Arbitrator Boundaries: What are the Limits of Arbitrator Authority?

139 Pages·2013·3.81 MB·English

by  American Arbitration

Arbitrator Boundaries: What are the Limits of Arbitrator Authority?
Webinar Recorded on April 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. ET

PROGRAM SUMMARY
Speaker: Thomas J. Brewer, Esq.
One of the most widely used grounds asserted for vacatur of an arbitration award is that of arbitrators
exceeding their authority. Attorneys representing parties need to know exactly what the arbitrator hearing
and deciding their cases is empowered to do. Who decides the issues of arbitrability and third-party
discovery—arbitrators or the courts? What constitutes manifest disregard of the law? What is the impact
of the court case Hall Street on future “exceeded powers” arbitration cases?

AGENDA

2:00 p.m. Welcome and Introduction of Speakers (5 minutes)

2:05 p.m. Goals for the Session (5 minutes)

2:10 p.m. Discuss of Common Grounds of Vacatur of an (65 minutes)
Arbitration Award
 Manifest disregard of the law
 Awards for or against persons or entities not bound
by the arbitration agreement
 Fee and costs awards differing from the parties’
agreement
 Failure to follow procedural rules or other stipulations
agreed upon by the parties
 Awards ordering remedies not authorized by the parties’
agreement
Authority of the Arbitrator
 Arbitrability
 Third-Party Discovery
 Impact of Hall Street case on future arbitrations

3:15 p.m. Conclusion and Questions (15 minutes)

3:30 p.m. Evaluation (5 minutes)

3:35 p.m. Adjourn

Copyright  2011 American Arbitration Association Revised 01.20.11

A J : 
RBITRATOR  URISDICTION
WHO DECIDES WHO DECIDES WHAT’S ARBITRABLE? 
A Primer on Jurisdiction in Private Arbitration Matters 
By Mark E. Lassiter, Esq.,1 DAVIS|MILES, PLLC 
As private arbitration practice has grown increasingly sophisticated in recent decades 
a tectonic fault line was created as the two forums for resolving disputes in American society 
– one public (the courts) one private (arbitration) ‐ have periodically collided with one 
another. Geologists observe that tectonic ‘fault lines’ are often ‘hot spots’ for all manner of 
disruptive geologic and seismic activity from earthquakes (and their attendant tsunamis or 
‘tidal waves’) to volcanoes. Indeed, mountains are formed by volcanic activity from the 
friction caused when two tectonic plates collide. In modern jurisprudence another type of 
‘collision’ sometimes occurs that can cause serious ‘friction’ in dispute resolution matters. 
This collision occurs when a decision needs to be made about whether a private arbitrator 
can hear and decide a particular type of claim or dispute (or whether the arbitrator can grant 
a particular type of remedy), or whether such a matter must be heard by a court (or the 
remedy sought granted only by a court).  
This article examines the basic notions of arbitral jurisdiction in binding “private” or 
“commercial”  arbitration  proceedings  under  the  Federal  Arbitration  Act  (Title  9,  United 
States Code, §§ 1‐14 – the “FAA”), the Uniform Arbitration Act (the “UAA,” including the 
Arizona Arbitration Statute embodied in A.R.S. §§12‐1501, et seq. 2 ) or the Revised Uniform 
Arbitration Act (the “RUAA3,” which the Arizona legislature enacted as HB2430 in 2010, and 

1 Attorney Mark E. Lassiter is a partner in the Tempe (Phoenix area) Arizona law firm of DAVIS|MILES, PLLC, where he
practices in the areas of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”), business, real estate and construction law and heads the
firm’s Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department.. He is a member of the Business, Real Estate,
Construction and ADR law Sections of the State Bar of Arizona. Since 1999 he has Chaired the annual State Bar of
Arizona CLE program PRIVATE ARBITRATION UPDATE (and predecessor CLE programs) and from 2004 to the present
has served (at various times) as a Co-Chairperson or member of the Legislative Affairs subcommittee of the ADR Section
of the Arizona State Bar, which subcommittee worked to pass the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act in Arizona. Mr.
Lassiter has served as an arbitrator on the American Arbitration Association’s Commercial and Construction Industry
Arbitration Panels since 1991, and on its Large and Complex Case panel since 1999. He writes and speaks frequently on
arbitration law matters, and was a panelist on, and the principal author of, Arbitration Boot Camp, an Internet-based video
continuing legal education program on handling arbitration cases before the American Arbitration Association. His e-mail
address is [email protected] and phone number is 480-218-4455.
2 In 1962 Arizona substantially adopted, with little change, the Uniform Arbitration Act (the “UAA”) approved by the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws [“NCCUSL”].
3 The RUAA was approved by NCCUSL in the summer of 2000. In Arizona, the RUAA has already passed the Arizona
Senate three times and the House of Representatives twice, but not in the same legislative year. The most recent House
Bill Summary for Senate Bill 1233 (which passed the House of Representatives in 2008), says that “13 states have
adopted the revised version of the RUAA in order to update, modernize and provide uniformity in the laws state to state.
Additionally, the legislation is presently being considered in 9 other states.”

© 2009‐2010. Mark E. Lassiter, Esq. All rights reserved. 
Used with permission by the State Bar of Arizona.