Presiding over your arbitration with Efficiency + Fairness
Hon. Tanner Neidhardt (former judge) distinguished his judicial record by efficiently moving cases and fairly breaking deadlocks. He will approach your arbitration by these same principles.
"As I believed as a judge, my role as an arbitrator is to facilitate the parties' resolution of their conflict efficiently and confidently,” Tanner stated. “I do not postpone pretrial decisions that delay final resolution for months or years. The attorneys may need more time—and that we can discuss—but a resolution should not be delayed because their arbitrator is dilatory.”
Whether Tanner’s commitment to efficiency arises from his experience as a district judge or from participating in an international arbitration that dragged on for years, he understands the parties’ desire for forward momentum and finality.
"Arbitration should not become too time-consuming and cumbersome,” Tanner said. “That does not mean we cut off meaningful argument, but the arbitrator must enforce boundaries.”
Tanner has tried 150+ cases as an advocate or a judge.
"I appreciate advocacy and the art of persuasion," Tanner said. "One way I can experience it regularly is from the bench. I let the advocates try their case."
Generally, Tanner supports a rules-based approach to evidence-taking, such as adhering to the Federal Rules of Evidence (or other applicable local rules).
"A rules-based framework is generally rooted in reliability and admissibility,” he explained. "Whatever rules the parties choose, a framework affords attorneys predictability, which they can convey to clients who must evaluate their positions. It further promotes fairness and lends legitimacy to our arbitration."
Tanner began his career as a law clerk to U.S. Magistrate Judge Felix Recio, who managed a busy court along Texas' southern border with Mexico. Subsequently, he served as a prosecutor in San Antonio, handling cases ranging from fraud to murder, before transitioning to civil practice at King & Spalding.
With experience in both civil and criminal matters, Tanner was appointed as the first Trial Judge of the 483rd District Court in Hays County. He tried 44 cases in two years. The Judge significantly reduced criminal case backlogs. In doing so, he returned civil cases to the trial docket, many stagnant for 4-7 years, and those matters began to proceed to resolution once more.
"People deserve their day in court," Tanner asserted. "Injured individuals and businesses should not have to settle because they run out of time or money waiting on a hearing date. In the arbitration space, the same rule applies."
“The attorneys may need more time, and that we can discuss. But a resolution should not be delayed because their arbitrator is dilatory.”
Credentials
University of Texas, J.D., 2006
University of Texas, M.A., Latin American Studies, 2006
Fulbright Scholar, Bogota, Colombia, 2002-2003
Rhodes College, B.A., 1999
Clerkship
Law Clerk to Judge Felix Recio, Southern District of Texas, Brownsville, 2006-2007
Q&A with Judge Tanner Arbitration, Opportunities for Creativity, and Desire for Finality
What is your most memorable arbitration?
It was a $4.5 billion case related to the construction of a refinery. It had everything: analysis of laws and jurisprudence across multiple jurisdictions; cultural differences; language barriers (or opportunities); arbitrators from London, Madrid, Santiago; clients from different governance structures; outstanding advocacy; terabytes of data; and impressive logistics to pull off the final hearing. I worked on that arbitration for over seven years.
What were the unique issues in that arbitration?
One of the biggest issues was the damages cap, which was inapplicable if respondent was grossly negligent in performance of the contract. That became a leading clash of the parties. Obviously a cap between $50 million and $100 million was a long way from a claim of $4.5 billion.
Force majeure was a major factor in the matter as well. That can be a complicated one.
Complicated? Why?
Of course all cases should come down to the application of the evidence to the legal standard. Force majeure is one that is heavy because it is usually such a gray area. Something happened for which a party claims Force Majeure. Is it enough? Is that something sufficient? How much rain is too much rain (but that was a different arbitration). Ultimately, it requires an evaluation under the microscope by the arbitrator.
How did the international nature of the arbitration affect the legal issues?
That was interesting. Because it was an international arbitration, the applicable law ranged from New York to Texas to the Latin American country of origin. For the latter, experts opined on what the law meant in their country. It was really important to have their perspective because you have to know the standards on which you are measuring.
What are the differences you see between litigating in state court and an arbitral space?
First, you have an arbitrator’s full attention. In contrast, due to sheer numbers alone, my old state court docket was large enough that I could not know each case in much detail. Think about it: those cases may come before the court once every six months and there are hundreds of cases between settings. The parties are likely reminding the judge what the case is about—”oh, the one where (blank) happened.” So good advocates have that two-line summary down cold. For arbitrators, however, there is not that volume and so you don’t have to start over each setting.
Could that additional attention be a bad thing if your side of the case is weak?
Not necessarily. When cases are weak, you have to be creative. For creativity to work, you need someone to listen to it. State courts do not have that sort of time. But either way, I believe that the legal system is set up to find the truth. And it generally does. As an arbitrator, I seek the truth. That’s not abnormal of course. That’s what our profession does.
Other differences between litigating in state court and arbitrations?
The time to present your case. Our trial court did not have weeks. Of course even in an arbitration, there must be limits, such as page limits on submissions. (And good advocates know that streamlining and prioritizing makes for more persuasive presentations.) But those limits are less arbitrary. The courtroom does not close at 5. There are not twelve jurors to attend to. Another trial is not scheduled for next week. If the parties are ready to work, arbitrators can be there with them.
So why arbitration?
For the reason originally contemplated for arbitration (which we should remind ourselves): the efficient, competent, and cost-effective resolution of a conflict. The parties—like humans in general—want finality so they can move forward. I want to help them do that.
And I really enjoy the opportunity to work with good advocates. It’s the best seat in the house when good parties are involved.
Contact me about bringing an Efficient + Fair approach to your arbitration.
Or send over your questions.
Fill out the basics and I will be in touch.