Tuesday, July 25, 2023

OPINION: Stop Requiring Exhibit Lists!

You are conducting the final hearing of a high-dollar construction arbitration. Opposing counsel hands you the next document that counsel plans to use in questioning the witness on the stand. You notice that the document is bates stamped but has no exhibit number. So, you quickly consult opposing counsel’s exhibit list and – gasp – you find that the document is not on the list. What do you do? Do you object?

Assuming this is not your first construction arbitration hearing, you do not object. Why? Because your objection would be futile. Construction arbitrators simply do not exclude evidence on the basis that it does not appear on an exhibit list. (Evidence not produced in discovery or otherwise previously provided might be a different case.) In an informal poll of a dozen construction lawyers conducted by this author, not one reported evidence being excluded solely because it did not appear on an exhibit list. This remained true even when the applicable case management order purported to prohibit the introduction of evidence not on an exhibit list. Thus, to be used in an arbitration hearing, documents must appear on an exhibit list, unless they don’t, in which case you can use them anyway. So far, so pointless.

The scope of the average exhibit list only compounds this inanity. Exhibit lists are typically due several weeks in advance of the hearing. In an ideal world, both parties would have complete witness outlines, including exhibits, ready by this deadline. In this fantasy, both parties would then provide each other reasonably short exhibit lists that would allow for review of each exhibit on the list prior to the hearing. Both parties would then proceed to the hearing secure in the knowledge that they will not be subject to attack by the use of any document excluded from these tidy lists. This, to put it mildly, is not how things play out.

Perhaps the most organized and diligent among us know the exhibits they will use by the time the lists are due and can populate them with just those two- to three-hundred exhibits. Everyone else simply plays it safe and includes every document that could conceivably be relevant. The shortest list this author has received included at least 600 exhibits; the longest approached five figures. Of what conceivable use is an exhibit list that includes essentially every relevant document, and isn’t even binding in the unlikely event one has been omitted?

We have now established that arbitration exhibit lists are typically pointless, excessively voluminous, and largely unenforceable. They are also expensive. An enormous amount of time and money is spent creating exhibit lists. Based on the largely unfounded fear that a document left off will not be allowed into evidence, lawyers pore over the production database, adding and re-adding countless documents.

And yet, even given that (1) there is practically no consequence for failure to include a document on an exhibit list; (2) exhibit lists are almost always too lengthy to serve their intended purpose of previewing a party’s evidentiary showing; and (3) exhibit lists require a tremendous expenditure of time, effort, and money, almost everyone still insists on exhibit lists as a pre-hearing requirement, and almost no one insists that the lists be limited in any way. (There’s no real incentive to push for a strictly limited exhibit list that could come back to bite you in the event you forget to include a crucial document.) Thinking too much on this foolishness compels me to propose this obvious and remarkably simple solution: stop requiring exhibit lists!

I recognize this is a break from tradition. Arbitration, however, is remarkably easy without exhibit lists. I hope you’re sitting down for this: you can just handle the exhibits at the final hearing like you would handle the exhibits at a deposition. Let that sink in. You already know how to proceed without an exhibit list, you just didn’t know it. When an exhibit is introduced, it is assigned the next available number. It is as simple as that.

The logistics largely resolve themselves. Regardless of whether you are using hard copy or electronic documents, there are ways to make their introduction seamless. When using hard copies, you can employ the classic exhibit stickers. When using electronic documents, you can employ one of the multiple tools that exist for on-the-fly branding and sharing of exhibits. Even if your arbitrators request exhibit books, there are any number of practical options. (Consider giving them binders with tabs that are added to as you go, for example.)

Exhibit lists do nothing but incentivize waste. Wasted time, wasted effort, wasted money, and wasted paper—banker’s boxes full of wasted paper. So break the cycle, and embrace this most obvious reform: don’t include a requirement for an exhibit list in your next case management order.


Author Todd Heffner is an associate in Troutman Pepper's construction practice group. Todd has devoted his career to serving clients in the construction industry, particularly high-stakes federal court litigation and arbitration.

