During 2011, Disputing was honored to receive significant contributions from law professors and respected practitioners. Some of our blog contributors wrote guest-posts, others submitted comments via e-mail, and yet others alerted us of important developments in the ADR area. Thanks to our blog contributors for improving Disputing‘s legal scholarship! Special thanks to professor S.I. Strong for writing a whopping number of blog posts! Here are our 2011 guest- bloggers along with their contributions for this year, in chronological order. Don Philbin is an AV-rated attorney-mediator, negotiation consultant, trainer, and arbitrator. He has resolved disputes and crafted deals for more than two decades as a business and commercial litigator, general counsel, and president of a technology corporation. GUEST-POST | 2010 U.S. Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit Activity Reports Michael McIlwrath is Senior Counsel, Litigation, for the GE Oil & Gas Division in Florence, Italy. His experience in international arbitration includes representing the company in disputes under the rules of various international and regional arbitration institutions and under ad hoc procedures around the world, and in coordinating the activities of outside counsel in domestic court and arbitral proceedings. GUEST-POST | Italy’s Lawyers Call for National Strike Against Mediation Law GUEST-POST | From Rome to Delhi: Indian Lawyers Take Their Turn at Defending Slow Justice James M. Gaitis is the former Director of the International Dispute Management Programme at the Centre for Energy, Petroleum & Mineral Law & Policy, University of Dundee, Scotland, where he remains a member of the Global Faculty. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the second edition of The College of Commercial Arbitrators Guide to Best Practices in Commercial Arbitration and the author of numerous law review articles on the topic of arbitration, several of which have been repeatedly cited to the United States Supreme Court and lower state and federal appellate courts. GUEST-POST PART I | AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion and the Bright Side of the Force GUEST-POST PART II | AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion and the Bright Side of the Force S.I. Strong is currently Associate Professor of Law at the University of Missouri and Senior Fellow at the award-winning Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution, having previously taught law at the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. Prior to joining the faculty at Missouri, Dr Strong was Counsel specializing in international dispute resolution at Baker & McKenzie LLP and a dual-qualified practitioner (U.S.-England) in the New York and London offices of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. GUEST-POST PART I | States’ Rights, Big Business and the Nature of Arbitration: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion GUEST-POST PART II | States’ Rights, Big Business and the Nature of Arbitration: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion GUEST-POST PART III | States’ Rights, Big Business and the Nature of Arbitration: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion GUEST-POST PART I | States’ Rights, Big Business and the Nature of Arbitration: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion GUEST-POST PART II | States’ Rights, Big Business and the Nature of Arbitration: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion GUEST-POST PART III | States’ Rights, Big Business and the Nature of Arbitration: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion GUEST-POST PART I: ICSID Accepts First-Ever Class-Type Arbitration GUEST-POST PART II: ICSID Accepts First-Ever Class-Type Arbitration GUEST-POST PART III: ICSID Accepts First-Ever Class-Type Arbitration GUEST-POST PART I | No Mass Arbitration in ICSID Cases – The Abaclat Dissent GUEST-POST PART II | No Mass Arbitration in ICSID Cases – The Abaclat Dissent John Lande is Director of the LLM Program in Dispute Resolution and Isidor Loeb Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. He teaches courses on lawyering practice, non-binding methods of dispute resolution, and dispute system design. Professor Lande began mediating professionally in 1982 in California. He received his J.D. from Hastings College of Law and Ph.D in sociology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He was a fellow in residence at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. GUEST-POST PART I | Lawyering with Planned Early Negotiation GUEST-POST PART II | Lawyering with Planned Early Negotiation Glen M. Wilkerson is Of Counsel at Davis & Wilkerson, P.C. where he focuses on the areas of Personal Injury Law, Insurance Law & Litigation, Construction Law & Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Civil Litigation, and Professional Liability. GUEST-POST | Texas Court of Appeals Vacates $22 Million Dollar Arbitration Award Due to Failure to Disclose Social Contacts by Arbitrator Alan Scott Rau is the Burg Family Professor of Law at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law. He received his BA and LLB from Harvard University. Professor Rau teaches and writes in the areas of Contracts and Alternative Dispute Resolution (particularly Arbitration). He serves on the Commercial and International Panels of the American Arbitration Association, and has been a visiting faculty member at the University of Toronto, China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, Willamette University College of Law, the University of Geneva; and the Universities of Paris-I and Paris-II. GUEST-POST | Professor Alan Scott Rau Comments on Flattery Ltd. v. Titan Maritime LLC Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law

