Attorney Deborah Hankinson has been selected for the 14th time to D Magazine’s list of the Best Lawyers in Dallas for her practice in conflict resolution.

The 2019 honor recognizes the former Texas Supreme Court Justice’s comprehensive practice in conflict resolution, which includes mediation, early neutral evaluation, arbitration, settlement consulting, and special settlement counsel.

The award recognizes Hankinson’s practice as a broad range of consulting and counseling options that take full advantage of her analytical and problem-solving skills. From pre-litigation to post-trial, she advances procedural efficacy and the potential for settlement.

Her practice promotes opportunities for problem-solving and resolution at all stages of a dispute by making a range of easily accessible services available to those seeking alternatives to trial. This approach expands traditional mediation and arbitration to offer a new, broad-based resource for solving legal conflicts.

Hankinson offers early neutral evaluations to assess the merits of a dispute as a predicate to potential settlement. She also conducts pre-suit mediations and helps clients develop early settlement strategies. Based on her broad expertise, she is often retained as special settlement counsel.

Hankinson has earned recognition from The Best Lawyers in America, Chambers USA, Texas Super Lawyers, Benchmark Appellate, Texas Lawyer, Dallas Business Journal, Martindale-Hubbell and Lawdragon, in addition to D Magazine. She also has been honored as a Texas Trial Legend by the Dallas Bar Association and was selected to The National Law Journal’s inaugural ADR Champions list, recognizing trailblazers from across the nation.

Mark A. Cobb of Cobb Law Group writes that whenever he’s negotiating construction contracts on behalf of a client or discussing a construction collection matter with a potential client, the conversation inevitably includes a discussion of the construction contract’s dispute resolution clause.

In an article in the Georgia Construction, Bond & Lien Law Blog, he discusses several of the questions that can arise; e.g., What is a dispute resolution clause and why is it important? What types of construction contracts should include the clause? What are construction arbitration and mediation?

He also offers an example of a mandatory mediation provision.

Read the article.

Narges Kakalia of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo asks and then answers some pointed questions about arbitration in an article on the firm’s ADR Advice website.

“Is an arbitration clause mandatory or permissive when it provides that either party to the contract may elect to submit a dispute to binding arbitration? What if the contract also provides that the right to arbitrate is not exclusive of any other rights that a party has to pursue legal action in an appropriate forum? Such an arbitration clause certainly sounds permissive. But courts have invested a lot of ink addressing the question, and (spoiler alert!) they have more or less consistently come to the conclusion that such a clause makes arbitration mandatory if any party chooses it,” she writes.

She explains that many litigants and their lawyers misinterpret the real meaning fo the word “may” in this context.

Read the article.

The International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), an organization that works for fair and effective alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices worldwide, has spoken out against Donald Trump’s attacks on adjudicators.

In a release, CPR said it took this position in response to recent statements made by Trump questioning the impartiality of Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel because of his Mexican heritage, and also questioning whether a Muslim judge could fairly preside over a case involving him.

“Those who sit as judges and adjudicate cases have a well-established responsibility to be fair and impartial,” said CPR President and CEO Noah Hanft. “This obligation is one that all adjudicators, including neutrals on CPR’s own panel of distinguished neutrals that includes many former Judges, take with extreme seriousness. Indeed, it is critical to maintaining both the integrity and stability of the dispute resolution process. Therefore, accusations that judges are biased, based solely upon factors such as their ‘heritage,’ are both dangerous and irresponsible and anathema to basic precepts of justice.”

Hanft concluded, “As an organization committed to improving the way disputes are resolved and driving diversity within the profession, we consider the implication that one’s family background renders him or her biased and unable to adjudicate a matter fairly and without conflict to be a great affront. We call upon other ADR providers, and the legal and business community that relies upon a fair and stable judicial framework, to similarly condemn these statements.”

Some contracts, including insurance and reinsurance contracts, include provisions providing that the successful party’s damage award will include all costs of the suit or arbitration, including attorney fees, writes Larry P. Schiffer in Squire Patton Boggs’ Insurance and Reinsurance Law Blog.

“This type of clause modifies the traditional default American Rule of costs and fees, in which each litigant pays its own attorney fees, win or lose,” he explains. “What happens when this type of contract clause bumps up against the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’) and the ability of a party to petition a court to seek to vacate an arbitration award? Is the prevailing party entitled to costs and attorney fees defending the vacatur proceeding?”

He describes a recent ruling in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the court was asked to review a district court order confirming an arbitration award and awarding costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party.

Read the article.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau determined that pre-dispute arbitration clauses harm consumers by forcing them to sign or click away their right to pursue future remedies in a court of law, reports Julie Goldsmith Reiser is a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC in an article published by Bloomberg BNA.

Consumers “undervalue the importance of mandatory arbitration clauses even in the rare instances where consumers might be able to opt out.” she writes. “CFPB correctly concluded that binding individual customers to mandatory arbitration before a dispute arises, rather than encouraging its voluntary use, is harmful to public interest and consumer protection.”

She details the CFPB’s study and results and examines a critique offered by the Mercatus Center.

Read the article.