Mediation and Arbitration Myths
Disagreements occur in even the best-managed franchise systems.
By David E. Holmes
Since no business relationship involving hundreds or thousands of participants is given immunity from human nature, there is a tendency for even well-meaning businesspeople to have differences, and sometime serious differences, of opinion. Those differences can range from simple disputes over operational matters to serious questions regarding the development and direction of an entire franchise system.
Given the reality of those possible disagreements, and the fact that not all of them can automatically be resolved through simple, face-to-face discussion, mechanisms have to exist for concluding those disputes. To do this, many franchise systems have chosen, in their franchise agreements or elsewhere, to adopt different forms of alternative dispute resolution.
Generally, these involve alternatives to traditional court litigation, often including mediation and or arbitration.
A Review of the Basics:
Mediation usually involves the use of a trained mediator, not representing either party but assisting each of them in reaching agreement. While the franchisor and franchisee (often represented by lawyers) may be required to attend mediation, and probably share its costs, the mediator does not issue any binding decision and, if the parties do not reach agreement, then no decision will be imposed on them by the mediator.
Arbitration is different. The arbitrator is usually authorized to issue a binding decision, just like a judge, and that decision can be enforced in court, often with very little review by a judge and little chance of reversing it. The arbitrator can be a retired judge, a lawyer or other professional, and he or she may or may not have a background in franchising.
Now that we have a bit of a background, let’s explore some of the myths surrounding mediation and arbitration, and compare them to reality.
Myth No. 1: Mediation is a Waste of Time and Money Since No Decision Can Be Forced.
This “myth” is sometimes phrased in the form of a question: If mediation isn’t binding, and either side can walk away from the mediation without having made any commitments, then why bother with it?
The answer is that while there’s no guarantee the mediation will result in an agreement between the franchisor and the franchisee, experience shows that, in the majority of times, it does. Hard numbers are difficult to come by, but anecdotal evidence, from mediation organizations and otherwise, indicates that in the majority of cases mediation results in resolution of many, if not all, of the issues in dispute, often through compromise, and may work to preserve the underlying business relationship. Although not inexpensive, in the long run, and based on the successful track record of most professional mediators, the investment is worthwhile.
Does that mean that both sides get exactly what they want? Of course not. But it does mean that they reach a mutual accommodation that’s preferred by both of them to the risks and costs of litigation, including potentially damaging the business relationship beyond repair.
These figures fit with the observation among litigators that the vast majority of cases filed are resolved through settlement before trial. If that’s true, then a businessperson has to ask why not try to do that, with the assistance of a professionally-trained mediator, before possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on attorneys getting to the courthouse steps?
And since mediation expenses are almost always far less than litigation, the business calculation is easy: Spend a relatively few dollars on a method (mediation) that has a good track record in settling disputes, without placing yourself in a situation where the result will be imposed on you without your consent.
Myth No. 2: Mediation Always Makes Good Sense and Should Always Be Used.
This is the “flip-side” of Myth No. 1.
Some disputes are truly of a philosophical nature, and the parties are so far apart that agreement is highly unlikely. Also, in some situations, a franchisor (or, less likely, a franchisee or franchisee association) is attempting to “send a message” or establish a legal precedent.
In those cases, which are generally the exceptions, a privately-brokered agreement, even one reached with the help of a mediator, may not serve all of the party’s needs and formal arbitration, or even litigation, may be the only real alternative. However, if one inserts the phrase “almost always” into Myth No. 2, it’s probably no longer a myth.
Myth No. 3: Mediation Works Best When the Mediator Knows Nothing About the Type of Dispute, the Business Context, the Parties or Their Lawyers.
At its best, mediation is an art, the art of persuading two (or more) businesspeople, and sometimes their lawyers, that compromise and agreement makes better sense than a fight to the finish.
Exercise of that art, which often involves subtlety, persuasion, cajoling, shuttle diplomacy and a sensitivity to the factors bearing on the dispute, can usually be enhanced by the mediator having as much knowledge as possible regarding every aspect of the disagreement, including items the parties and their lawyers may not even have thought of, constantly pushing the parties to a creative resolution.
A competent mediator is not committed to any particular solution, but he or she is highly committed to reaching some solution that is accepted by all concerned. To do this, he or she needs as many tools as possible, and knowledge is one of the primary ones.
Myth No. 4: Arbitrators Tend to “Split the Baby” in Making Decisions, Never Giving Either Side What It Really Wants.
If this was once true, experienced franchise litigators report that it isn’t any longer, at least as any sort of universal rule.
