Are Rules Allowing Arbitral Sanctions a Mirage?

88 JOURNAL New York State Bar Association 28, June, 2016

NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2802890

6 Pages Posted: 3 Jul 2016

Date Written: June 1, 2016

Abstract

This article examines the impact permissive procedures have on an arbitrator’s ability to maintain order. The suggestion made is that the new rules offer nothing that isn’t already available by judicial decree. While the effort to assist the arbitrator is laudable, no administrator can go further than the limitations mandated by 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), as interpreted by courts. Anyone who does so faces vacatur and in extreme cases a finding that the action is “misconduct” under FAA § 10(a)(3). Given this structure, both the administrators and arbitrators face a simple choice: (1) Go no further than what courts have already deemed acceptable or (2) undertake to fashion a new untested “sanction” and hope that a court will support the effort. If the first alternative is favored, administrator rules allow what courts have already approved. If the second alternative is favored, administrator rules serve no purpose other than to empower an arbitrator to take a serious risk. If this analysis is correct, then the new rules are a mirage.

Keywords: Arbitration, Arbitral, Sanctions, Mirage, Misconduct

JEL Classification: K12, K19, K39, K40, K41, K49

Suggested Citation

Marrow, Paul Bennett, Are Rules Allowing Arbitral Sanctions a Mirage? (June 1, 2016). 88 JOURNAL New York State Bar Association 28, June, 2016, NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2802890, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2802890

Paul Bennett Marrow (Contact Author)

New York Law School ( email )

185 West Broadway
New York, NY 10013
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
173
Abstract Views
803
Rank
325,321
PlumX Metrics