Neutral Corner - October 2006

A Breath of Fresh Air: Discovery Arbitrator Pilot Program

By Leslie L. Cooney*


For more than a year, NASD Dispute Resolution has piloted a program designed to improve the efficiency of the discovery process and produce more predictable, consistent rulings. Launched on August 1, 2005, the Discovery Arbitrator Pilot Program (Program) is a voluntary process, whereby participation is limited to parties represented by counsel who have stipulated in writing to authorize the use of a discovery arbitrator. Once the parties have signed a stipulation agreeing to use the Program, they may not unilaterally withdraw; however, all parties may agree in writing to discontinue the use of the discovery arbitrator.

After the parties have agreed to use the Program, they can either jointly stipulate to use a specific arbitrator or NASD will appoint one from a pre-selected list. This arbitrator then resolves all discovery disputes prior to the first hearing on the merits but is not part of the panel assigned to hear the merits of the case. By using a discovery arbitrator, the full panel can focus its attention on the merits of the case and reduce the time spent before and during the hearing to address discovery disputes.

Selection of Discovery Arbitrators

Discovery arbitrators on the pre-selected list have been carefully approved with a review of the arbitrator's education, employment and background. In addition to being active arbitrators on NASD's roster, each discovery arbitrator is an attorney who is classified as a public arbitrator and possesses significant experience in resolving discovery disputes. Discovery arbitrators on the list have also received additional training concerning the discovery process and the role of a discovery arbitrator.

As part of the appointment process, NASD staff screens the list for current conflicts before any assignment is made. After the discovery arbitrator is appointed to a particular case, the only way parties may challenge the discovery arbitrator's appointment is by filing a causal challenge or a request for the Director of Arbitration to exercise the authority to remove an arbitrator.

Authority of Discovery Arbitrators

Until the hearing on the merits begins, the discovery arbitrator has the sole authority to rule on any discovery-related motion or dispute, including the authority to issue monetary and evidentiary sanctions against any party who fails to comply with discovery rulings. Discovery arbitrators, however, do not have the authority to dismiss a claim, defense or proceeding pursuant to Rule 10305 of NASD's Code of Arbitration Procedure.

Upon commencement of the hearing, the discovery arbitrator's role ceases, and the panel appointed to hear the merits of the case decides any new discovery issues that may arise. Until the hearing commences, the panel may not review any decisions the discovery arbitrator renders. Thereafter, the panel may review the discovery arbitrator's prior rulings only based upon new facts or circumstances arising after the hearing's commencement.

Experiences with the Program

NASD's Southeast and West Regional Offices conduct the Program, but parties under the jurisdiction of other regional offices may still participate. Parties in 38 cases have thus far agreed to use the Program. The issues presented have been mostly routine discovery matters such as the relevance of documents sought, whether documents sought were covered by any privilege, and whether the costs of seeking documents more than six years prior to the date of the claim outweighed their relevance.

Twenty-two of these cases involved the same counsel, allegations and member firm Respondent; only the investor Claimant was different in each of these cases. The parties determined that having the same discovery arbitrator serve on all 22 cases would not only expedite the discovery process, but it would also ensure uniform rulings. The discovery arbitrator was able to schedule one telephone conference, instead of 22 separate telephone conferences, to resolve discovery issues common to all the cases and apply common rulings to all of them. Richard Grahn, the discovery arbitrator for the 22 cases, found that the Program worked remarkably well; indeed, Mr. Grahn said the entire discovery process went so well that "it was like a breath of fresh air." The parties settled 21 of the 22 cases. Parties in the remaining 17 of the 38 cases have settled in three cases, concluded two by hearing and have hearings scheduled in the remaining 12 cases. In an additional 20 cases, one of the parties has expressed interest in using the Program, and NASD staff is working with all parties to obtain their agreement.