Editor Jane Fox Lehman is a Senior Attorney at The Babcock & Wilcox Company.

Stock photo ccourtesy of Vecteezy

Tuesday, July 18, 2023

How Will Artificial Intelligence Impact Construction Litigation?

In the first half of 2023, artificial intelligence (“AI”) caught the public’s imagination. Attorneys have not been immune from the fever-pitch of commentary regarding the possible applications. While early adopters have had varying degrees of success, commentators have proposed various potential impacts on construction projects and disputes. This article discusses potential areas where AI can assist in preventing and resolving disputes from the pre-bid stage through project completion and close-out.

What is AI?

Artificial intelligence entered the popular zeitgeist accompanied by both optimistic and pessimistic predictions about the future. Internet searches on AI exploded in December 2022, reflecting a rapid and widespread public interest in the topic. The term “AI” itself is often loosely used to refer to a machine or computer software with the ability to conduct machine learning.[1] Whereas “automation” is the simple process of computing inputs, artificial intelligence refers to the ability to learn without additional programming from a human being. Now, increased computing power is finally helping some of the potential applications of this technology come into focus. Nonetheless, artificial intelligence is still maturing and is subject to “hallucinations” where the technology essentially generates erroneous nonsense.

In the Contract:

Changes in the scope of work are one of the most common sources of construction disputes. AI has the potential to impact construction contracts by mining details such as the proper scope of work. A construction contract can be a lengthy, complicated document with cross-references to bid documents, other agreements and specifications. For example, parties could use AI in the future to flag when a revised drawing requires a formal change order. These details are often central to subsequent disputes. Of course, in any scenario all contractual language should always be reviewed by an experienced construction attorney.

In the Field:

AI has multiple use cases on the ground. For example, AI with “computer vision” may be used to predict the best locations to drill into concrete while avoiding expensive mistakes and obstacles.

AI may have use cases in scheduling and management. Delays are a common source of frustration on construction projects. It now seems plausible AI could be used in the future to analyze available data to, (i) predict the probability of a delay, and (ii) after a delay occurs, to identify the cause.

AI may also have certain use cases in preventing or limiting workplace injuries. For example, AI could conceivably be used to scan a construction site for individuals without certain personal protective equipment. Machine learning will also be involved in any autonomous machinery or equipment used on job sites of the future.[2]

In the Office:

Construction disputes typically involve a multitude of documents, including contracts, specifications, drawings, change orders and correspondence. Analysis of a well-documented construction project can quickly become one of the most time-consuming aspects of a dispute. To the extent AI may gain the ability to apply machine learning to increase the efficiency of large document reviews, this could represent a significant change in the landscape of construction litigation.

In Court:

Some intrepid lawyers have begun using artificial intelligence as part of their practice. These early adopters have been met with mixed results, and sometimes worse. Some courts are responding by requiring that any attorney using artificial intelligence disclose when AI is used in the preparation of filings. They also must certify that each and every citation to the law of the record has been verified as accurate.[3]

Of course, the use of artificial intelligence may trigger several important professional and ethical duties for attorneys. The ABA recently addressed some of these concerns when the House of Delegates adopted a resolution regarding the use of artificial intelligence at the 2023 Midyear Meeting.

Conclusion:

It can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the true potential of AI and machine learning. In terms of the technology adoption lifecycle, AI has likely turned an important corner as it transitions from “innovators” to “early adopters.” For some of us, the hype and prognostications can be an obstacle to performing an objective assessment of likely benefits and risks. Construction law remains in the very early stages of the so-called “AI Revolution” and the final destination remains unclear.

Construction, like the law itself, is an old profession not known for embracing disruption. But while the promise of artificial intelligence can be alluring, construction attorneys should be careful not to allow these new tools to replace their own research and judgment. Nonetheless, the potential of machine learning to impact all phases of construction from planning and drafting through project completion and dispute resolution warrants close attention and thoughtful analysis. The power of the underlying technology will continue to grow.


Patrick McKnight is a member of Fox Rothschild’s national Construction Practice Group. For more information, please contact Patrick at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com. 

