Columns

For the last 10 years of the Trump era, I have often asked the question: “Can you believe that?”
It was never more appropriate than in the following case.

By Berl Falbaum

For the last 10 years of the Trump era, I have often asked the question: “Can you believe that?”

It was never more appropriate than in the following case.

Former Vice President Mike Pence will be the recipient of the John F. Kennedy Foundation’s “Profile in Courage Award” for certifying the 2020 election. It will be presented May 4 at the Kennedy Library and Museum in Boston. I am delighted I have a previous engagement and cannot attend.

“Despite our political differences, it is hard to imagine an act of greater consequence than Vice President Pence’s decision to certify the 2020 presidential election during an attack on the U.S. Capitol,” the Foundation’s Caroline Kennedy and her son, Jack Schlossberg, said in a statement.

“Upholding his oath to the Constitution and following his conscience, the Vice President put his life, career, and political future on the line,” the pair continued. It is “an example of President Kennedy’s belief that an act of political courage can change the course of history.”

The Kennedys continued: “Political courage is not outdated in the United States. At every level of government, leaders are putting country first, and not backing down.”

The award honors public officials who take principled stands despite the potential political or personal consequences. It is named for a book, “Profiles in Courage,” Kennedy published in 1957, before he became president.

Past recipients of the award include former President Barack Obama, Gerald Ford, George W. H. Bush, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney.

Pence said he was “deeply humbled and honored.”

“I have been inspired by the life and words of President John F. Kennedy since my youth and am honored to join the company of so many distinguished Americans who have received this recognition in the past,” he added.

When I first read the news stories on Pence receiving this acclaim, I thought I had been hacked. Someone was sending me “fake news.”

Pence is being honored for honoring the Constitution. He did not “decide to certify the election,” as the Foundation says. His role as vice president in certifying the election is ceremonial and constitutionally required.

Pence himself acknowledged “I had no right to overturn the election.” You don’t honor someone for not doing something they had no right to do any more than saluting someone for not committing crimes.

While Pence was wrestling with his conscience on what to do --should he or not be courageous and obey the Constitution -- former Vice President Dan Quayle called him and advised that he (Pence) must abide by the Constitution.

But more important, for four years, as vice president, he stood next to Donald Trump endorsing all his lies and corruption. As Trump held briefings, Pence stood next to the president, smiling and nodding his head in support.

Kenneth Adelman, who served in the Reagan administration, once observed, “I’d like my wife to look at me just for one day the way Mike Pence looks at President Trump every day they’re together. That would be special,”

OpticsPolitics was harsher, stating “Mike Pence ass-kissing of Donald Trump is like watching soft-porn on a scrambled screen.”

We can’t even begin to speculate about what Pence witnessed when meeting with Trump behind closed doors.

Moreover, all the sexual perversion did not bother this religious man. While I believe that discussing a public official’s religion is out of bounds, Pence made it part of his public persona. His autobiography is titled “So Help Me God” and he has described himself as “a Christian (emphasis mine), a conservative and a Republican” in that order.

Pence had the opportunity to show some courage. What if he had resigned the vice presidency, stating something along these lines:

“I cannot continue to be a party to all the lying and corruption I see in this administration. I deeply regret accepting President Trump’s invitation to be his running mate. In the future, I will try to make up for my grievous error and I hope Americans will forgive me.”

That would have been courageous and might just have turned the corner and saved the country from Trumpism. He could have taken a cue from several Trump officials who did resign such as Mattis, McMaster, Kelly and others. But a resignation of a vice president would have sent a much more powerful message.

Although out of office, Pence attended Trump’s second inauguration -- without his wife, Karen. Michelle Obama, wife of former President Barack Obama, also boycotted the swearing-in ceremony.

Barack Obama attended along with Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden. They attended, as former presidents, probably to show respect, not necessarily for the man, but for the office and to uphold U.S. history in the peaceful transfer of power.