Other discovery arbitrators have reported positive experiences with the Program as well. One of the goals of the pilot program is to bring order to the discovery process at an earlier stage prior to the appointment of the full panel. At least one discovery arbitrator found this goal was met so quickly that the parties were not ready to address discovery matters at the time of the discovery arbitrator's appointment. Because the parties did not have outstanding discovery issues, the discovery arbitrator waited until the regular panel set dates for the final hearing and then set cutoff dates for discovery compliance and motions.

Discovery arbitrators consistently agree that participants in the Program will see more uniform rulings and a real emphasis on compliance with the spirit of discovery. Not one discovery arbitrator reported the need for using sanctions against any party in the cases brought under the Program.


The Program is scheduled to run at least until July 31, 2007. While participation to date is less than what NASD had hoped, there has been positive feedback from the parties who have used the program. NASD plans to send questionnaires to all participants seeking their input on the Program, and will use the information to evaluate the process and seek new ways to improve the effectiveness of discovery.

*Leslie L. Cooney is a Professor of Law at Nova Southeastern University Law Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She teaches Contracts, Business Entities, Negotiating Workshop, Business Practice Ethics and Professionalism, Agency and supervises the Business Practice Clinic. Professor Cooney received both her BS and JD degrees from Duquesne University, and was an Articles editor for the Duquesne Law Review. She spent 10 years in the practice of law before teaching full time. Professor Cooney's background includes a judicial clerkship with Justice Manderino of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a position as corporate attorney with Westinghouse Electric, and experience as a litigator with the firm of Faderski and Herrington. She is a member of the CALI Editorial Board, member of the Florida Bar Client Security Fund Committee, past chair and member of the Florida Bar Committee on Simplified Legal Forms, and former member of the Board of Directors for Greater Miami Legal Services Corporation. Professor Cooney also serves as an arbitrator and as a discovery arbitrator in NASD's Southeast Region. She is a member of the Florida and Pennsylvania Bars.

Dispute Resolution News

Case Filings

Arbitration case filings from January 1 through September 30, 2006, reflect a 20 percent decrease compared to cases filed during the same nine-month period in 2005 (from 4,632 cases in 2005 to 3,699 cases in 2006).

The overall turnaround time to process an arbitration case (hearing and simplified) from January 1 through September 30, 2006, decreased by 3 percent compared to the same period in 2005 (from 14.4 months in 2005 to 13.9 months in 2006).

NASD Fall Securities Conference

NASD's 15th Annual Fall Securities Conference will be held November 15-17, 2006, in Los Angeles. In addition to addressing the industry's latest updates on securities regulation and compliance, the program will address hot topics in securities arbitration and mediation. Experienced attorneys, arbitrators, NASD Dispute Resolution senior staff and program attendees will engage in problem-solving activities to tackle real arbitration issues. The faculty will also discuss NASD's current initiatives in securities dispute resolution, including the Code of Arbitration Procedure revision project and the Discovery Arbitrator Pilot Program.

For more information about the Fall Securities Conference, please visit NASD's Web site.

NASD Dispute Resolution's Mediation Settlement Month

Mediation Prices Reduced during Settlement Month

NASD Dispute Resolution celebrates its annual Mediation Settlement Month throughout each October and offers incentives and special programs designed to promote mediation and educate potential parties about the benefits of the program. During Settlement Month, parties mediating cases in any of NASD's 68 hearing locations can do so at significantly reduced rates.

"As one of the first securities mediation programs in the country, NASD has helped thousands of parties settle complex securities issues through a highly efficient process," said Linda Fienberg, President of NASD Dispute Resolution. "By reducing rates and hosting these educational events, we hope to encourage parties to try mediation for the first time and to reinforce its value and effectiveness to those who have benefited from it in the past."

As NASD neutrals are aware, mediation is a voluntary, non-binding dispute resolution process in which a trained, impartial individual helps parties negotiate and reach a settlement acceptable to all parties to the dispute. Once the parties reach an agreement through mediation, they sign a mutually agreeable settlement agreement. In contrast, when a dispute is submitted to arbitration, the decision of the arbitrator or arbitration panel is binding on all parties, regardless of whether they agree with the decision.

