Dispute Resolution News
Official Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association Dispute Resolution Section
In This Issue
Upcoming Events
Georgia Standards for Confirmation of Arbitration Awards
Recent Developments in Dispute Resolution
The Dispute Resolution News is Looking for Articles of Interest
Quick Links
Summer 2011
Newsletter Editor: 
John F. Allgood
Dispute Resolution Section Board of Directors
Chair: Robert N. Dokson
Vice Chair/Chair-Elect: Emory Speer Mabry III
Secretary/Treasurer: Herbert H. (Hal) Gray III
Immediate Past Chair: Robert B. Wedge

John F. Allgood
William Beringer
Cicely Breckenridge
Hala Carey
Terrence L. Croft
William S. Goodman
Daniel E. Gulden
Rex D. Smith 
Upcoming Events
Mark your calendars for our upcoming Section Breakfast
Next Section Breakfast
Wednesday, September 7 - 7:30 am
at the Buckhead Club
"What Clients Really Look for When Selecting a Mediator (and It May Not Be What You Think!)"
Panelists: Rebecca M. Aqua
Senior Litigation Specialist, MAG Mutual Insurance Company 
Lisa C. Brown
Assistant Vice President of Old Republic National Title Insurance Company; Claims Manager
Emily S. Johnson
Employment Counsel, UPS Corporate Legal Department
Moderator: Phillip M. Armstrong

former Senior Counsel, ADR and Litigation,
at Georgia-Pacific LLC
1 CLE hour available

Please register online or return the registration form

Mark your calendars for these other upcoming Section Breakfast Meetings at the Buckhead Club
- Wednesday, October 5, 2011 - 7:30 am
- Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 7:30 am
- Wednesday, January 4, 2012 - 7:30 am
- Wednesday, February 5, 2012 - 7:30 am
- Wednesday, March 7, 2012 - 7:30 am
- Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - 7:30 am
- Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - 7:30 am
Check your emails for updates on breakfast topics and speakers or visit www.atlantabar.org.
Georgia Standards for Confirmation of Arbitration Awards
 In Azordegan v. Ebrahimi, A11A1402
 (08/05/11) the Georgia Court of
 Appeals recently considered a
 contest to the superior court's
 confirmation of an arbitration award.  
 The dispute involved obligations
 under an agency agreement. The
 appellant asked that the arbitrator's
 award be vacated based on OCGA
 Section 9-9 13 (b (3), i.e. the
 arbitrator had overstepped their authority or so imperfectly executed the award that the party's rights had been prejudiced.
The court noted the appellant had failed to meet the burden needed for an appeal including the requirement of a record.  There was no copy of the agency agreement supplied to the court.  Further there was no transcript of evidence filed nor any evidence of the issues presented to the arbitrator as part of the proceedings filed with the appeal.  The arbitrator's Award noted that each party had been asked to file post-hearing briefs but no briefs were made a part of the appeal. The arbitrator also noted in the award that the parties had asked for a Standard form of Award.  Quoting from Humar Properties, LLLP v. Prior Tire Enterprises, 270 Ga. App. 306-307 (2004) the court set out the standards for confirmation:
Recent Developments in Dispute Resolution

Jurisdiction of the Court/Arbitrator to decide arbitrability/unconscionability.

Rent-A-Car Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 Sup. Ct. 2772 (June 21, 2010) allowed the court to look at an unconscionability challenge to the arbitration agreement in an employment contract.  The Supreme Court reversed a decision of the 9th Circuit that held that a court rather than arbitrators have the sole jurisdiction to determine whether an arbitration clause is unconscionable.  In this instance the employer's arbitration agreement provided that the arbitrator had "exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the ... enforceability ... of this Agreement."  The Court acknowledged that the contract was one of adhesion but noted that Jackson's initial challenge had been to the contract as a whole and not simply to the validity of the arbitration "delegation" clause.  The Court reviewed its decision in First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) in which it said a challenge to the validity of an arbitration clause is generally for a court to decide.  In this instance, however, the Court said Jackson had, in both the district court and in the Ninth Circuit, challenged the contract as a whole and not simply the clause delegating to the arbitrator the authority to determine the issue of unconscionability.  When Jackson raised for the first time to the Supreme Court a challenge to the unconscionable impact of the clause delegating authority to the arbitrator rather than to a court, the Court determined he had done so too late.

View the entire article

The Dispute Resolution News is Looking for Articles of Interest
typewriter newsThe Dispute Resolution News is looking for articles of interest to the Section. 

If you would like to submit an article for publication, please email newsletter editor, John Allgood.