Complaint Review: JAMS Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Services

My experience with arbitration using JAMS in 2005 in New York and a "neutral" arbitrator was horrific. It was later revealed that the arbitrator's husband works for and has reported to a member of the defendant's board of directors; (2) her husband's research program received a "donation" greater than $1,000 from the defendant while the arbitration was pending; (3) her husband's research program received a donation of over $100,000 in 1999 (prior to the arbitration) and (4) her husband has close professional ties to the defendant's son, who is also a member of the defendant's board.

When confronted with these facts, JAMS Associate General Counsel (let's call her K. Taylor), responding by stating the arbitrator "disclosed to the parties all information that was required to be disclosed by Canon II of the ABA Code of Ethics for Arbitrators. That code does not require and arbitrator to investigate every conceivable association that might exist between her spouse's corporate employer and other entities."

The JAMS Associate General Counsel is apparently unfamiliar with Canon II, paragraph B. of the ABA Code of Ethics which states:

"Persons who are requested to accept appointment as arbitrators should make a reasonable effort to inform themselves of any interests or relationships described in paragraph A."

Furthermore, donors that contribute more than $100,000 generally dont qualify for the every conceivable association exclusion.

Question: What could possibly be the motive to find such an arbitrator?

Answer: The exposure of a $25 million dollar securities fraud spanning 20 years.

 Proof: Google "SEC Fraud Value Line"

For a bit more clarity:

1) Let's call the arbitrator ~ Vivien. B. Shelanski.

2) Let's call the husband ~ Dr. Micheal. Shelanksi

3) Let's call the defendants ~ Value Line, Inc and Jean B. Buttner

Value Line ultimately got caught by the SEC despite the arbitrator placing an already confidential proceeding under a supposed "arbitrator's seal." and denying any discovery into SEC evidence.

The take away is you cannot rely on JAMS to be unbiased. Furthermore, the arbitrator and JAMS is protected by absolute immunity.

However, the truth ultimately always prevails.