ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> The Law Planet Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Labor & Employment Law

: The Law Planet Blog

PIABA proposed rule change regarding the arbitration panel makeup is too extreme

By Dobin & Jenks

ADVERTISEMENTS

The Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association has proposed a rule directly to the SEC that would effectively eliminate the ?industry? arbitrator from the arbitration panel. The paranoia exhibited by this organization, without any true empirical basis, knows no bounds.

As a lawyer who represents both industry and investor clients, I have a unique position to assess this proposal (although I am not alone in representing both types of parties.) PIABA remains critical of the presence of a person experienced in the industry on an arbitration panel. Personally, having experienced arbitrations where the industry panelist was marginally affiliated and the public arbitrators knew next to nothing about securities, I suggest that we should all be afraid of PIABA?s proposal.

PIABA continually refers to the industry panelist as an advocate for the industry. There is no basis for this. The organization cites flawed research that states that claimants in arbitration win less than they ?should.? But how does PIABA know that these cases would have fared better either in court or with an all-public arbitration panel? It doesn?t. I have stated before and I will say it again, that cases that go to hearing tend to be self-selecting. Those cases which can?t settle because the Claimant wants too much or the Respondent won?t pay enough are the ones that go to hearing. Therefore, these are the more difficult, or bad, cases depending on one?s point of view.

I have been involved in a number of cases where it was obvious that the industry panelist did not agree with the Respondent?s position. There is no evidence that the industry panelist serves as a patsy for the brokerage firms. Just because a flawed analysis finds that the ?win rate? is down, does not mean that the system is bad. In arbitration, each case stands on its own. Two cases cannot be compared as every person?s situation is different.

PIABA has come up with some good ideas in the past. This is not one of them.

Rule Change Petition presented to the SEC from the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association

Full post as published by The Law Planet Blog on July 07, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.015 secs (new cache)