in 180 days or less, and gives the parties flexibility in choosing expert arbitrators. Other provisions also allow for the speedy resolution of disputes, which state officials claim offer Delaware another advantage as a legal home for corporate entities. See stories here-- http://delonline.us/1FIOcZP and http://bit.ly/1CdZst6

U.S. Supreme Court Ends Delaware Chancery Arbitration Program

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in a case regarding a Delaware arbitration program where sitting judges heard corporate disputes in secret. The Court declined to review lower court decisions holding the program unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds because proceedings weren't open to the public. The confidential arbitration program was adopted in 2009 to further the state's business-friendly reputation. Companies often choose to incorporate in Delaware because of its favorable corporate legal climate. Businesses like arbitration because it can be faster and less expensive than court and takes place behind closed doors. The Delaware program was run through the state's Court of Chancery, where judges are known for their expertise in corporate disputes. Judges presided over the proceedings instead of private arbitrators, so long as a corporate litigants were willing to pay a $12,000 filing fee and $6,000 a day in arbitration costs. Business groups supporting the program reportedly said confidentiality was a time-honored and common sense aspect of arbitration that allowed companies to protect trade secrets and sensitive financial information. Critics said corporations shouldn't be able to pay for the services of a judge in secret. The Delaware Coalition for Open Government, a public-interest group, sued to challenge the program, saying that the public should have access to the arbitrations because they essentially were civil-court proceedings, conducted in a state courthouse with state resources. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held allowing access to the proceedings would give stockholders and the public a better understanding of how the state resolves business disputes. Although the lower court rulings didn’t preclude Delaware judges from conducting public arbitrations, the decisions effectively put a halt to the program. See full reports here-- http://on.wsj.com/Qc5OpT and http://buswk.co/NPeNv6