Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDrahozal, Christopher R.
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-25T19:25:13Z
dc.date.available2016-01-25T19:25:13Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.citationDrahozal, Christopher R., Confidentiality in Consumer and Employment Arbitration, 7 Yearbook on Arbitration & Mediation (2015).en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/19801
dc.description.abstractThis article examines an apparent misperception among some commentators about the confidentiality of consumer and employment arbitration in the U.S. Arbitration is a private process — i.e., the public cannot attend an arbitration hearing — and arbitrators and arbitration administrators are (with some exceptions) required to keep information about arbitrations confidential. But the parties to the arbitration agreement are not subject to an obligation of confidentiality. Either party can disclose the existence of the dispute and any underlying facts, the existence of any arbitration proceeding, and any information about or provided in the arbitration proceeding, including the arbitral award. Only if the arbitration clause also includes a confidentiality provision are the parties subject to a confidentiality obligation, as set out in their agreement. Accordingly, criticisms of the confidentiality of arbitration, and in particular that arbitration clauses enable businesses to hide wrongdoing, are at best overstated and at worst misguided. They are overstated because information about disputes remains available, not from the court system but from the parties themselves. When a dispute is subject to arbitration, interested persons are not able to obtain filings and other information from the court clerk like they could if the case was in court. In the rare case that would have gone to trial, the public is not able to watch. But the parties continue to be able to disclose the same information they can disclose without an arbitration clause. The criticisms are misguided because they direct attention toward arbitration clauses and away from confidentiality provisions, which seem to be the real source of many commentators’ complaints.en_US
dc.relation.hasversionhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2716412en_US
dc.subjectArbitrationen_US
dc.subjectDispute Resolutionen_US
dc.subjectContractsen_US
dc.subjectConfidentialityen_US
dc.titleConfidentiality in Consumer and Employment Arbitrationen_US
dc.typeArticle
kusw.kuauthorDrahozal, Christopher
kusw.kudepartmentLawen_US
kusw.oaversionScholary, edited volume
kusw.oapolicyThe license granted by the OA policy is waived for this item.
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record