During Mediation Settlement Month, hundreds of mediators agree to reduce their normal fees, allowing NASD to present substantial savings to parties. NASD anticipates another highly successful Mediation Settlement Month, in which the number of cases where parties agree to mediate typically increases by 40 percent or more over other months. The event also offers mediators an opportunity to gain exposure and experience with different parties and practitioners, and to help introduce new parties to the process. In October, NASD reduces by one-half its normal mediation filing fees for all cases, and mediators who participate agree to mediate according to the following price structure:

  • Cases with an amount in controversy over $100,000 cost $500 per party for an eight-hour mediation;
  • Cases with an amount in controversy from $25,001 to $100,000 cost $200 per party for a four-hour mediation; and
  • Cases with an amount in controversy up to $25,000 cost $100 per party for a four-hour mediation.

Since NASD's Mediation program was established 11 years ago, NASD has processed nearly 14,000 cases involving a wide variety of securities disputes, with approximately 81 percent resulting in a settlement between the parties. Participant evaluations consistently report satisfaction with the process. In recent surveys of parties mediating with NASD, 80 percent of those who responded agreed that mediation resulted in both time and cost savings.

Interested neutrals can view an interactive map of available mediation locations, as well as more information about NASD Mediation and Mediation Settlement Month events, on NASD's website.

Mediation Settlement Day Held in New York on October 19, 2006

The sixth annual Mediation Settlement Day was held on October 19, 2006, with a kick-off event on October 3, 2006, at the New York City Bar Association. The American Bar Association's past president, Michael S. Greco, a trial lawyer and arbitrator and mediator, agreed to serve as the honorary chair and the keynote speaker for the kick-off event.

Mediation Settlement Day is organized by a coalition of mediation providers with the objective of raising the awareness of the many benefits of mediation and of the wealth of available resources. On Mediation Settlement Day, organizations conduct special programs designed to promote mediation, and to educate potential parties and attorneys about the mediation process. This year the event attracted nearly 100 sponsoring organizations, including the New York State Unified Court System, national alternative dispute resolution programs, bar associations, community-based programs, public service organizations and schools.

For more information about NASD's Mediation program, please visit the Dispute Resolution section of NASD's website.

NASD Dispute Resolution's New Business Model Has Been Deployed in All Regional Offices

Our transition to a new business model for all NASD Dispute Resolution regional offices is now complete. We successfully piloted the new model in our Northeast Region (New York) in 2004, and deployed it in the remainder of our regions in 2005 and 2006. By most measures, the new model is working very well.

New Model Reflects a Fresh Look at How We Handle Cases

The new business model is a significant departure from the former vertical or "silo" team system in which cases were assigned to a three-person team that consisted of a Case Administrator, Case Assistant and Secretary. Under the new business model, we organize staff in functional groups: Case Administrators, Information Specialists and a Processing Center. We moved to this new business process in order to:

  • increase our ability to address changes in caseload volume; 
  • better align tasks with the appropriate level of staff; and 
  • create pools of resources.

With the new process, we have achieved improved service levels through decreased processing times in a number of critical areas including:

  • time to serve a claim;
  • number of days to generate an arbitrator list;
  • time to notify the parties of the panel appointment; and
  • time to serve an award.

New Processes Provide Exciting Challenges

NASD recognizes that this new business model is a significant change for all participants in the forum—parties and their representatives, arbitrators and staff. As with any significant change, participants need time to settle into the new process. Our experience, first with the Northeast Region pilot and then with the subsequent deployments in other regions, has been consistent—after a short transition period, the new model works very well. We are confident that the improved service levels that the early adopters have already experienced in the new business process will continue in all of the regional offices.

