Arbitration 101: Drafting the Demand, Hearing, Discovery & Use of Experts


Re-Broadcast on August 21, 2017

This program provides practical information for all litigators – whether newly admitted or experienced – about how to navigate an arbitration proceeding from drafting a demand, the initial conference with the arbitrator, motion practice and discovery, through final award.

Two experienced arbitrators will share their views and practice points about how to have a successful arbitration, including the differences between arbitration and the judicial process.

This course is co-sponsored by Wolters Kluwer.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Pleadings in Arbitration
  • How to Prepare for the Preliminary Conference Call
  • Prehearing Process: Discovery, Motions, Interim Relief
  • The Arbitration Hearing
  • Post-hearing Processes

Date / Time: August 21, 2017

  • 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm Eastern
  • 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Central
  • 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm Mountain
  • 11:00 am – 1:00 pm Pacific

Choose a format:

  • Live Video Broadcast/Re-Broadcast: Watch Program “live” in real-time, must sign-in and watch program on date and time set above. May ask questions during presentation via chat box. Qualifies for “live” CLE credit.
  • On-Demand Video: Access CLE 24/7 via on-demand library and watch program anytime. Qualifies for self-study CLE credit. On-demand versions are made available 7 business days after the original recording date and are view-able for up to one year.



erica-garayErica B. Garay is the Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) practice group, an arbitrator and mediator, and a member of the Litigation practice at Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. located in Garden City, Long Island, N.Y. where she handles commercial litigation. She is also a Member of the Firm and a member of the Management Committee. Ms. Garay is on the NAM and American Arbitration Association rosters of neutrals for commercial and complex litigation and employment disputes on their mediation panels. Ms. Garay also serves on rosters of mediators for Nassau, Suffolk, Brooklyn, Queens, Westchester and New York Counties, N.Y.S. Supreme Court, Commercial Division, the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and the Eastern Districts of New York, including those courts’ bankruptcy panels.

Ms. Garay has arbitrated or mediated numerous disputes (as a neutral) concerning real property transactions, contracts, environmental contamination, insurance coverage, shareholder and LLC disputes (dissolutions, freeze-outs, oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, valuation and derivative claims), employment discrimination, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, and trade secrets, business disputes, insurance coverage and a variety of other commercial matters.

As an advocate for clients, Ms. Garay concentrates on commercial litigation including corporate, LLC, and partnership dissolutions, trade secrets and intellectual property, shareholder disputes and business valuations, arbitrations, trials, appeals, employment law, insurance coverage and general business representation. Ms. Garay represents businesses of all sizes and their management. She has served on steering committees charged with planning the course of major pieces of commercial litigation. She has lectured and authored articles on ADR, federal practice, employment law, shareholder rights, restrictive covenants and trade secrets, and advises businesses on these and other corporate and commercial matters.

Notable experience includes:
– Obtained an injunction to protect trade secrets of a manufacturing company and successfully defended the injunction in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
– Defeated an application for an injunction against an international jewelry designer based upon claims of trademark infringement and trade secret misappropriation; won motion to dismiss claims of jewelry design copyright infringement
– Obtained an injunction to protect trade secrets of clothing manufacturer, in absence of contractual protection
– Won earn-out award for seller of high-tech business after arbitration and prevailed on appeal
– Tried several shareholder and partnership, dissolutions and valuation cases ( in court and arbitration)
– Tried several breach of restrictive covenant and misappropriation of trade secrets claims
– Obtained insurance coverage for complex commercial torts and other lawsuits
– Advised numerous clients on corporate governance and shareholder rights; and non-competition; non-disclosure; confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements, including motions, trials, arbitrations, and appeals
– Successfully arbitrated break-up of medical practice and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and theft of trade secrets and breach of non-competition agreement
– Arbitrated (as a neutral) claims regarding insurance coverage; complex real estate transactions; hotel management contract; medical billing disputes; non-competition disputes; disability claims; shareholder disputes; LLC disputes; breach of fiduciary duty disputes; breach of contract; LLC dissolution
– Mediated disputes (as a neutral) regarding real estate brokerage commissions; civil rights claims; employment discrimination claims; breach of contract; breach of non-competition agreement and theft of trade secrets; insurance broker malpractice; breach of fiduciary duty claims; and breach of commercial lease and guaranty

Among her many accolades, Ms. Garay was honored by the Long Island Women’s Agenda in 2008. Ms. Garay was inducted into the “Top 50 Women on Long Island” Hall of Fame in 2003, after being a recipient of the honor for two prior years. She was named Advocate of the Year in 2002 by Women on the Job, and she was the Girl Scouts of Nassau County’s Juliette Low Award of Distinction recipient in 2000. She was the recipient of the 1993 Achievers’ Award in Law from the Long Island Center for Business & Professional Women and inducted in to its Hall of Fame in 2001. She has also been recognized by the American Bar Association’s Section of Litigation, receiving its Distinguished Leadership Award.