At the funeral of Jimmy Carter, Karen Pence remained seated when Trump approached and refused to shake Trump’s hand. Asked about his wife’s snub, Pence said:

“You’d have to ask my wife about her posture, but we’ve been married 44 years and she loves her husband and her husband respects her deeply.”

Maybe there is still time to rescind the award for Pence and give it instead to co-winners Karen Pence and Michelle Obama.
—————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.

Butzel immigration law attorney Reginald A. Pacis participated in a panel discussion on immigration law updates during a Know Your Rights Town Hall event on Sunday, April 13, at the Buddhist Meditation Center – Watpaknam Michigan in Sterling Heights. The event was presented by the Asian & Pacific Islander American (APIA) Vote Michigan.

Butzel immigration law attorney Reginald A. Pacis participated in a panel discussion on immigration law updates during a Know Your Rights Town Hall event on Sunday, April 13, at the Buddhist Meditation Center – Watpaknam Michigan in Sterling Heights. The event was presented by the Asian & Pacific Islander American (APIA) Vote Michigan.

Pacis focuses his practice in immigration law and has handled a variety of immigration matters including H-1B specialty occupation cases, L-1 Intracompany transfers, Labor Certification matters, Immigrant Visa Petitions/Adjustment of Status applications and interviews, TN Free trade cases, H-1B Department of Labor Investigations, I-9 employer verification compliance, and U.S. Port of Entry airport and land port interviews.

Pacis was named Immigration Lawyer of the Year in 2025, 2023 and 2013, respectively in the field of Immigration Law by The Best Lawyers in America and has been listed in Best Lawyers for several years.

Pacis is a member of the American Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and the Samahang Pilipino Ng Oakland Filipino organization. He served two consecutive one-year terms from 2003 to 2005 as chairperson of the Michigan Chapter of AILA and was a member of the AILA National Board of Governors for those terms.

In addition, Butzel attorney Jennifer Dukarski was a featured speaker – twice – during the WCX 2025 World Congress on April 9-10 in Detroit.

Dukarski participated in a panel discussion on April 9 titled, “Is Getting to SAE 3 Unobtainable?”  On April 10, she was featured during a panel program on “Prognostics.”

Dukarski leads Butzel’s Connected and Autonomous Mobility Team. Her automotive expertise as a former design engineer, Six Sigma master black belt, continuous improvement lead champion, and quality manager gives her a unique perspective on balancing the legal issues and business applications of emerging automotive technology.

Dukarski focuses her legal practice where technology, mobility, and communications meet. A leader in the area of electrified, connected and automated vehicles, she negotiated some of the first robotaxi agreements in the world. A champion of the responsible use of AI, Dukarski regularly advises and teaches on AI risk mitigation. She was named one of the 30 Women Defining the Future of Technology by Warner Communications for her innovative thoughts and contributions to the tech industry.

•            •            •

Honigman LLP recently announced Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s Chief Legal Counsel Christina Grossi will be joining the firm as a partner in the Government Relations and Regulatory Practice Group beginning June 2.

Grossi joins the firm following two years serving as chief legal counsel to Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. As the governor’s top legal advisor, Grossi advised on major litigation facing the state, helped craft significant legislation, and implemented numerous policy priorities.

Prior to that, Grossi spent a decade serving in leadership positions in the Michigan Department of Attorney General, including as the chief deputy attorney general. In that role, she supervised thousands of high-profile civil and administrative cases, criminal investigations and managed a staff of over 250 attorneys and investigators.  

In her return to the private sector after her tenure of public service, Grossi will leverage her knowledge of state government to expand Honigman’s government relations efforts and representation of public officials. Additionally, her expertise when it comes to government relations and regulatory actions, internal and government investigations, litigation, employment law and labor relations, as well as election law, will serve a diverse range of the firm’s clients.