Evaluating the New Process

NASD management continues to monitor, evaluate and improve the new model. We have several mechanisms in place to maintain a constant flow of feedback, including:

  • processes to monitor and analyze various metrics on an ongoing basis;
  • a Change Control Board (CCB) to consider variances to the business model and a line-staff Extended Team to develop improvements to the model;
  • meetings on an ongoing basis with outside consultants to measure results and plan enhancements to the model; and
  • focus groups with constituents to get first-hand feedback. We recently conducted a focus group in our Northeast Regional Office (New York). In 2007, we will conduct focus groups in our other regional offices.

Improving the New Model

We have taken steps to improve the new model, and know that the process will continue to evolve over time. For example, based on early constituent feedback, regional offices have reverted to having a live person answer the telephone rather than an automated call tree. More recently, we evaluated constituent feedback that users would prefer to have a named case contact at NASD. Accordingly, after conducting a short pilot with this change, we modified this practice in all of the regions, and correspondence sent to parties and arbitrators will be in the name of the assigned case administrators.

Continuing to Strive for Excellence

NASD is dedicated to providing both excellent and efficient service to our constituents. We value your input and encourage you to share any ideas, concerns and suggestions with your regional director.

Arbitrator Training Updates

Initial Prehearing Conference

Before participating in the Initial Prehearing Conference (IPHC), arbitrators should not only read all pleadings the parties submitted, but also review the IPHC Script (Script). The Script serves as a checklist of items that must be covered during the IPHC. Therefore, it is incumbent upon arbitrators to follow the Script closely and not stray from it during the IPHC.

Recently, the Script has been updated to provide further guidance to arbitrators about what information they must disclose during the IPHC. In addition to disclosing any new information that could potentially affect their objectivity, as well as confirming previous disclosures, arbitrators must confirm their current classifications as either public or non-public arbitrators.

See the revised Script.

Additional Arbitrator Training Opportunity

The Practising Law Institute's (PLI) Course Handbook, Securities Arbitration 2006: Taking Responsibility (#8671), is an excellent self-study vehicle for NASD arbitrators who seek to enhance their arbitrator skills. The Course Handbook looks at the evolution of securities arbitration over the last 20 years, identifies the responsibilities assigned to each of the parties in securities arbitration and examines attorneys' ethical responsibilities involved in deciding whether to take a case.

You may order your copy today by contacting PLI at the following Web site or telephone number. You will receive a 25 percent discount on the Course Handbook when you mention the code: YSF6-SASG6.

View the Web site or call: (800) 260-4PLI.

The Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators Revised

By Julie Crotty

Assistant Director of Mediation


NASD Dispute Resolution (NASD) asks its mediators to use the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators (Model Standards) as a guide when conducting NASD mediations. The American Bar Association Section on Dispute Resolution, the American Arbitration Association and the Association for Conflict Resolution formulated these Model Standards in 1994 as a general framework for the practice of mediation. In late 2005, the same organizations revised the 1994 Model Standards. This article will review the new provisions and highlight some of the reasons for the modifications.

The 1994 Model Standards guided mediator conduct, informed mediating parties and promoted public confidence in mediation as a process for resolving disputes. Because of the exponential growth of mediation over the next decade and developments in the practice of mediation, the original participating organizations decided to revise the Model Standards. NASD wants to make sure that all of its mediators are aware of the new 2005 Model Standards and are familiar with the changes.

The New Model Standards

According to its preamble, the revised Model Standards are "designed to serve as fundamental ethical guidelines for persons mediating in all practice contexts." The word "shall" in the Model Standards denotes a mandatory practice, whereas "should" is used for highly desirable practices that mediators should follow. As an operating principle, the authors intended for the phrase "unless the law otherwise provides" to be applied before every paragraph.

The revised Model Standards and a comparison document of the 1994 and 2005 versions are available in the Resources for Arbitrators and Mediators section of our Web site. NASD also sent copies of the revised Model Standards and the comparison document to the mediators on its roster.

The subject matter of each of the nine standards remains the same, but the authors changed some of the wording and interpretive language. Below are highlights of some of the key provisions in each standard.

