Professor S.I. Strong, from the University of Missouri School of Law (and a friend of this blog) has published “Arbitration of Trust Disputes: Two Bodies of Law Collide,” 45 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1157 (2012). Here is the abstract: Once considered nothing more than “mere” estate-planning devices, trusts play a large and growing role in the international economy, holding trillions of dollars of assets and generating billions of dollars of income each year. However, the rising popularity of both commercial and noncommercial trusts has led to an explosion in hostile trust litigation, leading settlors and trustees to search for new and less expensive ways to resolve trust-related disputes. One possible solution involves use of a mandatory arbitration provision in the trust itself. However, the unique, multiparty nature of trust disputes often makes this sort of arbitration highly controversial. This Article considers the various issues that arise when two separate bodies of law—trust law and arbitration law—collide, using recent developments in the field of international commercial arbitration to address some of the more intransigent problems facing trust arbitration. In so doing, this Article introduces a number of new judicial decisions not previously considered in the scholarly literature and brings a uniquely comparative and international perspective to the debate regarding the jurisprudential propriety of mandatory trust arbitration. The full text of the article is available to download, along with other scholarly papers by Professor S.I. Strong.

The Physicians Foundation identified five issues likely to significantly impact physicians and patients in 2013. The 2013 Watch List is based on research undertaken by the Foundation in 2012 including the 2012 Biennial Physician Survey, the 2012 Next Generation Physician Survey, and the 2012 US Healthcare Highway Report.

On January 29th, a unique case was filed in Dallas County. In Parallel Networks, Inc. v. Jenner & Block, LLP, a former client of the law firm filed a motion to vacate an arbitral award of $3 million in attorney fees. In the case, Jenner & Block represented Parallel Networks on a contingency fee basis in a lawsuit against Oracle. After losing a motion for summary judgment, the law firm reportedly determined that Parallel Networks was unlikely to win a large financial award and withdrew from representing the company. The parties’ representation agreement stated any disputes over attorney fees would be subject to arbitration. With the assistance of new counsel, Parallel Networks later settled the disagreement with Oracle for $20 million. After the case settled, Jenner & Block sought in excess of $10 million in attorney fees from Parallel Networks for the work previously performed by the firm. Pursuant to the parties’ representation agreement, the fee dispute was arbitrated and Jenner & Block received a $3 million award. Parallel Networks now argues the award should be vacated because the arbitrator “exceeded his powers” and Texas law prohibits a contingent fee attorney from seeking further compensation from a client after the relationship is ended based solely upon economic reasons. It will be interesting to see how the court rules. Thanks to Dennis Crouch at PatentlyO for bringing this case to our attention. Stay tuned to Disputing for more updates on this case.

Charles B. Craver, Freda H. Alverson Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School recently published a thought-provoking article entitled The Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques to Resolve Public Sector Bargaining Disputes, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 28, p. 45, 2013. In his article, Professor Craver examines the growing use of alternative dispute resolution techniques in public sector bargaining disagreements. Here is the abstract: Labor organizations and employers have used various dispute resolution techniques to assist them with contract negotiations and contractual grievances. They have used negotiation, mediation, and arbitration since the 1800s. When the ADR movement was developed for conventional legal disputes, many of the techniques adopted were derived from the industrial relations movement. As states enacted public sector bargaining laws granting representational rights to state and local government employees, the parties had to determine how to resolve controversies over the terms to be included in new contracts and over grievances arising under existing accords. Most states refused to allow government personnel to strike, and even states that did permit such work stoppages banned them by essential workers. As public sector disputes began to create problems for bargaining parties, they started to focus on newly recognized ADR techniques, such as mediation and binding arbitration. In the end, many have incorporated the very techniques which private sector labor parties had created decades earlier. The full text of the article is available to download (without charge) from Social Science Research Network. As always, we welcome your thoughts and comments.