Menu
Log in
Forgot password

Association for Conflict Resolution - Greater New York Chapter↑

Search
Log in
Forgot password

Chair's Draft of Final Award

Monday, May 04, 2026 12:26 PM | Anonymous

International SIAC arbitrator ...

You are a wing arbitrator.  You have just reviewed the Panel Chair’s draft of the Final Award. The draft reflects the outcome and the reasoning that the Panel reached during its post-hearing deliberations, but, in your opinion, the writing leaves much to be desired.  Should you defer to the Panel Chair’s writing style or should you request or suggest that the Panel Chair make changes that, in your view, would make the Final Award a better work product?

What are your thoughts?

Comments

  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:01 PM | Steven Skulnik
    Co-arbitrators' proposed edits should concern accuracy, clarity, and completeness. If co-arbitrators have different writing styles, they should wait to apply them to cases where they are the Chair.
    Link  •  Reply
    • Monday, May 04, 2026 3:42 PM | Julia E. Sullivan
      I agree, Steve! Not least because the parties probably don't want to pay for style points.
      Link  •  
      Author
      Comment
       
      • Tuesday, May 05, 2026 9:02 AM | Denise Hammond
        Julia - I once had a wing arbitrator completely rewrite my draft award, turning it from a succinct 12 page reasoned award into a 28 page behemoth. Whole sections and legal arguments were added regarding lightly contested issues. When the parties received the invoice, they were livid. Now, I have a frank discussion with wing arbitrators during the hearing and talk about the scope of the award, including a reasonable page estimate. It helps set everyone's expectations.
        Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:01 PM | Steve Smith
    Normally, I would expect the chair to give the wing arbitrators an opportunity to comment on the draft award. If the drafts Issues are purely a matter of style I probably would not comment. However, if I am concerned about enforceability, such as leaving out key concepts, or cases, I would suggest changes.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:02 PM | David Robbins
    No question - Return the draft in track change format with all your improve ments.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:02 PM | Jesse Diner
    I believe it is a wing's obligation to try to make an award a better work product. Consequently, the wing should request or suggest the Chair to make changes.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:03 PM | Anonymous
    I would try to convince the Chair one more time to accept my proposals but if not I would still support the Chair as a wing arbitrator there has been discussions among all the arbitrators before the chair writes the decision
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:04 PM | Thomas Hanrahan
    This depends a bit (maybe a lot) on the relationship among panel members and how important "good" writing versus "acceptable" writing is to the issues presented. Sometimes "adequate" is all the parties and the issue demand. But in general, good writing is the goal, and I would not hesitate to suggest edits to a draft award to make it more clear, more refined, or help the losing side know why the decision is what it is, or help a reviewing court understand how and why the panel decided as it did. Good panel chairs will invite suggestions from the wings, and that usually makes a better product.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:12 PM | Robert L. Arrington
    The dynamics of every panel are different. Most Panel Chairs solicit input and comment from their wings. I would not hesitate to suggest edits to promote clarity, but as long as the result and reasoning are consistent with the decision, I would not insist or argue unless the writing created an ambiguity that might jeopardize the Award.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:14 PM | Mark Bunim
    I have had this happen on more than one occasion. The Chair will almost always ask for comments, and I submit a (extensive) redline.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:15 PM | Mark Zauderer
    Definitely—each panel member should feel free to contribute to the written product and the person who is the primary drafter should consider all suggestions, whether substantive or in the language of the written product As with an appellate court decision, the written product speaks For the Panel, not one member. If the panel members simply can’t agree on a collaborative product, any panel member is free to write separately.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:15 PM | Diana Correa, Ph.D.
    What a great question! I definitely try to improve the award, as it is the duty of the entire panel to produce an excellent decision. I would do this by, either suggesting to my colleagues (the Panel Chair and co-arbitrator) to review certain aspects, or by returning the draft award with my suggestions in track changes. It is unfair to expect the Chair to handle everything alone, and she/he probably won't be able to improve it the way I expect. Otherwise, the Chair would have done it so already. By acting in this way, I am not only working to produce a better award, but also working in a very efficient manner. Of course, and this is my last thought, I would do all this in the most polite and respectful way.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:24 PM | Mary Austin
    I try to avoid stylistic comments. I note typos but defer to grammar choices. I comment if something is unclear or inadvertently and unnecessarily touches on something that could lead to an appeal or uncertainty. It is easier to occasionally suggest a tweak or an addition if it would be helpful and well-received.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:30 PM | Susan E. Halperin
    The writing of an award should be complete from the perspective of all panel members. Whether or not there is agreement on the outcome, I find that technical revisions are often extremely helpful since the panel members are also familiar with the case. Over forty-five years, I have also found that substantive discussions after the award is drafted is also critical.
    On numerous occasions, the outcomes of prior discussions have been changed with one more review by the panel members--it may be more important when a panel member is new in your orbit or in arbitration in general. At times, especially in contract matters when a panel member has marching orders, the weight of the evidence fairly reviewed has resulted in a change in position or a new stipulation between the parties, especially if the offer is flawed or is not written to be included in the existing contract. Further deliberations--time permitted--only results in a well written decision and beneficial understanding.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:42 PM | Pat Guinan
    Yes, a wing arbitrator should be assured that the key issues are addressed and supported legally and factually. If the Award is lacking on a key legal or factual issue, the wing arbitrator should suggest changes that can be debated between the three arbitrators.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 1:43 PM | Anonymous
    Wing arbitrators should always feel free to provide comments they feel are appropriate, especially those that improve clarity and help to explain the panel's reasoning. Changes may be stylistic, grammatical or substantive. Stylistic comments that do not change the substance or improve the accuracy or propriety of the writing can be made in the discretion of the panel and are less important. But wing arbitrators should feel free to offer any and all suggestions they feel are appropriate.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 2:01 PM | Michael Seng
    *** External E-Mail – Use Caution ***



