In Part Four we began to discuss solutions (not just problems), and urged that a first step in incentivizing counsel to hold down litigation costs is to have a neutral oversee the process of discovery closely enough (1) to make it in counsel’s interest to act reason­ably in the first place; and (2) to rule on unreasonable demands or failures to respond to discovery quickly, so that they gain no tactical advantage.

Catherine A. Rogers, Professor of Law, Paul and Marjorie Price Faculty Scholar, and Professor of Ethics, Regulation, and The Rule of Law at Pennsylvania State University’s Dickinson School of Law, and Alex Wiker, Post-Graduate Fellow in International Arbitration at Pennsylvania State University, have published “Fraport v. Philippines, ICSID, and Counsel Disqualification: The Power and the Praxis,” Journal of World Investment and Trade, 2014. In their paper, the authors discuss the role of international arbitral tribunals in assessing and enforcing ethical obligations imposed on attorneys.

In Valli Construction, Inc. v. Alvites Concrete Services, No. 13-13-00295-CV (Tex. App – Corpus Christi, December 30, 2014), a Chevrolet dealership hired a general contractor, Valli, to build a structure for the company. Valli then hired two local subcontractors to complete concrete and plumbing work on the project.

The United States Supreme Court has reportedly been asked to review a federal court’s order refusing to set aside a jury’s verdict where a court-appointed mediator failed to disclose his close personal relationship with a partner at the law firm representing several of the defendants.