“I am incredibly proud of my service to Governor Whitmer, Attorneys General Nessel and Schuette, and to the People of the State of Michigan,” said Grossi. “After my time in public service, I look forward to applying my experience to help Honigman’s clients navigate complex legal and regulatory challenges. Honigman has such a renowned presence across the state, and I am eager to be part of such a dynamic local legacy. It’s an honor to continue serving in this new capacity.”

Before her roles in public service, Grossi worked for Gilbert, Smith, & Borrello for more than five years, where she practiced municipal, labor and employment law as well as civil defense litigation. She also served as an adjunct professor at Michigan State University’s College of Law.

Grossi earned her law degree from Cooley Law School and received her B.A. from James Madison College at Michigan State University.

•            •            •

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has selected Alexis Blane to serve as acting chief legal counsel for the executive office as Christina Grossi takes a new opportunity outside of state government.

“Christina Grossi is a skilled legal mind and lifelong public servant who has fought for Michiganders in every community throughout her career,” said Whitmer. “She protected people’s fundamental rights and freedoms from assaults on their reproductive care, ensuring they could make their own decisions about their own bodies. As a member of my team, she’s led our legal strategy and helped coordinate crisis response for natural disasters, upholding our laws, and keeping people safe. I can’t say enough about the lasting difference she has made for our state. I wish Christina the best.”

Blane joined the executive office in 2022 as special counsel, leading the office’s work on reproductive rights, education, and economic development. Prior to serving in the governor’s office, she was the principal deputy counsel and acting counsel to the Mayor of New York City from 2018-21. Blane also has worked in the nonprofit space and at the U.S. Department of State. She attended New York University Law School and holds a doctorate from the University of Oxford, where she was a Rhodes Scholar.

•            •            •

Miller Johnson is proud to announce that Detroit attorney Andrew Goetz has been appointed to the American Arbitration Association’s (AAA) National Roster of Arbitrators. Goetz is a member in the firm’s litigation practice and is the chair of the firm’s Internal Investigations and Compliance group.

Goetz’s experience runs the gamut of civil and criminal law, including administrative, health care, employment, national security, securities, education, and constitutional law. Before joining Miller Johnson in 2024, he spent nearly 14 years at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, where he served as the office’s appellate chief and part of the executive team and supervised all of the office’s civil and criminal appellate litigation.

While previously in private practice at a large international law firm in Washington, D.C., Goetz represented clients on internal investigations, white collar and regulatory defense, alleged accounting and securities fraud, and corporate compliance.

Goetz received his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 2007 and a B.S. in Chemistry and B.A. in Political Science from Michigan State University in 2004.

•            •            •

Dickinson Wright is pleased to announce that Juliet Boyd (member, Troy) has been named to Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s 2025 Up and Coming Lawyers.

“I am honored to be selected by Michigan Lawyers Weekly as a member of their 2025 Up and Coming Lawyer Class. This list is filled with such talented and accomplished attorneys, and it’s a privilege to be included among their ranks,” said Boyd.

Boyd focuses her practice in the areas of probate litigation as well as estate planning and administration. She combines a tradition of service with the use of cutting-edge technology, assisting clients with estate planning, estate and trust administration and litigation, and contested and uncontested guardianship and conservatorship matters. She assists clients with planning and litigation surrounding revocable trusts, irrevocable trusts, estate and trust administration (representing fiduciaries and beneficiaries), fiduciary litigation, and litigation involving protected individuals.

Boyd is a member of the State Bar of Michigan and she is an Oakland County Bar Foundation Fellow. She is recognized as a leader in her field by Best Lawyers in America® “Ones to Watch” for Litigation – Trusts and Estates, and Michigan Super Lawyers® “Rising Stars” for Estate and Trust Litigation.

•            •            •

Taft Detroit partner Alicia Schehr presented at the ICSC+Continuing Education Michigan Conference on April 10.  Schehr moderated the 2025 Legal Update panel. Panelists explored Michigan’s commercial real estate landscape, discussing key court decisions, new legislation, and upcoming trends.