Ms. Garay has lectured at the Practicing Law Institute on “Enforcing Confidentiality and Non-Compete Agreements”; presented at the New York Judicial Institute to the State’s Commercial Judges on “Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Litigation”; at the Nassau and Suffolk Academies of Law on shareholder dissolutions and “Trade Secrets in the Electronic Age”; and at the Nassau County and Suffolk County Bar Associations on arbitration and mediation. She is a frequent lecturer on ADR and shareholder rights.

Prior to joining Meyer Suozzi, Ms. Garay was a partner of the firm of Rivkin Radler LLP. She was previously associated with Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, and served as an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the General Litigation Division of the New York City Law Department. She also worked on two of the largest contract cases ever to go to trial in New York City and Seattle, both of which resulted in multi-million dollar verdicts or judgments in favor of her clients, and was on the steering committee which successfully defended coverage litigation for a $750 million clean-up of PCB contamination in multi-district litigation.

david-abeshouseDavid Abeshouse for 3 decades has focused his law practice on resolving B-2-B disputes. For the past 17 years, David Abeshouse has been a solo practitioner concentrating in business litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR; arbitration and mediation), creatively resolving the business disputes of clients — entrepreneurs, professionals, and small businesses – principally through arbitration or mediation. Before that, he was a commercial litigation and ADR partner in a medium-sized L.I. law firm. Selected to SuperLawyers (for ADR), multiple years.

David serves as neutral Arbitrator on the Commercial Panel of Neutrals of the American Arbitration Assn. and ICDR, and other major ADR forums. He acts as a private judge, hearing evidence and rendering binding awards.

He also is a forum-based and private Mediator, a neutral impartial facilitator of settlement negotiations leading to agreements resolving business disputes. Mediation avoids excessive court litigation (and its attendant expense, disruption, delay, and risks) and achieves creative, mutually beneficial results for all involved. David also serves as a “deal mediator” and an ADR consultant to other lawyers.

David was selected for charter membership in The New York Academy of Mediators & Arbitrators (NYAMA; Executive Committee Member), Chapter of The National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals (NADN). The NADN is an association of distinguished attorney-neutrals well-versed in Alternative Dispute Resolution. Membership is by invitation only, and limited to neutrals with proven experience in resolution of commercial disputes, recognized through a peer-nomination and client review process. The NYAMA has 47 top-tier ADR practitioners, only 4 of whom are on L.I.

David was selected for membership as a Fellow of the College of Commercial Arbitrators (CCA). Membership is by invitation only. There are 48 CCA Fellows in NY State, and only 4 on Long Island. According to its website: The CCA is a national organization of commercial arbitrators[that] promotes the highest standards of conduct, professionalism and ethical practice, develops “best practices,” and provides peer training and professional development. The College… offers an easy means to identify those individuals whose professional training and experience qualify them to undertake the most complex and difficult arbitration assignments.

David co-founded in 2000 the Attorney Round Table, a unique networking group of about 30 niche practice lawyers who meet monthly, support each other’s practices, and refer business among members. He also is a long-time member of Gotham City Networking and a member of the International Network of Boutique Law Firms. He has been an avid user of LinkedIn since 2004, as part of his practice marketing initiative.

He has served for decades on the Boards of Directors, as President, or pro bono General Counsel, of several not-for-profit corporations, and for nearly 20 years served as President of the U.S. (NYC and Chicago) real estate business of an Australian client. David also is a past Chair of the Nassau County Bar Assn. ADR Committee.

David presents at public speaking engagements on ADR and other legal topics, and publishes articles online and in print (periodicals and books) nationwide and regionally. He is a past Adjunct Law Professor at St. John’s Univ. School of Law, teaching ADR Law. Martindale AV-Preeminent (5.0 out of 5.0) rating; Avvo 10 out of 10 ranking.