Highlights of the Revised Model Standards

The nine standards maintained in the Model Standards are as follows:

  1. Self-determination
    Voluntary, un-coerced decision-making is the core principle of this first standard. Language that was added to this section reads: "A mediator shall not undermine party self-determination by any party for reasons such as higher settlement rates, egos, increased fees, or outside pressures from court personnel, program administrators, provider organizations, the media, or others."
  2. Impartiality
    Impartiality means freedom from favoritism, bias or prejudice. The revised section emphasizes that a mediator should not give or receive gifts from parties or their representatives that would create the perception of partiality. It does, however, allow some leeway for a mediator to accept a token gift out of respect for a cultural norm.
  3. Conflicts of Interest
    A mediator shall avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of one. At NASD, mediators reveal their potential conflicts through their disclosure reports. We treat disclosure the same with mediation cases as we do with arbitration cases: we strive to avoid any appearance of a conflict. We consider how a potential conflict could look to the public. Even if there is no actual conflict, we aim to avoid potentially negative perceptions of conflicts as well. Our recommendation to mediators is to always err on the side of more disclosure rather than risk not disclosing something that may later become an issue. Once potential conflicts are revealed, the parties in mediation can choose to proceed with a mediator. Disclosing all potential conflicts before the mediation begins helps build trust in the process.
  4. Competence
    A mediator shall mediate only when the mediator has the necessary competence to satisfy the reasonable expectations of the parties. To help parties determine if a mediator fits their needs, mediators must inform parties and their counsel of their complete background, subject matter knowledge and mediation style.
  5. Confidentiality
    A mediator shall maintain the confidentiality of all information obtained during the course of mediation, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, or required by applicable law. With caucuses, the Model Standards suggest that everything is confidential unless the parties specifically say the information may be shared.
  6. Quality of the Process
    This section covers a variety of issues not addressed in other sections, such as timeliness, safety, having the appropriate people attend and availability. For more information on any of these issues, please refer to this section in the Model Standards available on our Web site.
  7. Advertising and Solicitation
    A mediator shall be truthful and not misleading when advertising, soliciting, or otherwise communicating the mediator's qualifications, experience, services and fees.
  8. Fees and Other Charges
    A mediator shall provide each party or each party's representative true and complete information about mediation fees, expenses, and any other actual or potential charges that may be incurred in connection with a mediation. All fee arrangements must be disclosed to the parties. Hourly or daily rates are acceptable under the Model Standards; however, it is not appropriate for a mediator to receive a certain percentage of the settlement. This section focuses on the need for mediators to clearly explain their fees up front and preferably in writing.
  9. Advancement of Mediation Practice
    This revised section encourages fostering diversity in the field, making mediation accessible, participating in research when possible, participating in outreach and education efforts, mentoring and assisting newer mediators, and demonstrating respect for differing points of view within the field.

Next Steps for NASD Mediators

This overview provides highlights and serves as an initial guide to the Model Standards. To maintain the quality of its distinguished roster, NASD asks its mediators to review and familiarize themselves with the provisions in the entire 2005 Model Standards and to use them as a guide to their ethical mediation practice. NASD obtains party feedback and monitors the performance of its mediator roster and expects mediators to follow these guidelines.

View a complete copy of the 2005 Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators and a comparison document indicating the changes in detail.

SEC Approvals

Digital Recording of Arbitration Hearings

On August 23, 2006, NASD filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), SR-NASD-2006-102, a proposed rule change to amend Rule 10326 of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure (Code) to allow for the digital or other recording of arbitration hearings. The rule change expands the permissible methods of recording arbitration hearings to allow for the use of "digital or other" recording devices. This rule change became effective on the date it was filed with the SEC.

View the proposal and the Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness.

