• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


Agreements not to Challenge Remote Arbitration Awards

0
by Kyle Bailey

Tuesday, May 26, 2020


Tweet

Due to unprecedented health and safety risks, more clients and attorneys are turning to online dispute resolution (“ODR”) to resolve their disputes. The rapid shift toward remote proceedings creates uncertainty, as new legal issues will arise out of the unique circumstances. Potential uncertainty does not need to put disputes on hold, however, as there are ways to mitigate and avoid risk that allow disputes to confidently move forward.

For remote arbitration proceedings, it is recommended the parties sign a joint agreement not to challenge the remote arbitration award on the basis of using a virtual hearing. Hogan Lovells released a guidance document for remote arbitration that recommends parties agree to the following:

  • [V]ideoconferencing constitutes an acceptable means of communication permitted by the applicable rules, including those at the juridical seat of the arbitration;

  • [T]he parties have agreed to the use of videoconferencing as the means for conducting the arbitral hearing; and

  • [N]o party will seek to vacate any resultant arbitral award on the basis that the arbitral hearing was not held in person.

Agreements not to challenge a remote arbitration award on these bases will help to mitigate any potential risk of vacatur due to a virtual hearing.

For more information on remote arbitration best practices, please see the following Disputing blog posts:

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Technology

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Security and Confidentiality

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Photo by: Charles Deluvio on Unsplash

Related Posts

  • Supreme Court of Texas Holds Non-Binding Mediation Renders a Debtor a “Settling Person”Supreme Court of Texas Holds Non-Binding Mediation Renders a Debtor a “Settling Person”
  • California Court Holds Class Action Waiver UnenforceableCalifornia Court Holds Class Action Waiver Unenforceable
  • The Centrist Case Against Current (Conservative) Arbitration LawThe Centrist Case Against Current (Conservative) Arbitration Law
  • Legal Issues in the Development of the Internet | State Bar of Texas WEBCAST, Aug 25thLegal Issues in the Development of the Internet | State Bar of Texas WEBCAST, Aug 25th
  • NADN Conducts “The Customer is Always Right(?)” Survey of LitigatorsNADN Conducts “The Customer is Always Right(?)” Survey of Litigators
  • High Costs of ArbitrationHigh Costs of Arbitration

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Kyle Bailey

Kyle Bailey is a law clerk at Karl Bayer, Mediator, Arbitrator & Special Master. Kyle earned a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 2020. Kyle received a B.S. from Rice University in 2015 where he studied computer science.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy