Two of the most oft-cited reasons for seeking alternative dispute resolution (ADR)—specifically arbitration—as an alternative to litigation are the potential savings in time and costs to the parties, including the greater likelihood of final resolution due to the limited bases upon which a court will review and reverse an arbitration decision.

There is a common misconception among commercial property owners that arbitration is preferable to litigation, and they often allow their standard lease forms to provide that mandatory binding arbitration, rather than a court, will be used to resolve disputes. Arbitration may work well in certain types of disputes, but it isn't effective for the majority of commercial leasing issues. And contrary to many owners' opinions, arbitration is not necessarily faster, less expensive, or more favorable for them.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett is good news for owners who, under their tenants' leases, must hire unionized employees to work in their buildings. Many owners fear the consequences of employee claims brought by the union on employees' behalf. But now, owners using unionized employees can enforce the alternative dispute resolution or arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) rather than have an employment issue—such as a discrimination claim—resolved through protracted litigation.