[1] To be clear, machine learning is more accurately described as a subset of artificial intelligence.

[2] The flip side of the coin is how liability will be apportioned when AI is accused of causing an injury. This is a developing area of tort law beyond the scope of this article. 

[3] See e.g., Judge Michael Baylson’s June 6, 2023 Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Tuesday, July 11, 2023

Meet D1's Neutrals Series: BILL FRANCZEK

Company: Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black PLC

Office Location: Norfolk, VA

Email: Bill.Franczek@wrvblaw.com

Website: https://wrvblaw.com/attorney_/william-e-franczek/

Law School: Syracuse University Law – JD, 1982, Magna Cum Laude, Order of the Coif

Types of ADR services offered: Arbitration, Dispute Resolution Boards and Panels, Mediation and Neutral Evaluations

Affiliated ADR organizations: American Arbitration Association  (AAA); International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR);  London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA);  International Court of Arbitration (ICC)

Geographic area served: Nationwide


Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral.

A: I have an undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering and a Professional Engineering License in NY and VA.  So, when I became a lawyer, I applied for membership in the AAA, and was accepted as a construction neutral in 1987.  I now practice construction law and serve as an ADR Neutral in matters across the country and internationally.

Q: Describe your background and experience mediating and arbitrating construction cases.

A: I have been a construction mediator for about 20 years, mostly in matters on the east coast.  My background in construction engineering helps with facilitating resolutions, as I believe construction professionals can identify with me and my experiences. As far as arbitrating construction cases, I have handled 250-300 cases in my career.  I’ve been fortunate to be involved in some very large matters ($100M+), which are generally handled with 3 arbitrator panels, and before some very good construction lawyers.  I currently have 9-10 such matters pending at any given time.  More recently, I’ve been involved in several large wind and solar panel energy cases.

Q: What percentage of your current legal practice is spent on ADR work? What do you do when not serving as an ADR neutral?

A: I’d estimate about 95% of my work is now ADR related.  I also serve some clients with day-to-day questions, contract reviews and dispute resolution matters.

Q: Do you do neutral work beyond “garden-variety” mediation or arbitration? If so, what additional ADR services do you offer?

A: I do a considerable about of Dispute Resolution Board work, including infrastructure work in Texas, California, Virginia, Maryland and Colorado.

Q: Mediators are oftentimes described as “facilitative,” “evaluative,” or “transformative.” Do you have a style?

A: I try to start cases as a facilitative mediator, but invariably end up providing an evaluation of each party’s cases, to the extent enough information is provided to me to do so.

Q: Are virtual mediations as effective as in-person mediations? What are their advantages/limitations?

A: I think in-person mediation is much better than virtual.  Getting face-to-face contact helps develop trust and credibility.

Q: What techniques and strategies do you use to help parties overcome impasse?

A: At the end of the process, I will often offer to provide each party with a separate “mediator’s recommendation” that has sometimes proven to enable resolution of difficult cases.

Q: What should attorneys and their clients take into consideration when vetting and/or selecting an arbitrator?

A: His/her experience in construction, their temperament, and most importantly, recommendations from other lawyers on their experiences with potential candidates.

Q: What advice do you have for parties when considering whether to choose a single arbitrator or a panel?

A: I believe a single arbitrator for cases < $2M is probably wise, just for the cost element.  It has been my experience that using the AAA Streamlined Three Arbitrator Option where one of the three handles all pre-hearing matters can be cost-effective. I think you are likely to get a more “negotiated” resolution with 3 arbitrators than just one.

Q: Do you think limits should be placed on discovery in the arbitration context?

A: Yes, definitely.  I give the parties a draft Scheduling Order that I have to try to convince them to limit discovery, while at the same time giving them the latitude to provide for the amount of discovery necessary for the particular case.

Q: What are some of your interests or hobbies?

A: Reading, international travel, wildlife and bird watching.


Assistant Editor-in-Chief Jessica Knox is an Associate in the Minneapolis office at Stinson LLP. She represents owners, general contractors, and subcontractors in litigation disputes. Jessica can be contacted at jessica.knox@stinson.com.