How & why I became an arbitrator:
I became an arbitrator in 2008 while I continued to work as a non-labor litigator. In May 2018, I stopped litigating and now serve as a full-time arbitrator and mediator.
I pursued labor law because workplace disputes raise intellectually challenging legal issues that most people can relate to since almost everyone works. I started my career as a labor lawyer in 1985 and – since then – have participated in hundreds of arbitration cases, either as an advocate for labor or as a neutral arbitrator.
From the time I tried my first arbitration case, I was hooked on the institution of arbitration. Eventually, after trying scores of arbitration cases, I decided that — at some point in my career — I would become an arbitrator.
Over the years, I had the good fortune of learning from many outstanding arbitrators. My labor law professor was Ray Goetz, who was a brilliant labor lawyer and also a top arbitrator. As an advocate, I tried arbitration cases before Byron Abernethy, Howard S. Block, Jack Dunsford, Ted Jones, George Nicolau, and Tom Roberts, among many other giants in the field of labor arbitration. They ran fair, dignified, and respectful hearings; they let experienced advocates try their cases with minimal interruptions; and they issued well-reasoned awards. Even when I disagreed with them, I could tell how they arrived at their decisions, and I respected their fairness and intellect.
My philosophy and goals in arbitration:
As an arbitrator, I do my best to emulate the high standards set down by those giants. Specifically, I try to decide only the issues the parties put before me and only on the grounds argued by the parties. I work hard to avoid treading on issues or arguments the parties never raised. Essentially, I see myself as the parties’ umpire, calling the issues and weighing the arguments before me as I see them but consistent with the language of the prevailing collective bargaining agreement.
In my view, the worst thing an arbitrator can do is to opine on issues or arguments the parties never raised. A close second in the list of arbitrator errors is offering parties unwanted guidance and spurious wisdom. I fully understand that such arbitral mischief can constitute an arbitrator’s “own brand of industrial justice,” but more importantly such errors intrude into the parties’ roles as the masters of their collective agreements.
Furthermore, I endeavor to issue prompt awards. For instance, over the past few years, I have on average issued awards within fifteen days of receiving the parties’ arguments. I understand that justice delayed is justice denied. And, although one party or the other is almost always unhappy with my decision, I try not to compound that inevitable disappointment with delay.
As I always told the law students who worked for me over the years, lawyers are professional writers and are judged by how they write. The same goes for arbitrators. So, my goal is to issue concise, tightly-reasoned, and understandable awards. You can decide for yourself whether I live up to that goal by reviewing my published arbitration awards, which I’ve listed on another page of this website.
Finally, I try to decide each case on its merits without worrying about how I will be perceived by the parties and without keeping track of past selections or win-loss records with repeat users. I also try not to split the baby because I know I am not King Solomon. In essence, I believe that fair, unbiased decision-making and clearly written, rationally constructed and promptly issued awards will take care of my acceptability as a neutral for both management and labor.
I enjoy labor and employment law and relish the challenge of hearing cases and issuing fair, well-reasoned decisions. I hope I get the chance to work with you and your clients in the future.