My Approach
I approach arbitration assignments recognizing the duty and burden on me to do my best to “get it right”. The parties have chosen to have their disagreement decided by arbitration instead of involving the state apparatus of dispute resolution. I have been fortunate to have received the appointment to resolve that disagreement and it is incumbent on me to find the just and correct resolution as likely there is no appellate body to which to defer or to review my award in detailed substance. That is a very heavy obligation no matter what kind of dispute, consumer, technological, competition related, sport, or high dollar business. Thus, I devote my best efforts as noted to get it right and will limit the number of appointments at any one time to avoid a circuit overload.
It is important to say that I have spent just about my entire legal career dealing with cross cultural issues. I am very lucky to be extremely comfortable and at home in dealing with persons and enterprises from all walks on earth, Asian, European, African, deep South US, New York, or Midwest. Indeed my practice has taken me abroad (Europe, Asia and South America) for a quarter to a third of each year since the late 1980s. I have had disputes from the back woods in Alabama and Louisiana, to Lausanne, Riyadh, Seoul, rural Mexico, and Paris. I want to use this wonderful experience to help arbitrate matters and hopefully bring a fair resolution and serve as a bridge between cultural differences of the parties.
For me, arbitration is a collaborative effort with the parties and the chosen Tribunal. I ask the parties to agree if possible with me on an appropriate procedure, grounded in their preferred culture in civil law or common law, for example whether to adopt expert protocols or special evidence exchange or discovery requirements. I am very familiar with both cultures and have participated in cases in the common and civil law regimes. Finally, I do everything in my power do to work to achieve resolution within the parties timetable and certainly within the Institution’s timetable if there is one.
Q & A with GAR ART
Further information on the arbitrator’s background, experience, preferences and approach to arbitration.
I was until very recently counsel to parties in complex litigation, including international arbitration; my specialty has always been competition related disputes or intellectual property disputes; many subspecialties, however, including investment cases, cases involving high value art, sport, etc.
I was until April 1, 2018, a partner in a global law firm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. I am now full time at Richard Levin Arbitration LLC. www.richardlevinarbitration.com.
This depends on the complexity of the dispute. The rulings, however, are mine alone. I make it a practice to inform the parties (and request their consent) if I would like to involve someone to help me conduct legal research.
Again, this depends on the complexity of the dispute. Many times, I find the Institutions can help very well in this regard.
I try to seek the most expeditious path to conclusion and at the least amount of cost. This does not vary. My website has a section on “Approach”, www.richardlevinarbitration.com. It’s not easy to set out an ex ante cookie cutter approach as the cases do vary.
I have asked parties if they have tried to settle mid case and would need help in choosing a mediator. It is a rare case that I, as arbitrator, would involve myself, in fact, I don’t remember any case that I have.
I agree with the disposition of issues early if that can be done (that is, no material fact issues exist) and if the parties have agreed to that procedure via the institution rules or otherwise. In fact, I was one of the early advocates of dispositive motions in international arbitration.
Once the case is well enough along so that I feel I know it well, I have indicated concerns I have with a party’s claim or defence. I do not believe in hiding my concerns.
I like using the IBA Rules, especially the rules relating to testimony (witness statements) of a witness not able to be present at the hearing. I likely would use such rules as a procedural way to deal with this issue, and others, unless a party proposes a better procedure for that case.
In very complex cases, perhaps yes.
This depends on the nature of the dispute, the background of the parties, the contract, the institutional rules, etc. Certainly, I encourage the exchange of relevant and requested documents; depositions, only in extraordinary cases and situations in which the witness cannot be present at the hearing.
Yes if allowed by domestic law, and as set out in the IBA Rules.
This depends on the complexity of the dispute and the institutional rules as well as the parties’ preferences. As a general matter, I prefer a live hearing and am very happy to have a written direct testimony.
I usually deal with it then and there as far as advising the affected counsel and have found adverse inferences to be very helpful.
This of course depends on the contract and institutional rules. If everything is silent, I would be inclined to award if there is a prevailing party.
30 Days from the close of proceedings.
I am comfortable with both styles having substantial experience as counsel in both regimes.
I make myself available and have had very few calendar issues in my career.
None.
Legal: Competition, IP, Investor, Environmental. Industry: Energy, Mining, Chemical, Space, Fine Art, Sport, Artificial Intelligence.