Arbitrators today, in franchise disputes, seem to be quite willing to make strong decisions, including significant damage awards and sometimes make the losing side wish that it had had an opportunity to present its case to a jury. Of course, such strong decisions are usually seen by the parties to the dispute as a good or bad feature, depending on whether they’ve won or lost.
Myth No. 5: Arbitration is Quicker, Cheaper and Better than Litigation.
This is probably best classified as a “semi-myth,” partly true and partly false.
Franchise litigators with extensive arbitration experience report that arbitration can be cheaper than litigation, and often is, but they can also cite cases they’ve been involved in where total costs (filing fees, lawyers, experts, arbitrators, and so on.) were as high or higher than in litigation before a judge. Cases tried to a jury generally tend to be the most expensive.
In fact, arbitrator’s fees can be high, and the judge’s salary is paid by the government. Experienced litigators agree that considerations of possibly lower costs in arbitration should not be the over-riding reason to choose arbitration and that other factors are more significant. In addition, we’ve heard of arbitration situations in which one side files its arbitration papers, pays its half of the fees, the other side refuses to pay its share and the arbitration organization tells the first side it needs to pay the other half to proceed and may recover the amount in an award at the conclusion of the arbitration.
As to quickness, while that may once have been a consideration, lawyers who handle both arbitrations and court cases generally see few differences in this area, especially given states’ efforts in the past few years to bring lawsuits promptly to trial. Arbitration agreements that require a panel of multiple arbitrators will generally result in greater costs and longer proceedings.
Finally, which means of resolving a dispute, arbitration or trial, is “better” is a subjective question, with probably as many opinions on that subject as there are lawyers. Suffice it to say that many sophisticated franchise systems select arbitration over litigation as their favored means of handling disputes which have not been settled by mediation, and many other equally experienced systems come out exactly the other way. Franchisors are often more likely to favor arbitration than franchisees (franchisors having some fear of the proverbial “runaway jury”), but even that generalization is not always true.
Myth No. 6: Arbitrators Don’t Have to Follow the Law, So Their Decisions are Unpredictable.
Well, again, this is probably a “semi-myth.”
There certainly are cases in which a court has confirmed that an arbitrator is not generally required to follow or apply the law in the same way that a judge is. Therefore, at least in broad measure, an arbitrator probably has more freedom in reaching a particular decision, and is less subject to being over-ruled or reversed, than a judge is.
However, this issue can be partially addressed by including in the arbitration or franchise agreement a clause providing that the arbitrator is required to follow applicable law, and that any failure to do so is an act by the arbitrator in excess of his or her authority. Some arbitration agreements even include, and some arbitration authorities and litigators recommend, an appeal mechanism, to a panel of arbitrators, if one side or the other believes that the arbitrator ignored the law.
Finally, one more point should be made: Not everyone considers “ignoring the law” to be a bad thing and some observers comment that in many franchising disputes less “law” and more “doing what’s right,” and taking into account practical business, as well as legal, considerations, might be appropriate. While I won’t take a position on either side of that question, it’s a position that’s not easily dismissed.
Myth No. 7: Arbitration Can Be Completely Confidential.
While this can be true of mediation, it’s only partly true of arbitration.
Mediation, and its results, are generally confidential (mediators usually have a confidentiality obligation, as an ethical matter) and a franchise agreement can provide that that will be the case.
Unlike a court trial, the public and the media are not able to attend arbitrations, but if one of the parties to the arbitration is a franchisor, and the arbitration concerns matters of the type reportable in the UFOC, then the fact of the arbitration, and its outcome, will usually need to be reported in the franchisor’s UFOC.
Myth No. 8: Litigation Never Makes Sense, Arbitration is the Only Way to Go.
This “myth” is somewhat like Myth No. 2; often true but not always.
First of all, some disputes are so important that one or more of the parties feel that they’re simply more comfortable having a judge manage the decision-making process. For example, most franchisors would be uncomfortable having an arbitrator decide the validity of their system’s core intellectual property rights, such as its trademarks, while many franchisees, or at least their attorneys, feel that a class action is better managed by an experienced federal judge. In those situations, each side may have a reasonable argument for not using an arbitrator.
Second, experienced franchise litigators disagree on the wisdom of arbitration over litigation, some endorsing it almost completely (for many, the ability to pick an arbitrator with a background in franchising may be critical), others having qualifications and still others being uncomfortable with it as a general approach. Given this diversity of opinion, it would be a brave person indeed who took any universal position with respect to arbitration. Clearly, the better course is for each franchise system to sit down with their attorneys, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration, and make a rational business decision.
David E. Holmes is a partner with Holmes & Lofstrom, LLP, a law firm
specializing in franchising throughout the United States and internationally. He can be reached at D.Holmes@HolmesLofstrom.com.