Schehr focuses her practice on commercial finance and high-end real estate financing, specifically manufactured housing, senior living residences, and multi-family units. She assists in all aspects of financing for both borrowers and lenders, including strategic planning.

•            •            •

Kitch Principal Terence Durkin has been appointed to the Board of Trustees at the St. Vincent & Sarah Fisher Center (SVSF). Durkin is committed to advancing SVSF’s mission of delivering educational opportunities and community services within the metro Detroit region.

In addition to his responsibilities at SVSF, Durkin serves as chair of the Providence Foundation (formerly Ascension Providence Foundation) and is a member of the Plymouth Rotary Club. He is also a member of the Core Leadership Team of Oak Mac SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) and the past president of the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel.

•            •            •

Giarmarco, Mullins, & Horton PC is pleased to announce the election of Kenneth Chapie, an equity partner in the firm’s Municipal and Schools Litigation Group, to its Board of Directors.

Chapie has built a career representing public school districts, municipalities, and employers in litigation involving wrongful discharge, employment discrimination, harassment, breach of contract, retaliation, and other employment-related matters.

Chapie also serves as an advisor to public and intermediate school districts on matters involving special education, Title IX, student discipline, civil rights, and constitutional claims. As a trial lawyer, he has defended clients at every level of the judicial system, including the United States Supreme Court.

Chapie is admitted to practice in the State of Michigan, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. His has been recognized  as a Michigan Rising Star by Super Lawyers, “Top Lawyer” in School Law and Litigation by dbusiness, and Top Attorney in Michigan by the New York Times.

•            •            •

Secrest Wardle is pleased to welcome Juliana B. Sabatini to the team.  Sabatini is an executive partner who has more than 20 years of experience litigating cases in federal and state courts.

Sabatini’s practice includes defending action involving general negligence, auto negligence, trucking negligence, medical malpractice, products liability, and premises liability.

Recent commentary has misrepresented the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) and the work of our grantees—conflating unrelated organizations, mischaracterizing our mission and overlooking the strict legal boundaries under which we operate. For policymakers and the public alike, setting the record straight is essential.

By Ronald S. Flagg

Recent commentary has misrepresented the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) and the work of our grantees—conflating unrelated organizations, mischaracterizing our mission and overlooking the strict legal boundaries under which we operate. For policymakers and the public alike, setting the record straight is essential.

LSC is a nonpartisan, congressionally chartered organization, created in 1974 to ensure access to civil legal aid for low-income Americans. Each year, we fund legal aid providers in every state to help individuals resolve serious legal problems—issues that affect housing, family safety, economic stability and lawful employment. These are not abstract causes. They are practical problems solved through lawful means—a cornerstone of stability and personal responsibility.

We are not—and by law cannot be—what our critics claim.

We do not fund the organizations in question

Some groups recently cited in criticism, including the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, are not LSC grantees and receive no LSC funding. In fact, LSC dollars cannot be used for immigration advocacy or most immigration representation. Suggesting otherwise reflects a basic misunderstanding of how our funding works and what the law permits.

Our grantees are bound by federal law—and closely monitored

LSC grantees are legally prohibited from:

• Filing class action lawsuits
• Engaging in lobbying or legislative advocacy
• Participating in most immigration-related work
• Engaging in political or electoral activity

These restrictions are not discretionary. They are embedded in federal statute and enforced through rigorous oversight—including program audits, regular compliance reviews and monitoring by an independent Inspector General. LSC’s work is a textbook example of a federal investment with strong guardrails and accountability.

Broad support is a sign of consensus, not ideology

Some have pointed to bipartisan support as evidence of a hidden agenda. In fact, it’s the opposite. LSC enjoys strong backing from lawmakers across the political spectrum because its mission is both narrow and vital: to ensure that low-income Americans can resolve legal disputes in a lawful, orderly way. That’s not progressive or conservative—it’s a basic guarantee of fairness under the law.

