4405 Warrens Way Portland, Oregon 97221 Office: (503) 274-0017 Fax: (503) 226-6200 E-mail: jake@jtanzer.com
		Arbitration approach      I am mindful that arbitration is a contract relationship. As arbitrator, I work for the lawyers, not vice-versa. I am also mindful that good lawyers are apt to know the case better than I. Not so good lawyers are a different matter and, fortunately, a rare one. My job is to move the case along, hear it and decide it.      The parties identify the rules (AAA, Arbitration Service of Portland, or custom) at the outset. Where appropriate, I ask the lawyers to develop a discovery and production schedule. I will do so if they cannot. Where production is not required by the rules, I encourage voluntary pre-hearing exchange. Like every other judge, I dislike discovery motions, but I decide them when the attorneys cannot agree. A pre-hearing conference will be held and statements of proof required in complex cases. A pre-hearing memorandum can be helpful.      I try to handle hearings expeditiously. I try to identify all undisputed facts so that time is not taken having witnesses establish them. All exhibits are deemed admitted unless objection is made at the first reference. If an exhibit is on its face a letter from A to B dated 1/1/01, I discourage lawyers from asking a witness to identify it as a letter from A to B dated 1/1/01. I try to identify the critical issues and get to them promptly. I try to distinguish between issues on which argument may be helpful and those on which it is not needed.      I try to have a decision out by the end of the next day in non-complex cases. I do not split babies unless warranted by the law and facts.      My decisions in arbitration usually identify the result and the rationale concisely. I do not write lengthy opinions unless requested for industry guidance. If the parties wish findings and conclusions, they may request them and we will follow the usual procedures.      A word about three-arbitrator proceedings. First of all, I like the opportunity to discuss a case with my colleagues. If the magnitude or complexity of a case justifies three arbitrators, a collegial panel can produce a more nuanced result. Second, if I am chosen by a party, I do not feel that I am an advocate for that party ­ only that there is something in my background which gives that party confidence in my judgment. When I take the arbitrator's oath to try a case fairly, that's what I try to do.