Our arbitration practice has always been one of the cornerstones of our firm. We have done scores of arbitrations. Our lawyers not only have broad experience as advocates, but some also have substantial experience as chairs or members of arbitration panels.
As advocates, many of our arbitration lawyers have decades of experience in arbitrating complex cases in virtually every area of business endeavor, and under virtually all institutional arbitration rules and domestic laws, as well as ad hoc arbitrations not tied to any institutional rules.
As arbitrators, our lawyers regularly serve on panels in major arbitration proceedings which involve business disputes of all kinds. This gives us invaluable perspectives on how to most effectively present all aspects of a cases to arbitration panels. Our partners have been and are members of the most prestigious arbitration panels in the U.S., including the Large Complex Case Panels of the AAA, and the Center for Public Resources arbitration panel.
As arbitration scholars, we work hard to stay abreast of—and contribute to—important developments in arbitration. For example, the head of our arbitration practice, Fred Bennett, serves as a member of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee of the American Arbitration Association. We regularly sponsor and present arbitration seminars for clients and arbitration practitioners.
Our Alternative Fee Structures
We also proactively propose alternative fee structures whenever we believe it would be mutually beneficial for us and our clients to do so. Such structures may include full or partial contingency fee arrangements; flat fees for specific tasks or phases of the arbitration process; success fees for achieving pre-defined results for our clients—as claimants as well as respondents; and hybrid combinations of these fee structures.
To keep abreast of current developments on the international and domestic arbitration fronts, read our most recent arbitration newsletter, Arbitration Trends.
Back to Top
We secured a 9-figure settlement for a pharmaceutical company in several contract disputes arising out of drug and device development collaboration and licensing agreements, without having to file suit or request arbitration. This is a prime example of the “Quinn Emanuel Effect,” where our appearance, reputation, and initial strategic initiatives result in an early and highly favorable outcome.
We represented the holder of significant amounts of wireless spectrum in a contract dispute with a major telecommunications provider. Without filing a complaint, we were able to obtain a highly favorable settlement while maintaining the business relationship between our client and the telecom company.
We defeated two 28 U.S.C. § 1782 petitions for discovery in aid of foreign proceedings to confirm an arbitration award in favor of a subsidiary of JP Morgan. Section 1782 is a unique U.S. statutory provision that permits a party in a foreign proceeding to obtain discovery in the United States in aid of that foreign proceeding. The court denied both Section 1782 petitions because JP Morgan's subsidiary was attempting to circumvent an adverse discovery ruling in a parallel U.S. proceeding to confirm the same award. Prior to this decision, legal precedent held that Section 1782 petitions were improper where discovery was sought to circumvent foreign proof gathering restrictions. But no court had addressed whether Section 1782 discovery could be obtained where another U.S. court had denied that discovery in related proceedings. Our victory resulted in new case law that is relevant whenever discovery is sought in aid of a foreign arbitration award or judgment that is subject to enforcement in the United States and overseas at the same time.