Civil legal aid helps families avoid crisis, veterans access earned benefits and working Americans keep what they’ve earned. It strengthens personal responsibility and reduces the burden on courts, shelters and social services. In short: it helps people get back on their feet—not onto a government program.

Shared space isn’t shared mission

Some have argued that appearing on the same legal panels or in professional networks implies alignment. But proximity is not partnership. LSC grantees must follow strict rules about collaboration, advocacy and program integrity. Legal aid organizations that receive LSC funds are independent and carefully monitored—not extensions of any other group’s mission or message.

Responding to the “Zombie Agency” Myth

LSC has been labeled a “zombie program”—a term that suggests we operate without oversight or congressional accountability. That characterization could not be further from the truth.

LSC is subject to annual appropriations by Congress, meaning lawmakers have full discretion over our funding every single year. We also undergo frequent audits, program evaluations and oversight by our own Inspector General. If anything, LSC is one of the most closely monitored grantmaking entities in the federal system.

There’s a big difference between stability and inertia. The reason LSC continues to receive support—on both sides of the aisle—is because the work is effective, efficient and grounded in law.

One or two anecdotes don’t reflect hundreds of thousands of cases

LSC grantees handle over 750,000 cases each year, most of which involve core civil legal needs: eviction defense, custody and guardianship, wage disputes and domestic violence protection orders. These cases are legal lifelines, not political statements. And resolving them early—through the courts—helps prevent larger problems for families, communities and the public sector.

Conclusion: Clarity, Not Controversy

LSC’s mission is clear, limited, and constitutional. We fund civil legal services—not political activity. And we do so with transparency, bipartisan oversight, and a 50-year track record of helping communities uphold the rule of law.

At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile, civil legal aid is one of the few tools that still works—quietly, effectively, and without fanfare. That’s something every American can be proud of.
————————
Ronald S. Flagg is president of Legal Services Corporation. He was appointed president effective February 20, 2020, and previously served as vice president for Legal Affairs and general counsel since 2013. He previously practiced commercial and administrative litigation at Sidley Austin LLP for 31 years, 27 years as a partner. He chaired the firm's Committee on Pro Bono and Public Interest Law for more than a decade.

While I have read Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address dozens of times over the years, I have not read or listened to New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s record-breaking marathon oration delivered on the Senate floor March 31-April 1.

By Berl Falbaum

While I have read Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address dozens of times over the years, I have not read or listened to New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s record-breaking marathon oration delivered on the Senate floor March 31-April 1.

Lincoln’s address, generally considered the greatest political speech in U.S. history, was all of 272 words (one sheet) and was delivered roughly in three minutes.

Booker’s is 1,164 pages and was delivered over 25 hours and 5 minutes, starting on Monday night (March 31) at 7 p.m. (EDT) and ending at 8:06 p.m. Tuesday.  He broke the previous record owned by South Carolina Senator Strom Thurman who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes in an attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Now, the Lincoln-Booker comparison is not intended as criticism of the New Jersey senator.

He deserves credit for displaying much-need political courage, eloquence, and saying things that needed to be said.

While his speech deserves more attention, most of the media covered, not his remarks, but how he prepared for the speech, his stamina, reaction, but little of the substance of the speech.

So, I scoured the Internet and compiled some quotes that did receive coverage and which I thought deserve more attention and reflection.

— “I rise tonight because I believe that our country is in crisis.”

— “These are not normal times in our nation. And they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate. The threats to the American people and American democracy are grave and urgent, and we all must do more to stand against them.”

— “Let’s be bolder in America with a vision that inspires, with hope that starts with the people of the United States of America. That’s how this country started – we the people. Let’s get back to the ideals that others are threatening. We need that now from all Americans. This is a moral moment. It’s not left or right. It’s right or wrong (emphasis mine). This is not a partisan moment. It is a moral moment. Where do you stand?”