Classification of Arbitrators

On October 16, 2006, the SEC approved SR-NASD-2005-094 to amend Rule 10308 of the Code relating to arbitrator classification. The change was made to ensure that individuals with significant ties to the securities industry may not serve as public arbitrators. Specifically, the rule change amends the definition of public arbitrator to exclude individuals who work for, or are officers or directors of, an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a partnership, corporation or other organization that is engaged in the securities business. The change also applies to individuals who have a spouse or immediate family member who works for, or is an officer or director of, an entity that is in such a control relationship with a partnership, corporation or other organization that is engaged in the securities business. Lastly, the rule change revises the definition of non-public arbitrator to clarify that persons who are registered with a broker-dealer may not be classified as public arbitrators. This rule will become effective on January 15, 2007.

View the proposal and approval order.

SEC Rule Filings

Contested Subpoenas

On August 23, 2006, NASD filed with the SEC, SR-NASD-2006-101, a proposed rule change to amend Interpretive Material (IM) 10104 of the Code. The rule change proposes to clarify the appropriate payment, if any, for arbitrators who decide subpoena issues. Under the proposal, IM-10104 would provide for the payment of a $200 honorarium per case for each arbitrator who considers contested motions for the issuance of subpoenas. For purposes of the proposal, a contested motion is defined as a motion to issue a subpoena, the draft subpoena, a written objection form the party opposing the issuance of the subpoena and any other documents that support a party's position.

View the proposal.

Representation of Parties in Arbitration and Mediation

On September 14, 2006, NASD filed with the SEC, SR-NASD-2006-109, a proposed rule change to amend the proposed Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (Customer Code), the proposed Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (Industry Code) and the Code to address representation of parties in arbitration and mediation. The proposal replaces SR-2005-023, which addressed attorney representation in arbitration and mediation, but was withdrawn because the comments received on the proposal indicated that the rule language may have been ambiguous.

SR-NASD-2006-109 proposes to amend the Customer and Industry Codes, respectively, and to adopt a new Mediation Rule of the Code to clarify that:

(1) parties may represent themselves; (2) parties may be represented by an attorney, provided certain criteria are met; (3) parties may be represented in an arbitration or mediation by a person who is not an attorney, unless state law prohibits such representation or the person is currently suspended or barred from the securities industry in any capacity or is an attorney who is currently suspended or disbarred from the practice of law; and (4) issues regarding qualifications of a representative are governed by applicable law.

View the proposal.

Regional Updates

Mid-Atlantic Region

Effective October 6, 2006, NASD Dispute Resolution closed its Mid-Atlantic Regional Office (Office). In conjunction with the closing of the Office, we have realigned our remaining regional office assignments, and reassigned the Office's caseload to new regions. For more information about the closure of the Office, please review Notice to Members (NTM) 06-49, issued in September 2006.

View a map and a complete list of the new hearing location assignments.

Please update your records to ensure that your correspondence is sent to the proper regional office.

Northeast Regional Update

Participants must successfully complete the online portion of NASD's mandatory Basic Arbitrator Training Program before attending the onsite training. For more information about the online basic arbitrator training, please visit the Arbitrator Training page on our Web site.

During the next two months, the Northeast Regional Office will conduct the in-person component of NASD's Basic Arbitrator Training Program in these locations on the following dates:

  • Cincinnati, Ohio - November 15, 2006
  • New York, New York - December 20, 2006

If you are interested in attending an onsite classroom training program in any of these locations, please contact Cheree White at (212) 858-4063 or

Midwest Regional Update

Effective August 21, 2006, the Midwest Regional Office relocated to 55 West Monroe - Suite 2600, Chicago, Illinois, 60603. Correspondence for all arbitration and mediation cases handled by the Midwest Regional Office should be sent to this new address.

In an effort to recruit arbitrators, staff members of the Midwest Regional Office attended the Indiana State Bar Conference on October 4-6, 2006, in Indianapolis, Indiana.

