Education: 2006: Mediation Workshop, Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School; 1995: LL.M. (Judicial Process), University of Virginia School of Law; 1969: LL.M. (General), New York University School of Law; 1963: J.D., Georgetown University Law Center; 1960: B.A., Fordham University.

Career in Brief: 2006–present: AAA, ICDR, CPR (International and Judicial Panels), Federal Arbitration, Inc. (FedArb), Arbitrator and Mediator; 2006–2008: JAMS, Arbitrator and Mediator; 1991–2006: US District Court for the District of New Jersey, US District Judge; 1988–1991: New Jersey Superior Court, Judge; 1964–1988: Various law firms in Monmouth County, New Jersey, Attorney; 1963–1964: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, Law Clerk to the Honorable Mark A. Sullivan.

What do you enjoy most about serving as an arbitrator? I enjoy the variety and complexity of arbitrating commercial cases. No two cases are the same and each case seems to have its own unique issues. I like the challenge of developing the process for a fruitful exchange of information, managing document and witness evidence at the hearing, and molding all of the conflicting positions to reach a coherent, readable and hopefully correct result that I can be proud of.

I also enjoy interacting with counsel. The attorneys appearing before me are usually the best of the best. And I like getting to know my co-arbitrators, who have had extraordinary legal careers.

What are the greatest challenges in chairing an arbitral tribunal? Quite frankly, I find working with the other arbitrators to be the biggest challenge. As a trial judge, I was used to flying solo. Realizing that other judges can have legitimate views that are different from my own requires humility and patience. The greatest challenge is having a co-arbitrator with a fixed idea or blind spot on a legal or factual issue who refuses to reexamine his position. Of course, everyone has areas where their thinking is not productive, but an unwillingness to reconsider positions impedes the collaborative effort that is critical to a well-functioning arbitration.

What have been the most significant developments in commercial arbitration during your time as an arbitrator? The expansion of litigation tactics into the arbitral process has been one of the most significant changes, along with the growing challenges of e-discovery. Arbitration is not litigation. It is not the place for full-blown discovery, aggressive motion practice and appeals disguised as motions to vacate.

On the positive side, we have seen the cross-fertilization of domestic and international arbitration, such as the use of witness statements in domestic arbitration and the improvement of cross-examination techniques in international arbitration.

What do you wish attorneys explained to their clients about arbitration? I wish counsel would make clear that the costs of arbitration increase in proportion to the use of litigation tactics. While parties will receive their basic due process in arbitration, they must be willing to make the trade-off between efficiency and the panoply of rights afforded to parties in civil litigation.

What advice would you give to counsel appearing before you? After the pleadings have been exchanged, sit down face-to-face with opposing counsel and establish a working relationship, discuss what each side needs to prove its cause of action or support its defense, and explore how and when documents can be produced. Do not let the arbitrator simply impose schedules. Instead, work them out ahead of the preliminary conference and present the arbitrator with what you and opposing counsel have agreed to. Too often counsel behave as litigators and not as arbitration counsel.

Additionally, try to avoid wasteful discovery disputes. Counsel should be mindful that every time the arbitrator has to be engaged in a discovery dispute, it drives up the cost and distracts from focusing on the merits.

Further, review written guidance and work to improve your process skills. Counsel should become familiar with, for example, the CCA's Protocols for Expeditious, Cost-Effective Commercial Arbitration and its Guide to Best Practices in Commercial Arbitration, as well as John W. Cooley and Steven Lubet's Arbitration Advocacy. A good review of the domestic law of arbitration can be found in Thomas E. Carbonneau's Toward a New Federal Law on Arbitration.

For attorneys interested in international arbitration, William W. Park's Arbitration of International Business Disputes is a must-read, along with the ALI's Restatement of the Law (Third), U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration.

Why do you require a preliminary conference? A preliminary conference helps ensure that the panel knows what needs to be done to afford the parties a fair opportunity to expeditiously present their case.

The arbitral institutions either require or give the arbitrators the discretion to have a preliminary conference or case management conference. This is a critical step in the arbitration because it provides a platform for the parties to agree on the conduct of the arbitration and set ground rules. They can agree on, for example, timetables for document exchange and the identification of issues and witnesses, the use of witness statements, the need for expert witnesses and witness subpoenas, the submission of pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs and, most importantly, the date and place of the hearing.

How can counsel best prepare for a preliminary conference? I recommend asking the institutional representative whether the chair uses an agenda and, if so, requesting a copy. Counsel for each party should then meet and confer to try to agree on as many points as possible. As I discussed above, they should sit down together and work out what needs to be done to exchange critical documents, identify important witnesses and try the case most efficiently. They should then provide the panel with a joint submission before the preliminary conference.

This approach can save a lot of time and expense, particularly when the clock is running for three arbitrators. The arbitrators usually will go along with what counsel agree on regarding discovery and the hearing. Counsel can present those items that cannot be agreed on to the panel for discussion and quick resolution.

Should counsel discuss the merits or damages in the case at the preliminary conference? In my opinion, the preliminary conference is not the place to discuss the merits of the case, although some arbitrators like to hear a short summary from each side. I have not found that approach to be productive because it invites a lot of early posturing. Reading the demand and answer generally is enough for the arbitrator to learn what the case is about for purposes of the preliminary conference.

It also is too early to discuss damages at the preliminary conference. However, counsel should begin focusing on them at this point and choosing a date by which the claim for damages can be refined. I like to have counsel submit a joint statement of the issues soon after the preliminary conference, which helps manage the discovery process.

How does the use of expert witnesses differ in arbitration as opposed to litigation? From my perspective, the problem is that the use of expert witnesses in arbitration does not differ much from their use in litigation. The expert is engaged, prepares a report, is deposed, testifies and is cross-examined. The opposing expert then testifies at a later time. The arbitrators are left to remember, digest, analyze and evaluate the conflicting opinions. As a result, when it is time to make a decision, the arbitrators may have questions about the experts' testimony that cannot be answered.

There should be a better way for the arbitral panel to benefit from expert testimony. I have not been able to convince my fellow arbitrators to employ the concept of witness conferencing or "hot tubbing," where the experts meet in advance of their testimony, identify areas where they agree or disagree, testify at the same time (enabling the panel to direct specific questions that require resolution), and ask and answer questions from each other.

Although arbitration offers counsel and arbitrators the opportunity to customize the use of expert testimony, most do not take advantage of it.