Disagreements occur in even the best-managed franchise systems.
By David E. Holmes
Since no business relationship involving hundreds or thousands of participants is given immunity from human nature, there is a tendency for even well-meaning businesspeople to have differences, and sometime serious differences, of opinion. Those differences can range from simple disputes over operational matters to serious questions regarding the development and direction of an entire franchise system.
Given the reality of those possible disagreements, and the fact that not all of them can automatically be resolved through simple, face-to-face discussion, mechanisms have to exist for concluding those disputes. To do this, many franchise systems have chosen, in their franchise agreements or elsewhere, to adopt different forms of alternative dispute resolution.
Generally, these involve alternatives to traditional court litigation, often including mediation and or arbitration.
A Review of the Basics:
Mediation usually involves the use of a trained mediator, not representing either party but assisting each of them in reaching agreement. While the franchisor and franchisee (often represented by lawyers) may be required to attend mediation, and probably share its costs, the mediator does not issue any binding decision and, if the parties do not reach agreement, then no decision will be imposed on them by the mediator.
Arbitration is different. The arbitrator is usually authorized to issue a binding decision, just like a judge, and that decision can be enforced in court, often with very little review by a judge and little chance of reversing it. The arbitrator can be a retired judge, a lawyer or other professional, and he or she may or may not have a background in franchising.
Now that we have a bit of a background, let’s explore some of the myths surrounding mediation and arbitration, and compare them to reality.
Myth No. 1: Mediation is a Waste of Time and Money Since No Decision Can Be Forced.
This “myth” is sometimes phrased in the form of a question: If mediation isn’t binding, and either side can walk away from the mediation without having made any commitments, then why bother with it?
The answer is that while there’s no guarantee the mediation will result in an agreement between the franchisor and the franchisee, experience shows that, in the majority of times, it does. Hard numbers are difficult to come by, but anecdotal evidence, from mediation organizations and otherwise, indicates that in the majority of cases mediation results in resolution of many, if not all, of the issues in dispute, often through compromise, and may work to preserve the underlying business relationship. Although not inexpensive, in the long run, and based on the successful track record of most professional mediators, the investment is worthwhile.
Does that mean that both sides get exactly what they want? Of course not. But it does mean that they reach a mutual accommodation that’s preferred by both of them to the risks and costs of litigation, including potentially damaging the business relationship beyond repair.
These figures fit with the observation among litigators that the vast majority of cases filed are resolved through settlement before trial. If that’s true, then a businessperson has to ask why not try to do that, with the assistance of a professionally-trained mediator, before possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on attorneys getting to the courthouse steps?
And since mediation expenses are almost always far less than litigation, the business calculation is easy: Spend a relatively few dollars on a method (mediation) that has a good track record in settling disputes, without placing yourself in a situation where the result will be imposed on you without your consent.
Myth No. 2: Mediation Always Makes Good Sense and Should Always Be Used.
This is the “flip-side” of Myth No. 1.
Some disputes are truly of a philosophical nature, and the parties are so far apart that agreement is highly unlikely. Also, in some situations, a franchisor (or, less likely, a franchisee or franchisee association) is attempting to “send a message” or establish a legal precedent.
In those cases, which are generally the exceptions, a privately-brokered agreement, even one reached with the help of a mediator, may not serve all of the party’s needs and formal arbitration, or even litigation, may be the only real alternative. However, if one inserts the phrase “almost always” into Myth No. 2, it’s probably no longer a myth.
Myth No. 3: Mediation Works Best When the Mediator Knows Nothing About the Type of Dispute, the Business Context, the Parties or Their Lawyers.
At its best, mediation is an art, the art of persuading two (or more) businesspeople, and sometimes their lawyers, that compromise and agreement makes better sense than a fight to the finish.
Exercise of that art, which often involves subtlety, persuasion, cajoling, shuttle diplomacy and a sensitivity to the factors bearing on the dispute, can usually be enhanced by the mediator having as much knowledge as possible regarding every aspect of the disagreement, including items the parties and their lawyers may not even have thought of, constantly pushing the parties to a creative resolution.
A competent mediator is not committed to any particular solution, but he or she is highly committed to reaching some solution that is accepted by all concerned. To do this, he or she needs as many tools as possible, and knowledge is one of the primary ones.
Myth No. 4: Arbitrators Tend to “Split the Baby” in Making Decisions, Never Giving Either Side What It Really Wants.
If this was once true, experienced franchise litigators report that it isn’t any longer, at least as any sort of universal rule.
Arbitrators today, in franchise disputes, seem to be quite willing to make strong decisions, including significant damage awards and sometimes make the losing side wish that it had had an opportunity to present its case to a jury. Of course, such strong decisions are usually seen by the parties to the dispute as a good or bad feature, depending on whether they’ve won or lost.
