National Law Journal Quotes CCL’s John Vail on Supreme Court's Treatment of Arbitration Law

November 30th, 2012

In a November 28, 2012 article, The National Law Journal quoted CCL attorney John Vail on why a five-page, unsigned U.S. Supreme Court opinion reversing the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Nitro-Lift Technologies v. Howard represents a troubling trend in the Court's treatment of arbitration issues.  In the field of arbitration, the Court seems to issue per curiam opinions overturning state supreme court decisions that favored consumers regularly. 

Vail told the paper that the this approach trend was “is not really the court's role, and its resources are better devoted elsewhere."   The Court’s primary function is resolving conflicts on important issues in the lower courts and other doctrinal issues, not simply correcting errors. 

Vail has written previously about the way the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the Federal Arbitration Act to create a body of law that favors mandatory arbitration and threatens the fair and public resolution of consumer and employee claims.

U.S. Supreme Court Finds Arbitration Can Be Required Under CROA

January 10th, 2012

In CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that claims arising under the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act are subject to arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement. In an amicus brief for the American Association for Justice, filed in support of respondents, John Vail of CCL argued that such claims should not be subject to arbitration. The amicus brief was cited favorably in Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.