CLE Accreditation:
mylawCLE seeks approval in all states except VA.

CLE 2.00 – AK
CLE 2.00 – AL
CLE 2.00 – AR
CLE 2.00 – AZ
CLE 2.00 – CA
CLE 2.40 – CO
CLE 2.00 – DE
CLE 2.40 – FL
CLE 2.00 – GA
CLE 2.00 – HI

CLE 2.00 – IA
CLE 2.00 – ID
CLE 2.00 – IL
CLE 2.00 – IN
CLE 2.00 – KS
CLE 2.00 – KY
CLE 2.00 – LA
CLE 2.00 – ME
CLE 2.00 – MN
CLE 2.40 – MO

CLE 2.00 – MP
CLE 2.00 – MS
CLE 2.00 – MT
CLE 2.00 – NC
CLE 2.00 – ND
CLE 2.00 – NE
CLE 2.00 – NH
CLE 2.40 – NJ
CLE 2.00 – NM
CLE 2.00 – NV

CLE 2.40 – NY
CLE 2.00 – OH
CLE 2.40 – OK
CLE 2.00 – OR
CLE 2.00 – PA
CLE 2.00 – PR
CLE 2.40 – RI
CLE 2.00 – SC
CLE 2.00 – TN
CLE 2.00 – TX

CLE 2.00 – UT
CLE 2.40 – VI
CLE 2.00 – VT
CLE 2.00 – WA
CLE 2.40 – WI
CLE 2.40 – WV
CLE 2.00 – WY

Accreditation Policy
myLawCLE will seek credit where attending attorneys are primarily licensed for all of its live webinars and live teleconferences, except in states which allow for reciprocity (see reciprocity section below). Credit for CLE in a self-study format is sought for in most states; however, some states do not allow for CLE credit to be earned in a self-study format (see the self-study section below). Many states typically decide whether a program qualifies for MCLE credit in their jurisdiction 4-8 weeks after the program application is submitted. For many live events, credit approval is not received prior to the program. Credit hours granted are subject to approval from each state.

Additionally, some states allow for credit to be granted on a 1:1 reciprocal basis for courses approved in another mandatory CLE jurisdiction state. This is known as a reciprocity provision and includes the following states: AK, AR, CO, FL, ME, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, PR, and SD. myLawCLE does not seek direct accreditation of live webinars or teleconferences in these states.

On-demand CLE
myLawCLE will seek on-demand approval in all states except Virginia and Arkansas (outside reciprocal provisions stated above).

myLawCLE Credit Guarantee
myLawCLE offers a program and credit approval guarantee. If a registered attendee is unhappy with a CLE program they have attended, myLawCLE will offer that attended access to another complimentary CLE or a full refund in order to insure the attendeeís satisfaction.

Additionally, on all online CLE programs application for approval will be made in all states where attending attorneys are primarily licensed in. If a registered attorney does not receive credit from their state for any reason, a full refund will be granted.

Section I. Drafting the Demand

Section II. Should You Answer the Demand? Raise Counterclaims?

Section III. Administrative Call With the Provider: How to Prepare

Section IV. “Confidentiality” of Arbitration vs. “Privacy”

Section V. Interim (Emergency) Relief

Section VI. Selecting the Arbitrator: What Qualities, Background, Skills, Experience Are Best for This Case?

Section VII. Conflicts Check — Providing Information to the Arbitrator About Possible Witnesses: Duty of Arbitrator to Disclose is a Continuing Duty

Section VIII. Preliminary Conference/Scheduling Conference

Section IX. Scope of Discovery/Discovery Disputes

Section X. Getting Discovery from Non-Parties: Subpoenas in Arbitration (Discovery; Hearing)

Section XI. Expert Discovery

Section XII. Motions to Disqualify Counsel

Section XIII. Substitution of Counsel

Section XIV. Prepping the Client for the Hearing

Section XV. Mediation/Settlement

Section XVI. Award on Consent

Section XVII. Conduct of Hearing

Section XVIII. Attorney’s Fees (and Applications for Same); Allocation of Arbitration Fees and Arbitrator Compensation

Section XIX. “Final” Award

Section XX. “Functus Officio” and Limited Bases to Modify Award