Law Commons^™

Why Mediators Should Be Regulated, Art Hinshaw

Art Hinshaw

In the United States consumers engage mediators on a caveat emptor basis. The regulatory scheme for mediators is a patchwork of mediation referral organizations which allows unscrupulous mediators to exploit consumers with little to no recourse. One egregious example is that of Gary J. Karpin, a disbarred lawyer turned divorce mediator, who used the mediation process to con forty people into giving him approximately $250,000 before taking up residence in prison. In an age when everyone from doctors to cosmetologists is subject to occupational regulation, why are mediators virtually unregulated? Mediators have long been divided on the question of regulation. …

Crowdsourcing (Bankruptcy) Fee Control, Matthew Bruckner

Matthew Adam Bruckner

In this article, I explore how crowdsourcing can help reduce the cost of professional representation in corporate bankruptcy cases. The cost of professional representation in bankruptcy cases is currently a hot topic, with oral argument haven taken place before the U.S. Supreme Court in Baker Botts L.L.P. v. Asarco, L.L.C. in February 2015, which case addressed various issues raised in my article. In brief, the fees of lawyers, investment bankers, and other bankruptcy professionals has been spiraling out of control because chapter 11’s existing fee control system is broken. That system can neither identify nor control professional overcharging, which empirical …

“Whimsy Little Contracts” With Unexpected Consequences: An Empirical Analysis Of Consumer Understanding Of Arbitration Agreements, Jeff Sovern

Jeff Sovern

Arbitration clauses have become ubiquitous in consumer contracts. These arbitration clauses require consumers to waive the constitutional right to a civil jury, access to court, and, increasingly, the procedural remedy of class representation. Because those rights cannot be divested without consent, the validity of arbitration agreements rests on the premise of consent. Consumers who do not want to arbitrate or waive their class rights can simply decline to purchase the products or services covered by an arbitration agreement. But the premise of consent is undermined if consumers do not understand the effect on their procedural rights of clicking a box …

At&T V. Concepcion: The Problem Of A False Majority, Lisa Tripp, Evan R. Hanson

Lisa Tripp

The Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T v. Concepcion is the first case where the Supreme Court explores the interplay between state law unconscionability doctrine and the vast preemptive power of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Although it is considered by many to be a landmark decision which has the potential for greatly expanding the already impressive preemptive power of the FAA, something is amiss with Concepcion.

AT&T v. Concepcion is ostensibly a 5-4 majority decision with a concurring opinion. However, the differences in the majority and concurring opinions are so profound that it appears that Justice Thomas actually …