    In my experience, the Chair has always asked for edits, suggestions, etc., and welcomed and adopted them.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 2:23 PM | Anonymous
    My focus as wing is on making the award clear, complete and well-reasoned. In my redline, I correct any grammatical errors but tread lightly on stylistic differences.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 2:31 PM | David Wilson
    Yes, the wings should be able to propose edits to the chair's draft. Although drafting by committee has its drawbacks, the goal of the drafting process is an award that all tribunal members can support.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 3:06 PM | Ernest C Brown
    I would send a email to the Chair with my redline comments. Not super-picky ones, but those that enhance the professionalism of the writing and the clarity of the Award. We are writing reasoned awards for the parties to understand the decision and for the Courts to see the factual and legal basis of our conclusions. A good result, badly written is not a good outcome for anyone. If the draft by the Chair is really poorly done and there is no interest by the Chair in revisions, I would consider a Minority Opinion, even if it reached the same conclusions. Basically, I would "concur with the result" but using a stepwise, logical flow to the result. Finally, this could be flagged to the Case Manager, although they would generally see it in draft prior to their adding the administrative clauses and performing the final review.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 3:15 PM | FRANK LATTAL
    Absolutely make suggestions that would improve the final product.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 3:21 PM | Anonymous
    An Award from a Panel is a reflection of all three arbitrators. It should be a product all three can take pride in. I always give my fellow arbitrators full editing rights.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 4:04 PM | Donald Rose
    Given that the draft reflects the outcome and reasoning of the Panel, I would try to limit comments to those necessary to correct inaccuracies or ambiguity that could undermine or be argued to be inconsistent with the agreed reasoning. Wings should to provide the Chair with comments that will substantively improve the award, but also be mindful that time spent writing non-substantive comments creates unnecessary cost for the parties, who are there for a cost-efficient decision and not pristine writing.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 4:11 PM | Judge Richard B. Klein (ret.)
    As a former judge, my comment would be "it depends." As chair, I always ask for comments. It depends on the relationship with the other arbitrators. Generally, if the draft covers the ground adequately, I will join, even if I don't like the style. If it's way off base, although the result is fine, I either would call the chair or, if necessary, just say I concur in the result. Normally, I would just talk to the chair.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 5:19 PM | Anonymous
    What is a “wing arbitrator”? Never heard of that term
    Link  •  Reply
    • Tuesday, May 05, 2026 12:02 AM | Mark Young
      In multi-person arbitration panels, usually one panel member will be designated the "chairperson" or "chair" of the panel as designated in the AAA rules. The other panel members are sometimes informally referred to as the "wings" or "wing arbitrators." The term descriptive in relation to the chairperson. Each panel member regardless of label has an obligation to be fully independent.
      Link  •  Reply
    • Tuesday, May 05, 2026 12:34 PM | Laura Inveen
      "Wings" are the two arbitrators who are not the chair.
      Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, May 04, 2026 6:36 PM | David Millstone
    There are several different considerations.
    1. If it is purely stylistic, the wing arbitrator should leave that to the Chair and his or her perogative.
    2. If part of the conern involves passages that are ambiguous or if the reasoning is hard to follow, it makes the award subject to vacation or misinterpretation and affects the integrity of the proceeding and suggestions on changes should be made in a professional and polite manner pointing out the concerns with suggested language for curing those concerns.
    3. If for some reason the writing misrepresents what the panel actually agreed upon, you should object and point out the issues. As a signer of the award, your name is on it.
    4. If the remedy language is imprecise or ambiguous or if the Award fails in resolving the submitted issue with sufficient clarity, these are functional deficits that should be addressed.

    The parties are entitled to a Final Award that is well-reasoned and clearly written. The best way to avoid the problem is during the discussion to ask that a draft opinion gets circulated for comment by all of the arbitrators. When responding, concerns should be addressed as collaborative rather than critical - making sure the particular passage captures the arbitrators agreements is more acceptable than comments suggesting something was poorly written.

    The final award is a collective work product and each arbitrators signature represents that arbitrator’s professional endorsement.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Tuesday, May 05, 2026 9:26 AM | Stanley Santire
    If the issue is critical to your case and appears to in some way distort by not being clear or logically organize, as an arbitrator I would appreciate such input. As to the advocate, doing so is part of the obligation to the client. The key is not whether or not to give such feedback. It is a question how to do it. In other words, use language that show respect to the arbitrator. On the other hand, I would not want purely stylistic suggestions or feedback that does that improve comprehension or legal basis.
    Link  •  Reply
Association for Conflict Resolution - Greater New York Chapter

© ACR-GNY

Contact Us

Email us at questions@acrgny.org

ACR-GNY's mission and programming are generously sponsored by:

ADR Notable: Dispute Resolution Management Made Easy
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software