Myth No. 5: Arbitration is Quicker, Cheaper and Better than Litigation.
This is probably best classified as a “semi-myth,” partly true and partly false.
Franchise litigators with extensive arbitration experience report that arbitration can be cheaper than litigation, and often is, but they can also cite cases they’ve been involved in where total costs (filing fees, lawyers, experts, arbitrators, and so on.) were as high or higher than in litigation before a judge. Cases tried to a jury generally tend to be the most expensive.
In fact, arbitrator’s fees can be high, and the judge’s salary is paid by the government. Experienced litigators agree that considerations of possibly lower costs in arbitration should not be the over-riding reason to choose arbitration and that other factors are more significant. In addition, we’ve heard of arbitration situations in which one side files its arbitration papers, pays its half of the fees, the other side refuses to pay its share and the arbitration organization tells the first side it needs to pay the other half to proceed and may recover the amount in an award at the conclusion of the arbitration.
As to quickness, while that may once have been a consideration, lawyers who handle both arbitrations and court cases generally see few differences in this area, especially given states’ efforts in the past few years to bring lawsuits promptly to trial. Arbitration agreements that require a panel of multiple arbitrators will generally result in greater costs and longer proceedings.
Finally, which means of resolving a dispute, arbitration or trial, is “better” is a subjective question, with probably as many opinions on that subject as there are lawyers. Suffice it to say that many sophisticated franchise systems select arbitration over litigation as their favored means of handling disputes which have not been settled by mediation, and many other equally experienced systems come out exactly the other way. Franchisors are often more likely to favor arbitration than franchisees (franchisors having some fear of the proverbial “runaway jury”), but even that generalization is not always true.
Myth No. 6: Arbitrators Don’t Have to Follow the Law, So Their Decisions are Unpredictable.
Well, again, this is probably a “semi-myth.”
There certainly are cases in which a court has confirmed that an arbitrator is not generally required to follow or apply the law in the same way that a judge is. Therefore, at least in broad measure, an arbitrator probably has more freedom in reaching a particular decision, and is less subject to being over-ruled or reversed, than a judge is.
However, this issue can be partially addressed by including in the arbitration or franchise agreement a clause providing that the arbitrator is required to follow applicable law, and that any failure to do so is an act by the arbitrator in excess of his or her authority. Some arbitration agreements even include, and some arbitration authorities and litigators recommend, an appeal mechanism, to a panel of arbitrators, if one side or the other believes that the arbitrator ignored the law.
Finally, one more point should be made: Not everyone considers “ignoring the law” to be a bad thing and some observers comment that in many franchising disputes less “law” and more “doing what’s right,” and taking into account practical business, as well as legal, considerations, might be appropriate. While I won’t take a position on either side of that question, it’s a position that’s not easily dismissed.
Myth No. 7: Arbitration Can Be Completely Confidential.
While this can be true of mediation, it’s only partly true of arbitration.
Mediation, and its results, are generally confidential (mediators usually have a confidentiality obligation, as an ethical matter) and a franchise agreement can provide that that will be the case.
Unlike a court trial, the public and the media are not able to attend arbitrations, but if one of the parties to the arbitration is a franchisor, and the arbitration concerns matters of the type reportable in the UFOC, then the fact of the arbitration, and its outcome, will usually need to be reported in the franchisor’s UFOC.
Myth No. 8: Litigation Never Makes Sense, Arbitration is the Only Way to Go.
This “myth” is somewhat like Myth No. 2; often true but not always.
First of all, some disputes are so important that one or more of the parties feel that they’re simply more comfortable having a judge manage the decision-making process. For example, most franchisors would be uncomfortable having an arbitrator decide the validity of their system’s core intellectual property rights, such as its trademarks, while many franchisees, or at least their attorneys, feel that a class action is better managed by an experienced federal judge. In those situations, each side may have a reasonable argument for not using an arbitrator.
Second, experienced franchise litigators disagree on the wisdom of arbitration over litigation, some endorsing it almost completely (for many, the ability to pick an arbitrator with a background in franchising may be critical), others having qualifications and still others being uncomfortable with it as a general approach. Given this diversity of opinion, it would be a brave person indeed who took any universal position with respect to arbitration. Clearly, the better course is for each franchise system to sit down with their attorneys, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration, and make a rational business decision.
David E. Holmes is a partner with Holmes & Lofstrom, LLP, a law firm
specializing in franchising throughout the United States and internationally. He can be reached at D.Holmes@HolmesLofstrom.com.
Labels: Franchise Opportunity
1 Comments:
<< Home | << Add a comment