With this post, The CPR Institute introduces a new “CPR Speaks” series feature in which members of our esteemed panel of neutrals will periodically contribute their thoughts on developments and best practices in dispute resolution.
THE NEUTRAL’S NOTEPAD: U.S. Advocates and Arbitrators Should Consider an Expanded Use of Written Witness Statements in U.S. Domestic Arbitration
One technique for creating efficiencies in arbitration is submitting the direct testimony of fact witnesses in writing rather than orally. Written witness statements provide detailed testimony a witness would offer (including references to relevant documents) if questioned live. The written testimony is signed by the witness, its truth and accuracy is sworn to or affirmed, and the statements are exchanged in advance of the hearing. Each witness providing a written statement appears at the hearing for cross-examination by opposing counsel and questioning by the tribunal.
Written witness statements can afford material advantages in arbitration. For example, as lengthy oral testimony becomes unnecessary, written testimony can save days or even weeks (in a complex case). Exchanging witness statements in advance also permits opposing counsel to prepare fully for cross-examination. In fact, exchanging witness testimony prior to hearing permits all of the participants in the hearing—counsel and arbitrators alike—to focus before hearing on the key issues in dispute, formulate pertinent questions for the witness, and conduct a more efficient and streamlined proceeding. Moreover, witness statements can obviate or lessen the need for depositions since opposing counsel will have advanced notice of a witness’ direct testimony. Finally, written statements can serve an important fact-finding function when depositions are disallowed or limited to key witnesses.
Why are written witness statements so common in international arbitration, but not as prevalent in U.S. domestic arbitration? Some U.S. counsel and arbitrators may be unfamiliar with the technique, particularly if they serve exclusively in U.S. domestic proceedings where oral testimony is the norm. Others may believe that drawbacks associated with witness statements outweigh the advantages.
For example, some may feel that lawyers draft witness statements and the testimony therefore is not as spontaneous or genuine as when a witness testifies live. A witness also might rely too heavily on the lawyer and not review the testimony carefully or completely.
However, when preparing witnesses for oral testimony, attorneys also typically assist and invite them to rehearse their hearing presentations. Attorneys have a duty to admonish witnesses concerning the truth and accuracy of their testimony—whether they testify orally or in writing—and to highlight the need to defend the testimony under cross-examination and arbitrator questioning. Witnesses also sign and/or swear or attest to their written testimony, and such formalities signal that witness statements need to be truthful and accurate and not approached in a careless manner.
Another potential concern about written versus oral direct testimony is that the tribunal’s first exposure to the witness would be on cross-examination. No lawyer wants arbitrators to observe a witness initially in a defensive posture under questioning by opposing counsel.
This concern can be addressed by permitting counsel offering the witness to conduct a brief direct examination (e.g., 15 to 30 minutes), depending on the nature and size of the testimony and the case. This lets the tribunal hear from the witness in his or her own words. Such abbreviated direct examination could include background information on the witness and/or a summary of key aspects of the witness’ written testimony. This direct testimony should be relatively brief so as not to frustrate a fundamental purpose for using written witness statements, i.e., to achieve efficiency and cost-savings.
A final potential concern is that using written statements prevents arbitrators from evaluating a witness’ credibility on direct examination.
There normally are sufficient opportunities for a tribunal to assess witness credibility other than on direct examination—most critically during cross-examination, but also on re-direct, and during questioning by the tribunal as well. Moreover, permitting an abbreviated direct exam before a witness is cross-examined, as discussed above, affords yet another window for arbitrators to assess witness credibility.
Granted, written witness statements may not be an optimal solution for every witness or in every case. For example, where believability of a key witness or witnesses may influence the outcome in an arbitration, presenting the witness’ direct testimony live may be preferable to using a written witness statement.
Additionally, any decision to present the direct testimony of fact witnesses in written or oral form ultimately should reside with the parties and counsel. Arbitration still is a creature of party agreement, and arbitrators in U.S. domestic arbitration should never compel the use of one technique over the other.
However, here are some general practice tips that arbitrators might keep in mind, not only to help ensure that counsel consider the full range of their options, but to utilize written direct testimony, if they so choose, in an optimal way:
- Arbitrators should encourage written witness statements where appropriate and highlight the benefits surrounding their use. Including witness statements as an item on the preliminary hearing agenda, and having an open discussion of the pros and cons during the preliminary hearing itself, can expose the technique to counsel otherwise unfamiliar with it.
- Arbitrators should condition the use of written direct testimony on the witness’s attendance at hearing for cross-examination and questioning by the tribunal (unless all parties and the tribunal agree to waive a witness’ appearance). Cross-examination of witnesses generally is considered a fundamental right in the U.S. (and in other common law jurisdictions) and this right should be safeguarded when written witness statements are used.
- Arbitrators should permit sponsoring counsel to question the witness briefly on direct examination (e.g., to summarize key points) so the witness can “warm to the seat” before being turned over for cross-examination. This procedure lets the witness become comfortable in the arbitral setting and also allows the tribunal to observe witness credibility (albeit briefly) on direct examination.
- U.S. arbitrators should review witness statements in preparation for the hearing, listen attentively during examination by counsel and, if appropriate, pose follow-up questions to the witness to clarify relevant facts, gain insight as to witness credibility, or achieve a better understanding of the case.
In conclusion, greater reflection and dialogue on written witness statements should give U.S. counsel and arbitrators an enhanced appreciation for their use in U.S. domestic arbitration. U.S. arbitration proceedings would surely benefit from this development.
Raymond Bender is a full-time commercial Arbitrator in domestic and international disputes. He is a member of the CPR Panel of Distinguished Neutral Arbitrators for Washington, D.C., Technology, and Cross-Border Disputes; the American Arbitration Association’s Roster of Commercial Arbitrators for Washington, D.C., Technology, and Large, Complex Cases; the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) Panel of International Arbitrators; and the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center’s List of the World’s Leading Technology Neutrals. He also has served in International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and ad hoc arbitrations. Mr. Bender is an Adjunct Professor at the Washington College of Law, American University, Washington D.C., where he teaches Alternative Dispute Resolution Law, and serves on the Arbitration Faculty of the International Law Institute.