Skip to Main Content
Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP
  • Our Firm
    • Who We Serve
      • Shareholders
      • Whistleblowers
      • Consumers
      • Businesses
      • Government Entities
    • Our Professionals
    • Working with Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP
    • Locations
    • News
    • Careers
    • Report Your Concern
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
    • Antitrust Litigation
    • Business & Commercial Litigation
    • Securities & Corporate Governance
    • Healthcare Litigation
    • Consumer Protection
    • Whistle Blower False Claims Litigation
    • Government Representation
    • Employment Litigation
  • Cases
    • Antitrust Litigation Cases
    • Business & Commercial Litigation Cases
    • Consumer Protection Cases
    • Employment Litigation Cases
    • Government Representation Cases
    • Healthcare Litigation Cases
    • Mass Tort Litigation Cases
    • Securities & Corporate Governance Cases
    • Whistle Blower False Claims Cases
  • Investigations
    • Similac Toxic Infant Formula Lawsuit
    • Kid’s Castle Biometric Privacy Lawsuit
    • Contaminated Baby Food Lawsuit
    • Fatal Sportmix Pet Food Recall Class Action Lawsuit
    • Claire’s Data Breach Lawsuit
    • Insurance Denial for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment
    • Perpetual Sales Litigation
    • Railroad Price-Fixing Lawsuit
    • Medicare Advantage Fraud Litigation
    • Biometric Fingerprinting Litigation
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
See all blog posts
11.6.2017

Med-Arb: A Bad Approach for Resolving a Dispute

By Thomas Doyle, Of Counsel
The Firm, You Should Know

Med-Arb agreement

There are so many ways to resolve a legal dispute: a negotiated settlement prior to the start of a lawsuit; a settlement during a lawsuit (with or without an outside mediator); an arbitration; a full trial, in which a jury decides who wins; or even an appeal following a trial. There are advantages and drawbacks to every approach, and sometimes only one path is available to get to a resolution.

From time to time, someone tries to develop a new approach to solving legal disputes. One solution that pops up occasionally — especially in labor and employment law disputes — is a “Med-Arb.” A Med-Arb is a hybrid proceeding, in which the parties hire a Neutral Third Party to help them reach a negotiated solution (the “Med” phase), but if their negotiations stall, then the Neutral becomes an arbitrator who issues an award to resolve the dispute (the “Arb” phase). The parties are bound by the process, with virtually no right to appeal.

In my view, a Med-Arb is a dreadful idea, at least for most employment disputes. I worry that, during the “Med” stage, the parties are not likely to speak candidly or confidentially with the Neutral, because they will fear that any admission could boomerang on them during the “Arb” phase. During the “Med” phase, the parties are not fully committed to bargaining to their last and best offer, because everyone knows that the “Arb” phase is looming at any minute. Throughout the “Med” phase, both sides might worry about how the other side is swaying the Neutral. And I am not at all convinced that a Med-Arb is quicker or cheaper than a traditional mediation would have been.

On November 11th, I will be speaking about Med-Arb as part of a Panel Discussion at the American Bar Association’s 11th Annual Labor and Employment Law Conference in Washington, DC. (The conference brings together more than 1,000 Labor and Employment lawyers and judges, from all practice settings.) The Panel is entitled “Med-Arb: Can We Do Better Than ‘Everyone Walks Away Unhappy’?”, and we will discuss when a Med-Arb might make sense, and when it is a bad fit. I wrote a paper in connection with the Panel, collecting some of the research regarding how Med-Arb works. In my paper I conclude that a Med-Arb is worse than a traditional mediation, at least for most employment disputes.

To me, a Med-Arb is not a miracle cure, and parties should think long and hard before heading down that path.

Share

No Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Receive News Updates

Get the latest from Wexler Wallace LLP & stay informed.

Categories

  • Media Appearances
  • Uncategorized
  • Columns
    • Guest Post
    • Ken Wexler
    • Ed Wallace
  • Practice Areas
    • Consumer Protection
    • Mass Tort Litigation
    • Business & Commercial Litigation
    • Healthcare Litigation
    • Employment Litigation
  • Cases
  • Hall Of Shame
    • Villain Of The Week
  • In The News
    • Public Victories
  • Featured Investigations
  • The Firm
    • News releases
    • Around The World
    • Our Professionals
    • Chicago
  • You Should Know
    • For Investors
    • For Businesses
    • For Consumers
  • Featured Cases
  • awards
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Image

311 S. Wacker Drive,
Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
P_312.346.2222
F_312.346.0022

  • Our Firm
  • Practice Areas
  • Cases
  • Investigations
  • Newsroom
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Sitemap
  • Privacy Statement
  • Legal Disclaimer

2022 © Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP