Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

Arbitration advocacy is to courtroom advocacy what a string quartet is to a symphony, what tennis is to football. Lawyers trained only in the traditions of courtroom advocacy may be ill-prepared for arbitration's informality and efficiency.

Arbitration's informality is deceptive, for it makes arbitration advocacy seem almost casual. It is not. At its best it requires careful preparation, imaginative strategies, and understanding of arbitration's pragmatic traditions. While arbitration advocacy has borrowed from courtroom advocacy, the borrowing has been selective.

The uniqueness of arbitration advocacy is especially evident af fhe end of an arbitration hearing when the advocate must decide whether to argue, to brief, to do both, or neifher. Some parties elect to submit a brief in every case, while others rarely do so. Because the decision may have important strategic implications, it should be guided by the circumstances at hand with sensitivity fo the special dynamics of fhe arbitral forum.

In many cases, the choice may not affect fhe outcome. After all, there are limits to advocacy: The best advocate should nof win a losing case and the worst advocate should win a strong case. That is as it should be. When the case is close, however, the advocate's choice may be crucial.

ORAL ARGUMENT

Oral argument and arbitration were made for each other. By general consensus of advocafes and arbitrators.