During 2011, we wrote a series of posts intended to assist lawyers in helping their clients understand the mediation process. Mediation Isn’t Just What Happens on the Day People Get Together… Preparation of the client for mediation is a key component of a successful mediation settlement. Before mediation, the attorney should discuss with the client who should be the mediator, in particular, what qualifications should be desired on the mediator, such as skills and subject matter expertise. The attorney should also explain what to expect the day of the mediation and discuss any confidentiality concerns regarding information that might be disclosed during mediation. Finally, the attorney should also inform the client about enforcement of meditated settlement agreements. If an insurance claim is involved, the Stowers doctrine should be considered in making settlement demands at mediation. Related Posts: In Texas, Can a Court Refer my Case to Mediation? Can a Court Impose Sanctions for Failing to Appear at Court-Ordered Mediation? Who Pays for the Mediation Fees? Can I Object to Court-Ordered Mediation? Is Mediation Confidential in Texas? Are Parties Required to Mediate in Good Faith? What if Someone Mediates in ‘Bad Faith’? Are Mediated Settlement Agreement Enforceable in Texas? What if there is an Insurance Claim Involved in my Mediation? Mediation and Legal Malpractice

Today, Disputing continues its 2011 Year-End Highlights. Following are some of the recent developments in international arbitration published in 2011 by the International Law Office (free registration is required to view the articles): Brazil: Let’s continue to talk about arbitration! Canada: Validity of arbitration agreement is issue for arbitral tribunal, not court Denmark: New rules make arbitration faster and better Germany: Supreme Court changes jurisdiction on preclusion in enforcement proceedings France: Dallah: one test, two different findings India: Exercise of writ jurisdiction not absolute bar in case of arbitration clause Kenya: Court of Appeal affirms the final and conclusive nature of arbitral awards Lithuania: Supreme Court upholds enforcement of sports arbitration awards Malaysia: Arbitrator’s duty of disclosure Mexico : Liability for interim measures: can tribunals mitigate risk? Portugal: Overview (June 2011) Russia: Constitutional Court confirms arbitrability of real estate disputes Switzerland: Validity of conventional waiver of judicial challenge against arbitration awards Brazil: What constitutes a domestic arbitral award? Greece: Enforcing interest claims in arbitration India: Court implies exclusion of Part I of Arbitration Act in favour of alternative law Mexico : New bill disregards general principles of mediation Switzerland: Parties’ right to be heard on costs Turkey: New Code of Civil Procedure regulates domestic arbitration Ukraine Challenging international arbitration awards: legislative changes trigger debate United Kingdom Arbitrators not employees in anti-discrimination legislation Greece: Enforcing interest claims in arbitration India: Court implies exclusion of Part I of Arbitration Act in favour of alternative law Malaysia: Court rules on importance of maintaining arbitral Germany: Court rules on New York Convention’s more-favourable right provision India: Supreme Court rules on dragging non-parties to arbitration Kenya: Arbitration: advantages, drawbacks and processes Spain: Arbitration Law is amended: compulsory insurance policy introduced Switzerland: Supreme Court confirms benchmarks on pre-arbitration conciliation duties France: Arbitrators cannot seek a ruling on the constitutionality of statutory provisions Portugal: Back on the right track: Supreme Court rules on multi-contract arbitration United Kingdom: Court of Appeal rules on arbitrability of shareholder’s claims Finland: New legislation promotes mediation for commercial disputes Mexico: Appointment and powers of emergency arbitrators USA: New York legislature considers Article 75 bill Brazil: Superior Court sheds light on the concept of public order Malaysia: Court empowered to issue injunction pending dispute resolution   Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law

Today, as part of our 2011 Year-End Highlights, we present noteworthy arbitration opinions from the Circuit Courts (for Fifth Circuit decisions, click here). The Ninth Circuit refused to compel arbitration because arbitration clause was not broad enough to cover dispute. In Cape Flattery Limited v. Titan Maritime, LLC, No. 09-15682 (9th Cir. July 26, 2011) Cape Flattery, a shipowner had contracted with Titan, a salvage company, to remove a stranded vessel from a reef. Read more here. The eleventh Circuit ruled that the plaintiff’s act of amending its complaint may allow a defendant to resurrect its previously-waived right to arbitrate. In Krinsk v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., No. 10-11912 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2011) the defendant had participated in the case for nine months without enforcing its right to arbitrate the class action claims. Read more here. The Second Circuit held that an issuer who purchases auction-facilitating services for its auction rate securities from a broker-dealer is a “customer” of that broker-dealer within the meaning of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Rule 12200. Read more here. The Ninth Circuit ruled that pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clause is invalid under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. In Kolev v. Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19254 (9th Cir. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) a pre-owned car Diana Kolev (“Kolev”) purchased developed serious mechanical problems during the warranty period and the dealership refused to honor her warranty claims. Kolev sued for breach of warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq., breach of contract, and unconscionability. Read more here. The Seventh Circuit held that “manifest disregard of the law” is not an independent ground for vacatur in a patent case under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). See Affymax, Inc. v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , No. 11-2070 (7th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011). Read more here. The Second Circuit held that the term “customer” under FINRA Rule 12200 does not include a broker-dealer non-party to a credit default swap agreement. See Wachovia Bank v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., No. 10-1648-cv (2d Cir. N.Y. Oct. 28, 2011). Read more here.   Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law