— “In just 71 days, the president has inflicted harm after harm on Americans’ safety, financial stability, the foundations of our democracy and any sense of common decency.”

— “These are not normal times in our nation. And they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate.”

— “The most powerful man in the world and the richest man in the world have taken a battle axe to the Veterans’ Association, battle axe to the Department of Education. What will we do in this body. Right now, the answer is nothing.”

— “Let’s get in good trouble.” (This is a partial quote from the late Georgia Congressman John Lewis, a black man viciously beaten in the South during the Civil Rights Movement.) The full quote: “Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and redeem the soul of America.”

— “Where does the Constitution live? On paper or in our hearts?”

— “What kind of man is in our White House that makes fun of the disabled?” Booker was referring to Trump, who in his first presidential campaign, mocked a reporter who had arthrogryposis.

— “If America hasn’t broken your heart, then you don’t love her enough.”

— “Fear is a necessary precondition to courage,” adding, “I’m scared too.”

— “Our American history, if nothing else, is a perpetual testimony to the achievement of impossible things against impossible odds.”

— “This is not who we are or how we do things in America. How much more can we endure before we, as a collective voice, say enough is enough? Enough is enough. You’re not going
to get away with this.”

— “Congress is being too complicit to an executive that is overstepping his authority and violating the Constitution and hurting people…”

— “The president has “inflicted so much harm on Americans’ safety, financial stability, the core foundations of our democracy.”

— “These are not normal times in our nation.  And they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate.”

— “The power of the people is greater than the people in power.”

— “We should be stepping up and saying we accept a lot of responsibility for this moment, but we also have a lot responsibility for meeting the moment.”

— “How much more of these indignities will we take as [Trump] turns his back on our allies?”  

As Booker approached his conclusion, he challenged his colleagues: “… to look in the mirror and say, ‘We will do better.’”

If even one Republican would say something along these lines. And he/she would not have to speak for 25-plus hours.  A speech on one sheet containing 272 words would be enough.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.

This is the sixth article in a 12-part series on domestic arbitration, providing a comprehensive guide through each stage of the process. In this installment, we take an in-depth look at Discovery in Arbitration: Managing Document Requests and Depositions. Stay tuned for Part 7: “Motions in Arbitration: Dispositive and Procedural Motions” coming next month.

By Harshitha Ram

This is the sixth article in a 12-part series on domestic arbitration, providing a comprehensive guide through each stage of the process. In this installment, we take an in-depth look at Discovery in Arbitration: Managing Document Requests and Depositions. Stay tuned for Part 7: “Motions in Arbitration: Dispositive and Procedural Motions” coming next month.

Discovery in arbitration, while often more streamlined than in litigation, remains a vital component in the pursuit of justice. Unlike in traditional court settings, where discovery can be extensive and time-consuming, arbitration typically limits the scope and method of discovery to maintain efficiency. Understanding the differences and benefits of arbitration’s discovery process is key to navigating this crucial phase. It allows parties to focus on resolving the dispute while keeping the process more cost-effective and efficient.

Crafting Effective Document Requests

Document requests are essential in arbitration, but they must be carefully crafted. Overbroad or vague requests can lead to delays, additional costs, and disputes that may undermine the arbitration process. Requests should be specific and directly related to the issues at hand. The goal is to gather relevant evidence while avoiding unnecessary burdens. When crafting document requests in arbitration, it’s crucial to ensure specificity, relevance, and proportionality. Specificity means clearly defining the documents being requested, providing enough detail to avoid any ambiguity or confusion. Relevance ensures that requests are limited to documents directly pertinent to the issues at hand, avoiding unnecessary or unrelated materials. Finally, proportionality is key—requests should align with the complexity and value of the dispute, ensuring that discovery is not unduly burdensome or disproportionate to the case’s scale. Together, these principles help streamline the process and keep it efficient. By being mindful of these principles, parties prevent the discovery phase from becoming a protracted and costly process.

