One of the big reasons for the change is an effort to
decrease the cost of arbitrating disputes.
In many cases, the costs of arbitration have become just as high, and in
some cases higher, than traditional litigation in the courts.
In order to control costs, the RUAA gives arbitrators more ability to steer the course of discovery. For example, an arbitrator can limit the number of depositions and interrogatories. Also, arbitrators now have the judge-like ability to issue subpoenas to require third parties to attend or provide documents.
The old arbitration act was written in 1955 and was a bare bones,
archaic statute with very few actual guidelines on arbitration – in essence,
there was no guidance in Michigan. The
old act didn’t even include a method to actually start an arbitration. With the current widespread use of
arbitration in contracts and scenarios not traditionally subject to
arbitration, the old act became insufficient to meet modern needs. RUAA adds procedural components and addresses
issues that have arisen in case law in order to provide more certainty in
arbitration proceedings.
The act also has several provisions dealing with
modifications or corrections of awards made by arbitrators. Critics of the act have voiced concern that
this will cause some practitioners to “shoehorn” their facts into the very
narrow grounds allowing a court to modify or correct an arbitration award. However, arbitrators have always dealt with
notion that courts have the power to confirm or vacate arbitration awards on
specific, though limited, legal grounds.
If you have questions about arbitrations, or any other legal
topic, contact John Walsh or Matt Worley at Fausone Bohn, LLP at (248) 380-000
or online at www.fb-firm.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment