Arbitration & mediation
Guidance for arbitrators on conducting effective case management conferences to set timetables narrow issues encourage settlement and manage party expectations efficiently.
A practical guide for arbitrators organizing case management conferences, outlining clear timetables, narrowing issues, promoting settlement opportunities, and managing expectations to keep proceedings efficient and fair.
Published by
Joseph Perry
August 08, 2025 - 3 min Read
Effective case management conferences (CMCs) are a cornerstone of modern arbitration, offering a structured opportunity to align procedural steps with substantive goals. A successful CMC begins with a clear agenda distributed in advance, enabling parties to prepare concise statements on the timetable, anticipated issues, and anticipated settlement prospects. Arbitrators should establish ground rules that balance formality with flexibility, ensuring participants can present relevant facts without repetition. Outlining the procedural framework, milestones, and potential alternative dispute resolution options at the outset helps anchor expectations and reduces later friction. When conducted with transparency, CMCs set a collaborative course toward timely resolution while preserving procedural fairness.
A well-designed CMC centers on two core aims: efficient case progression and principled settlement exploration. To achieve this, arbitrators frame a realistic timetable, including discovery windows, expert exchange deadlines, and interim submissions. They encourage concise, issue-driven evidence presentations, avoiding tangential arguments. By identifying narrow, discrete issues early, the panel can concentrate resources and avoid bogging the process down in broad, nebulous disputes. Importantly, the arbitrator should invite party representatives to articulate practical constraints, such as travel limitations or financial considerations, so the timetable reflects operational realities. This collaborative approach fosters trust and reduces unnecessary procedural contention.
Clarity in timelines and realistic expectations drive settlement potential.
The first priority in any CMC is to articulate a precise timetable that is both realistic and enforceable. The arbitrator should solicit input from all parties on the sequencing of issues, evidentiary needs, and potential bifurcations that would streamline resolution. A well-crafted timetable includes specific start and end dates for each phase, with contingency provisions for unanticipated developments. When parties understand the cadence of the process, they can allocate internal resources effectively, plan for witness availability, and prepare submissions without last-minute rushes. The panel's role is to monitor progress, provide timely adjustments, and avoid creating procedural bottlenecks that stall substantive discussion.
Beyond scheduling, CMCs serve as a forum to discuss settlement prospects in a constructive, non-threatening manner. Arbitrators can frame settlement as a mutually beneficial outcome rather than a concession, emphasizing the costs of continued litigation and the value of early resolution. Techniques such as shuttle diplomacy, where the panel privately assesses positions and then communicates potential common ground, can be effective if done with caution and impartiality. Encouraging parties to exchange high-level positions before substantive negotiations helps identify overlapping interests and narrow the gaps. A balanced approach respects party autonomy while guiding them toward potential compromises.
Focused management of issues helps streamline complex disputes.
A central task for the arbitrator is to manage party expectations without stifling legitimate advocacy. This involves transparent communications about discovery scope, evidentiary standards, and what constitutes a complete case for purposes of the timetable. If a party overstates its position, the arbitrator should intervene diplomatically to reframe arguments toward essential issues, avoiding escalation. By documenting decisions and the rationale behind them, the panel provides a stable reference for all participants, reducing the likelihood of later disputes over process. Clear expectations help maintain focus on the merits and avoid misinterpretation of procedural rights.
To preserve momentum, the arbitrator should establish procedural boundaries early and revisit them as needed. This includes setting limits on lengthier submissions, defining the format for expert reports, and specifying the acceptable scope of document production. When parties understand these boundaries, they can tailor their strategies accordingly, prioritizing core facts and admissible evidence. The chair should also designate specific times for questions and clarifications during hearings, minimizing interruptions and keeping discussions concise. A disciplined process encourages efficiency while maintaining fairness and ensuring each party has a meaningful opportunity to present its case.
Provisional determinations can accelerate resolution and focus the process.
Narrowing issues is not about diminishing a party’s rights but about focusing on questions central to the relief sought. The arbitrator should map the dispute to discrete issues, each with its own evidentiary plan and time constraints. When topics are clearly delineated, parties can prepare targeted submissions and experts can concentrate on pertinent data. This approach reduces redundancy, prevents overloading the record, and makes consideration of each issue more transparent. The panel’s clarity about issue boundaries also facilitates a more structured discussion during hearings, enabling more productive dialogue and faster resolution of contested points.
In large, multifaceted matters, provisional rulings on discrete issues can be valuable tools. The arbitrator may issue preliminary determinations on threshold questions, such as jurisdiction, enforceability, or the admissibility of critical documents, to avoid wasting resources on issues that will not affect the outcome. Such rulings should be carefully framed to preserve the parties’ rights to present evidence on remaining concerns. When used judiciously, provisional determinations create momentum, reduce downstream disputes, and help concentrate the remaining work on the core dispute.
Consistent, fair management throughout cultivating confidence.
The conduct of hearings during CMCs should emphasize substantive, issue-driven dialogue rather than procedural theatrics. The arbitrator can guide discussions toward essential facts, relevant legal standards, and the interplay between liability and damages. By keeping participants to a structured format—opening statements, focused witness examinations, and concise closing remarks—the panel minimizes repetition and maintains momentum. Active listening, summarizing contentious points, and periodically restating agreed positions help parties recognize areas of convergence. A well-managed hearing also respects time constraints and reduces the likelihood of tactical delays, thereby promoting fairness and efficiency.
Equally important is the post-hearing phase, where the timetable anticipates panel deliberation and the drafting of a reasoned award. The arbitrator should set expectations for the timing of draft decisions, the form of the award, and any required clarifications. Providing a transparent schedule for redlines and client communications helps prevent last-minute disputes about process. Moreover, the panel should outline how settlements, if achieved, will be documented and integrated with the final award. Thoughtful planning in this period underlines the integrity of the process and reassures participants about impartial adjudication.
Finally, arbitrators must preserve neutrality while managing procedural tensions. They should avoid signaling preferences that could bias later outcomes and instead encourage a level playing field where each side can present its case with equal opportunity. Regular, objective updates to the parties about progress and any temporary HOLDs in the timetable maintain trust. When disagreements arise, the chair should facilitate negotiations by offering alternative paths, such as mediation steps or partial settlements, that align with the overarching timetable. Consistency and fairness are the pillars that sustain confidence in arbitral decisions.
As the process unfolds, a principled emphasis on transparency and proportionality serves both efficiency and legitimacy. Proportionality requires tailoring the level of procedural complexity to the dispute’s scale, ensuring resources are not wasted on excessive formality. The arbitrator’s role includes educating counsel about best practices in document management, disclosure, and witness preparation. By modeling calm, precise, and respectful conduct, the panel sets a constructive tone that encourages cooperation. When parties perceive that the conference outcomes are grounded in reasoned analysis and clear deadlines, settlement discussions become more credible and the overall arbitration experience improves.