Efficient Document Production

Once document requests are made, the next challenge is managing the document production process. Parties should engage in early discussions about timelines, formats, and expectations. A mutual understanding of what is required can streamline the process and avoid unnecessary disputes. In some cases, electronic discovery (e-discovery) may become a significant issue, particularly in disputes involving large amounts of data. It’s important to establish the format for document production early and to consider the potential for privilege claims, ensuring that sensitive documents are identified and protected.

Common issues in document production often include the protection of privileged documents, where it’s essential to take proper steps to safeguard attorney-client communications and work product. E-discovery also presents challenges, particularly when handling large data sets, so it’s crucial to establish clear protocols for managing electronic documents. Additionally, production disputes over scope and timing can arise, and it’s important to settle these disagreements early to prevent delays. Overall, efficient document production requires close coordination and clear communication between parties to avoid unnecessary complications and ensure a smooth process.

Depositions in Arbitration

While depositions are often a common feature of litigation, they are less frequent and usually more restricted in arbitration. In most cases, depositions are allowed only when agreed upon by the parties or authorized by the arbitrator. Their use should be considered carefully, as they can be time-consuming and expensive. When depositions are necessary in arbitration, thorough preparation is key. Witnesses should be well-prepared, reviewing key points, potential lines of questioning, and preparing for possible objections. The scope of questioning in arbitration is typically more limited than in litigation, so it’s essential to keep questions focused on the issues directly at hand. Handling objections effectively is also crucial, as arbitration favors a more streamlined process. Managing objections to both questions and the scope of the deposition is critical to avoid unnecessary delays. Depositions should be used strategically to gather essential testimony, but their potential to disrupt the arbitration process should not be underestimated.

Managing Costs and Timelines

Discovery in arbitration must be balanced with the need for efficiency. Document requests and depositions can quickly add to the costs and extend the timeline of the arbitration process. The key to managing these elements is ensuring that the scope of discovery remains proportional to the case’s complexity and value. Several strategies can help manage discovery costs effectively. Early planning is essential—initiating discussions on discovery at the outset of the process helps avoid last-minute requests or disputes that can drive up costs. Limitations on discovery can also be beneficial; advocating for specific limits on the number of depositions or the volume of documents exchanged, tailored to the case’s needs, helps maintain focus and efficiency. Additionally, considering alternative methods such as written interrogatories or document exchanges may prove to be more cost-effective than depositions. By staying mindful of the overall budget and time constraints, parties can ensure that discovery remains purposeful and does not overwhelm the arbitration process.

Case Studies in Discovery Challenges:

• The “Document Dump” Dilemma:

Buried in paperwork! One party flooded the opposition with irrelevant documents, hoping to drain their resources. The arbitrator wasn’t fooled—ordering them to cover the cost of reviewing the unnecessary materials. The lesson? Discovery should streamline the process, not sabotage it.

• The Missing Email:

In a high-stakes arbitration, one party insisted a key email had mysteriously disappeared. But forensic analysis told a different story—it had been deliberately deleted. The arbitrator saw this as a serious breach of ethics, damaging the party’s credibility and tipping the ruling in favor of the opposition. The takeaway? Manipulating evidence can backfire—badly.

• The Overzealous Deposition:

One party pushed for numerous witness depositions—even from those with little insight into the key issues. The arbitrator intervened, narrowing the list to only those truly relevant. The takeaway? In discovery, precision beats volume every time.

• The “Smoking Gun” Document:

A last-minute discovery—a small handwritten note—turned out to be the game-changer, leading to a swift settlement. The lesson? Effective document management matters—crucial evidence is often hidden in plain sight.

• The E-Discovery Gold Mine:

In a tech dispute, advanced e-discovery tools unearthed thousands of hidden documents—including key executive communications. Faced with the evidence, the opposing party had no choice but to settle. The takeaway? Digital records leave a trail—manage them wisely.

