|
Arbitration Clauses
by Daniel Steven
Q.. My latest
publishing agreement includes an arbitration clause. Should I
accept it?
A.
No. It sounds counter-intuitive, but litigation usually is a
better option for authors (and consumers in general) than
arbitration. Arbitration (not to be confused with mediation)
is an “alternative” method of dispute resolution. In general,
two disputing parties present their individual sides of an argument or
complaint to a supposedly neutral arbitrator or panel of arbitrators,
who weigh the facts and arguments of both parties and decide the
dispute. Although arbitration may be either voluntary or
mandatory, the typical arbitration clause in an publishing agreement is
mandatory (voluntary arbitration, of course, always is an option in any
dispute).
So what’s wrong with mandatory arbitration -- and
avoiding court?
- Arbitration can be expensive.
Claimants often must pay substantial arbitration fees and unless your
case is minor, you still will need an attorney.
- Arbitration does not follow clear,
well-established, consistent rules and procedures such as those
required in the courts. For example, “discovery” (procedures
that enable one side in a dispute to request information from the
other) may be limited. Traditional rules of evidence may not apply, and
you or your attorney may have more difficulty getting information
needed to support your claim than you would in court.
- Arbitrators often ignore legal precedent into
account in making their decisions, although they are supposed to do
so. This means outcomes are less dependable, and you may be
taking a bigger risk in bringing a claim.
- Most decisions cannot be appealed.
- Most arbitrators are pro-business. The
publisher typically picks the arbitration company in the arbitration
clause. Any arbitrator who decides in your favor against the
publisher will be unlikely to be designated to decide any cases
involving that company in the future. Although I am unaware
of statistics on publisher-author arbitration, studies of typical
consumer disputes that are arbitrated by such outfits as the National
Arbitration Forum show businesses win over 90% of the time, and that a
small number of arbitrators handle 9 out of 10 cases.
In summary, mandatory arbitration clauses generally favor the
publisher. Often an author’s only real clout is the threat of a
lawsuit. Here’s an alternative to the publisher’s clause, which
preserves your right to go to court:
In the event of any dispute or disagreement regarding this agreement,
the parties agree that common-sense should prevail, and that if
necessary an independent person or persons mutually agreed upon by both
parties shall be called upon to make a decision which is binding upon
both parties. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator
within thirty days of a written arbitration request by either party,
the parties may pursue remedies in law or equity in any court of
competent jurisdiction.
Daniel Steven is Chairman of the MWA Contracts and Grievances Committee
and a publishing and media attorney (www.publishlawyer.com).
This column provides general legal information; consult an attorney for
application of the law to your specific circumstances. © 2010 Daniel
Steven
|