On November 2-3, 2006, staff members of the Midwest Regional Office will also attend the Nebraska State Bar Conference in Omaha, Nebraska. If you know people who may be interested in joining our roster, please direct them to

Participants must successfully complete the online portion of NASD's mandatory Basic Arbitrator Training Program before attending the onsite training. For more information about the online basic arbitrator training, please visit the Arbitrator Training page of our Web site.

During the next two months, the Midwest Regional Office will conduct the following in-person component of NASD's Basic Arbitrator Training Program:

  • Chicago, Illinois - December 6, 2006

If you are interested in attending this onsite classroom training program, please contact Deborah Woods at (312) 889-4431 or by email.

Southeast Regional Update

The NASD South Region Compliance Seminar was held in Orlando, Florida on August 17 and 18, 2006. Rose M. Schindler, NASD Dispute Resolution's Vice President and Regional Director of the Southeast Regional Office, along with experienced arbitrators, Jack Kiefner, Esq. and Shepherd D. Tate, Esq., participated as panelists, providing an update on NASD's arbitration and mediation programs. Scott H. Maestri, Supervisor of Examiners for NASD Member Regulation in Dallas, served as moderator.

Participants must successfully complete the online portion of NASD's mandatory Basic Arbitrator Training Program before attending the onsite training. For more information about the online basic arbitrator training, please visit the Arbitrator Training page of our Web site.

During the next two months, the Southeast Regional Office will conduct the in-person component of NASD's Basic Arbitrator Training Program in these locations on the following dates:

  • Boca Raton, Florida - December 7, 2006
  • Baltimore, Maryland - December 7, 2006

If you are interested in attending an onsite classroom training program in any of these locations, please contact Lanette Cajigas at (561) 447-4911 or by email.

West Regional Update

Participants must successfully complete the online portion of NASD's mandatory Basic Arbitrator Training Program before attending the onsite training. For more information about the online basic arbitrator training, please visit the Arbitrator Training page of our Web site.

During the next two months, the West Regional Office will conduct the in-person component of NASD's Basic Arbitrator Training Program in these locations on the following dates:

  • Los Angeles, California - November 14, 2006
  • San Francisco, California - December 12, 2006

If you are interested in attending an onsite classroom training program in any of these locations, please contact Tiffany Hansmann at (213) 613-2684 or by email.


Linda D. Fienberg
NASD Dispute Resolution

George H. Friedman
Executive Vice President &
Director of Arbitration
NASD Dispute Resolution

Kenneth L. Andrichik
Senior Vice President &
Director of Mediation & Business

Jean I. Feeney
Vice President & Chief Counsel

Dorothy Popp
Vice President &
Director of Operations

Richard W. Berry
Vice President &
Director of Case Administration

Barbara L. Brady
Vice President &
Director of Neutral Management

Elizabeth R. Clancy
Vice President & Regional Director
Northeast Region

Judith Hale Norris
Vice President & Regional Director
West Region

Rose Schindler
Vice President &
Regional Director, Southeast Region

Shari Sturm
Associate Vice President &
Director of Constituent Relations

Scott Carfello
Regional Director
Midwest Region

James Schroder
Associate Vice President

Jisook Lee
Associate Director of Neutral
Management and Editor of
The Neutral Corner

Editorial Board

Lisa Angelson - Neutral Management
Nicole Haynes - Northeast Region 
Lisa Lasher - Southeast Region
Mignon McLemore - Office of Chief Counsel

Rina Spiewak - West Region
Patrick Walsh - Midwest Region

NASD Dispute Resolution Office

Northeast Region
One Liberty Plaza
165 Broadway
27th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tele: (212) 858-4200
Fax: (212) 858-4429

Southeast Region
Boca Center Tower 1

5200 Town Center Circle
Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33486
Tele: (561) 416-0277
Fax: (301) 527-4868

West Region
300 S. Grand Avenue
Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tele: (213) 613-2680
Fax: (213) 613-2677

Midwest Region
55 West Monroe

Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60603 
Tele: (312) 899-4440
Fax: (312) 236-9239