Discovery in arbitration is like a magnifying glass—used properly, it illuminates the truth; used recklessly, it can obscure the path to resolution. Managing this phase effectively is essential to maintaining the overall efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the arbitration process. By crafting targeted document requests, managing document production, using depositions strategically, and keeping a close eye on costs and timelines, parties can navigate discovery with minimal disruption to the arbitration process. Proper discovery management is a key factor in achieving a successful and timely resolution.
————————
Harshitha Ram is an international disputes attorney, arbitrator, mediator, lecturer in law, and the President of the Global Arbitration Mediation Academy (GAMA). She serves as the Chair of the ADR Section of the Detroit Bar Association. To learn more or connect with her, visit: www.harshitharam.com  www.adracademy.us.

It seems that nearly every day, we wake up to new attacks on the rule of law, our courts, our profession and the principles we hold dear. This pattern has increased in intensity and frequency and shows no signs of abating. Many have wondered where the lawyers are and how they are responding. Rest assured that the American Bar Association has heard the call to action. We have spoken clearly and repeatedly. But we do not stand alone. We highlight today what the legal profession is saying.

By William R. Bay

It seems that nearly every day, we wake up to new attacks on the rule of law, our courts, our profession and the principles we hold dear. This pattern has increased in intensity and frequency and shows no signs of abating. Many have wondered where the lawyers are and how they are responding. Rest assured that the American Bar Association has heard the call to action. We have spoken clearly and repeatedly. But we do not stand alone. We highlight today what the legal profession is saying.

We are lawyers from every part of our country and the world. Regardless of our practice setting or specialty, where we live or our political views, we are bound by a common oath we took upon being admitted to practice. We believe in the rule of law.

We rally together when the rule of law is under attack. And make no mistake, our courts and profession are under attack. This is our moment as a profession to speak loudly and clearly, reminding our communities why the rule of law and our justice system are vital to our democracy. Today is the day when the organized bar stands and speaks.

(The statements of many bar organizations from throughout the United States and the world are available at www.americanbar.org/groups/bar-leadership/resources/resourcepages/executiveorders.)

The number of statements grows every day. In their own words, they speak truth to those who attack and threaten the rule of law. Read them. These are the words of the governing boards of bar organizations in the United States, which collectively have more than 1 million members. But they are not alone. Governing boards of international bar organizations, which collectively have more than 4 million members, have also spoken. All these organizations use various words and phrases and emphasize different aspects of the rule of law, but the overall message is clear. And even though some members surely overlap, the numbers evidence a strong united profession. Together, they support the bedrock principles that have guided our country, our courts and the legal profession for more than 200 years.

The statements are clear and direct as to the principles that guide our profession. We stand for the rule of law. We defend our judicial system against attacks that seek to intimidate and threaten our courts and judges. We reject the repeated efforts to impeach and remove judges because the government does not agree with the decision. We condemn attacks on lawyers and law firms for representing clients who have challenged a government policy. We defend law firms and organizations who are being attacked for their commitment to a judicial system and profession that are free of bias and for their policies and programs that enhance diversity. Shouldn’t every person who appears in our courts be treated the same and consistent with due process as required by our Constitution? Finally, we reject efforts that seek to punish those who have represented parties that the government does not like. These attacks undermine our system of justice and the principles that define who we are and how democracy works.

Let there be no doubt. The ABA and the profession will lead when we need it most. Now is that time. We stand with our courts and the legal profession as a bulwark against these threats. They must stop.
————————
William R. Bay, a partner with the St. Louis office of national law firm Thompson Coburn LLP, is president of the American Bar Association, the world’s largest voluntary association of lawyers, judges, and other legal professionals. Bay received his B.A. from the University of Missouri and his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School.

(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/03/bar-organizations-stand-for-rule-of-law/)